GTX460M Battlefield 3 worthy?

So I'm guessing that there are probably a ton of these will this graphics card be able to run battlefield 3 threads but I just had to ask. Should the GTX460M be able to run battlefield 3 on high, and would I have to overclock it?
I know that it could run Bad Company 2 on high and get around 50fps and from the research I've done it can manage ultra at 30fps. If it helps I have the GTX460m with 1.5gb of memory. Thanks for the help and sorry if this is a repeat thread.

 

Since i was in the beta i can confirm that the gtx460m paired with a sandybridge can handle this game without problems.
Don't expect to hit high fps with very high or ultra settings, I guess we can use a mixture of high/medium settings if target fps is around 40-45 fps.
Or probably we can run most of the settings at high while leaving gtx intensive fx like SSAO or AA.
The final game will have more options than the beta like it happened with BC2.
As an example the beta could run at high with framerate from 28 to 68, averaging 35-40 at 900p.
That means that we can still use some tweaks to get the game to run smoothly enough for our pleasure.

 

I wouldnt be comfortable at 35-40...

 

Good for you. Have you fed your ego's daily quota for the day?

 

Exactly what kind of framerates do you need to be "comfortable"?

 

hmm i hope you mean the alpha, as the beta does not exist yet. but i used my 485m in the "alpha" and could get 60-70 on high at 1600x900. at 1080p i got about 40-45, but there were to many lag spikes, probably due to poor driver support so i just downed the res and made it bordered. so hopefully the beta will be even better

 

We all have different eyes and see things differently. Some games (crysis comes to mind) play very smooth even at lower FPS for me (30ish). However a game like Borderlands drives me nuts when it's below 60. At 30 it just looks choppy to me, I would rather turn down the resolution a notch and keep the FPS up.

I have a mid range desktop (GTX570) and laptop(570m) so I'm not a power hungry nut either.

 

Someone in the Qosmio forums stated their Toshiba Qosmio with a i7-2630QM and a GTX 560m could game BF3 Alpha with very high settings at a very steady FPS.

I'm hoping this will also apply to the GTX 460m.

 

I don't see much point to playing BF3 if it not full of eye candy. The shooting mechanic is far from the best I seen in a shooting game, and if it anything like BC2 (IMO), then it not much fun at all.

 

OK. Then time to drop the settings and resolution.

No need for the whole "human eye can only see xx frames a second" debate, but a majority of people find 35-40 more than acceptable. So much so that every console game released is capped at 30.

 

If you don't like squad combat with vehicles, it's not the game for you, and I fail to see how eye candy would make one bit of difference, unless you play games just to pan around and ogle at all the pretty visuals.

 

I don't think it's an ego thing. I think 50 FPS is minimum for FPSes as well.

 

That's simply not true. Many console games have frame rates capped at 60, or targeted for 60.

Depends on the developer and the game.

 

LMAO! that made my day.

on another note, im not sure we will know for a 100% until they either release the game, or shine more light on this subject.

watch this and listen to what the DICE producer says about it.

 

My bad. 90% would be more accurate.

 

A desired framerate of greater than 35-40 FPS isn't ridiculous at all. Anything over 50 FPS I tend not to notice a difference, but 35-40 in many games is noticeably less smooth, partly because when GPUs are struggling there also is sometimes input lag which has a noticeable effect on gameplay.
Crysis for some reason seems fine with anything over 35 FPS, especially if motion blur is enabled.

Also, many newer console games aren't hitting 60 FPS most of the time, and do not feel very fluid at all (especially with split screen going on).

 

Thanks for that link! +1. Still no definitive word on system specs. Of course they really won't be able to disclose that until Beta is out and tuned a little bit I'm sure.

 

I am surprised to see that you classified a 570 as mid range...

When It is alreeady high end.

 

I've got a GTX 460 in my desktop and HD 6550m in my laptop. Desktop better be more than adequate, and am confident I can at least play with low on my laptop at 720p.

 

Im hoping that an external gtx 560 Ti hooked up via the PE4H method (detailed in the Egpu thread) running in x1 optimus mode will be able to play BF3 smoothly in MP, because my 5650m sure as hell won't be able to drive my 1080P monitor, and I would hate to only be able to play BF3 when I am at home (where my desktop is) instead of school...

 

A desktop with that GPU is not mid range by any stretch.

Back on topic: the 460m should be good, but do not expect to run all on highest. At miminum it guarantees to get a better visual experience than the consoles.

 

I heard if you can play BC2 smoothly you shouldn't have any problems running BF3... Soo everyone w/ the GTX460m should be fine, i guess

 

But BF3 comes with a new engine, its safer to assume it will run at lower settings than BC2. Also, some users here have been in the alpha and confirm a 460m should be ok.

 

wow the beta has not been released yet it was the alpha get it straight. everytime i hear that i go and check my email to see if the beta is available yet.

 

Interestingly a gtx570 IS technically midrange if you look at the models that are offered above it; you have the gtx 580 and gtx 590 which are both significantly more expensive. On top of that, many "high end" desktops are running these in SLI, so overall his system is midrange, albeit upper midrange. However, video cards now are so absurdly powerful that even a midrange card like the GTX 560Ti can play most any game on almost maximum settings at 1080P.

 

Normally the range is decided (as far as I've read) by the product line, not by the amount of combinations (SLI, quad-SLI, etc). Also technically the top is 580 GTX, the 590 GTX is a dual GPU itself

 

Bolded, italized, and underlined to appease the fury the mob

 

Even a 560Ti is High end of the mid range cards.. Mid range would be a 67xx /66xx series and 460/450/550 range

 

While a GTX 570 itself is towards the top of the product range, the way the post phrased it was "I have a midrange desktop," and given that a high end desktop (or at least what the over the top idiots at maximumPC call a high end desktop...) could have potentially 1,400 of video cards (like 3 gtx 580s or 2 gtx 590s), it is most certainly not high end. The poster's point was that he doesn't go to the ends of the earth to get 130 fps on all high settings as some crazy people out there do, and the gtx 570 is actually a pretty good value (unlike the 580 and 590).
However, one gtx 570 can tackle any game out there and is as much as most people not running ludicrous 3d multi monitor setups need. In my opinion what is truly "high end" now is pretty ridiculous.

Either way, we won't know about the system requirements for sure until we get closer to launch. I would guess that a 460m would be able to play it decently. I would think DICE would want to game to scale as much as possible to get as big of a user base as possible. However, this doesn't always happen in practice.