News Battlefield 3 recommended specs only good for medium settings

My i750 Hd5850 handled crysis 2 pretty well with the dx 11 and hi res textures, but i,m not starting a new build until I see Ivy Bridge series 7 amd amd 680 nvidia, I'm gonna stick with my two year old sytem to the beging of next year, and hope it runs ok on medium settings

 

If you're getting happy at teh fact this needs £600 worth of graphics to play well, then you really need to take a look at yourself.
You wouldn't pay hundreds for the game, so why pay hundreds for a card to play the game slightly prettier?

 

It's not all about the gpu either.....BFBC2 which used the frostbite1 engine was cpu heavy.
From what I saw on the Alpha BF3 release the Frostbite2 engine is also cpu heavy.
All four cores of my Q6600 oced to 3.5GHz were maxed out by the game which at that stage was only able to utilize one gpu of my sli set up....there will be more cpu load to feed two gpu's.

I know I need a cpu upgrade but a Q6600 at 3.5Ghz is not an insignificant cpu in gaming terms.

 

Not only the consoles, it's about time Microsoft and all the hardware people got together and sorted things out on the pc so that developers can get "closer to the metal" like they can on the consoles.
Like John Carmack said.....its absurd how such powerful pc's do not give the increase in performance that would be expected......but then again perhaps its not in the hardware developers interests to improve things, they would rather keep us on the upgrade cycle.

 

How the hell am I supposed to run this @ 6000x1200 ?

 

I can think of worse dilemmas to have.

 

I'll still try it on ultra settings @ 1080p to see if it's at all chuggy .

 

Lets see if my 5870 can handle it on mid settings, perhaps I wait to upgrade until the 580´s are a bit cheaper.

 

Rec specs are for "High" not medium:

http://www.gamepur.com/news/5426-battlefield-3-recommended-specs-medium-settings-not-ultra.html

 

You do not need a $600 card to get there.
The settings posted are enough to get you into high/ultra at 1080.


BT needs to pull this article, it's wrong.

 

Unless it's true :S

 

Phew My setup's only a bit worse than the recommended specs (mainly on the graphics card), so I'm hoping I might be able to get away with running on high. Guess we'll find out soon enough though

 

2 x 570's in SLI, i7 @4ghz i'll give ultra a go!

 

The idea that some people have that Recommended should mean "all detailed maxed" is a bit ridiculous.

Historically, Minimum settings are the bare minimum you need for the game to be playable at any settings.

Recommended is the computer you need to have a good experience. The game will look good and play well, and you may not even know what you're missing.

Ultra settings are usually more for flexing graphical muscle and benchmarks than anything else. Doom 3 was the worst in this regard. The only difference between high and ultra was the latter used uncompressed textures. Even in screenshot comparisons there was no perceptible difference, besides doubling the amount of graphics RAM needed.

 

^ this

 

Same here.

Hopefully my 750 and 460 will be capable of 'high' settings.

Then I can get into all the ultra pretty stuff with my Ivy Bride / 670 rig I will build in March/April.

 

This kind of games that push hardware to its max, is nice because put us apart from the console guys. But damn, having to buy 2*580GTX is too much just to play a game. I guess this game is just for the next crop of GPU's. but anyway i will play it with my HD 6950.

 

I can assure you, it isn't.

 

Hahahahaha.

How to make your game the most eagerly anticipated PC release of the year? Tell people they can't run it.

I call BS on 580 SLI, unless he's talking about 2,560 x 1,600 4x AA 16x AF.

 

Surely the article should be updated to correct the statement and edit it to say that the recommended specs are indeed for high, rather than medium. Misleading otherwise.