Windows I bet you've all heard this one enough

[Karas]

Well, to make this short I want to know when I upgrade what effect will it have with BF3? I played the beta and got around 20-30 fps on ultra (I realize the graphics where toned down) and it really wasn't all that playable sometimes.

Specs:
EVGA Gtx 460 1GB (Oc'd 840/1680/2000)
AMD Athlon x4 640 (3.0ghz quad core)
4gb ddr3 ram

I don't see it necessary to post other specs but those where the specs I got around 20-30fps with. Now for christmas i'm upgrading to a i5 2500k and oc'ing to 4.0ghz and that's why I want to know the difference it will have on BF3 specifically.

[Sketchee]

Don't write the 460 off just yet. Mine, at 1920x1200, all presets high, 0x MSAA, full FXAA, 8x AF and SSAO off the game looks fantastic and it pushes 45-60 fps constantly according to 'render.drawfps 1' in the console. This is with a modest everyday clock of 820/1640/2000, I feel no need to go higher.

I'm stunned tbh and can only put it down to excellent optimisation on DICE's behalf. Whether those framerates are correct I don't know, but the game is smooth as.

If you're building yourself and you fancy an upgrade then go sandybridge and hold back on the GPU, try it out and see for yourself. Might be able to hold off til next year and see what nvidia and AMD bring out as the next gen.

[mucgoo]

Well the simplest test is play battlefield for a bit with task manager open in the background set so each core get its own chart and set a low update speed.

I'd doubt your CPU limited. If you are though that should show all four cores on 80%+ load constantly while playing.

[Karas]

Thanks guys! and yeah i'm holding off on upgrading my GPU till next year because I think highly of my 460 because it usually does me wonders. but when I get it all i'll report back with the results and next year I think i'm upgrading to a 570 any opinions on that?

[DeckerdBR]

I have an i5 OC'd to 4.7 but I fund it made sod all difference to either BF3 load times or in-game performance. In fact the biggest effect was to increase my CPU temps to the mid 60s.

Putting an additional 4 gig of RAM made a noticeable difference but I still can't run it was well as friends who have better GFX cards (I have a 1gig GTX 460oc as you do). Even though the rest of my PC is similar or better (where the CPU is concerned) compared to my friends machines.

I am sure I read somewhere that this game works well on even modest general hardware but for the ultra settings to run in the late 50/60FPS that it's heavily GPU dependant. My personal experience would certainly support that. There is a decent nvidia tweaking guide for BF3 which I have yet to try and follow but with my machine (spec below) I get a fluctuating 32 to 46 FPS. The fluctuation is actually a little irritating; I would prefer it to be a more stable even if it lowered the average a bit.

Edit: er for some reason my signature was missing:
Domestic Addiction Device:
| CPU: Core i5 2500k OC'd to 4.7GHz | MB: Gigabye GA-P67A-UD4-B3 |
| GPU: Gigabyte GTX460 OC 1 Gig | PSU: Corsair TX650 | Case: Fractal Design R3 |
| RAM: 8GB CMX4GX3M2B1600C9 | CPU Cooler: AKASA Venom | OS: Win 7 64 |

[Sketchee]

Originally Posted by DeckerdBR

I have an i5 OC'd to 4.7 but I fund it made sod all difference to either BF3 load times or in-game performance. In fact the biggest effect was to increase my CPU temps to the mid 60s.

Putting an additional 4 gig of RAM made a noticeable difference but I still can't run it was well as friends who have better GFX cards (I have a 1gig GTX 460oc as you do). Even though the rest of my PC is similar or better (where the CPU is concerned) compared to my friends machines.

I am sure I read somewhere that this game works well on even modest general hardware but for the ultra settings to run in the late 50/60FPS that it's heavily GPU dependant. My personal experience would certainly support that. There is a decent nvidia tweaking guide for BF3 which I have yet to try and follow but with my machine (spec below) I get a fluctuating 32 to 46 FPS. The fluctuation is actually a little irritating; I would prefer it to be a more stable even if it lowered the average a bit.

Edit: er for some reason my signature was missing:
Domestic Addiction Device:
| CPU: Core i5 2500k OC'd to 4.7GHz | MB: Gigabye GA-P67A-UD4-B3 |
| GPU: Gigabyte GTX460 OC 1 Gig | PSU: Corsair TX650 | Case: Fractal Design R3 |
| RAM: 8GB CMX4GX3M2B1600C9 | CPU Cooler: AKASA Venom | OS: Win 7 64 |

What resolution and what settings you run at?

[digitalerr0r]

Originally Posted by Karas

Well, to make this short I want to know when I upgrade what effect will it have with BF3? I played the beta and got around 20-30 fps on ultra (I realize the graphics where toned down) and it really wasn't all that playable sometimes.

Specs:
EVGA Gtx 460 1GB (Oc'd 840/1680/2000)
AMD Athlon x4 640 (3.0ghz quad core)
4gb ddr3 ram

I don't see it necessary to post other specs but those where the specs I got around 20-30fps with. Now for christmas i'm upgrading to a i5 2500k and oc'ing to 4.0ghz and that's why I want to know the difference it will have on BF3 specifically.

what exactly do you mean toned down....? have you played on medium settings ? there isn't much difference from medium to ultra........ low is where you will notice a huge difference.

[Karas]

Originally Posted by digitalerr0r

what exactly do you mean toned down....? have you played on medium settings ? there isn't much difference from medium to ultra........ low is where you will notice a huge difference.

As in ultra on the beta wasn't really ultra. They nerfed the graphics and destruction for the sake of saving space I assume. Either way if all else fails I've played it on high and it's playable for sure and I think me adding a i5 2500k at 4.0ghz and 8gigs of DDR3 1600 RAM should add just enough fps to the point where ultra's playable.