News Battlefield 3 recommended specs only good for medium settings

Good news!

 

Aw balls. My Q8200 and 6870 are so screwed

 

Will a 4.0ghz i7 950 and gtx 480 be enough?

 

I seriously hope so

 

This just pissed me off.
I bought a second GTX 460 and run them two 460's in sli so I could run this game maxed out with no problems but according to this I won't be able to get away with Ultra.
I have a feeling this is a scam to make people go out and buy two GTX 580's if I had the money I might once I take a look at the finial benchmarks but I don't turst this I think nvidia is just being greedy.
Only the finial benchmarks would speak in the mean time take this article with a grain of salt. I don't want people wasting over 1K in graphics cards only to find out this was a load of crap. =/

I hope you fellow gamers take my advice =)

 

Here are my thoughts:

1) Given that hardware is constantly getting cheaper, it's very stupid to buy stuff for a game that isn't even out yet. If you insist on upgrading for it, at least wait for it to get released... then see what people say and what hardware analyses say about it, and then upgrade.

2) The specs are stupid and completely invalid because they don't mention the absolutely crucial and key point - the resolution. The entire article is pointless without that, and I wish people would stop taking it so seriously. For all you know, he could be talking about a resolution of 99999x99999, or he could be talking about 1024x768. Not knowing that key fact just makes the whole thing stupid.

3) It wont need those specs unless you play at high resolutions. But even if it did, so what? Why do you have to run it absolutely cranked? Is it such a big deal to lower a few settings? If so then buy two 580's. Gaming (and life in general) has always been expensive for those unwilling to compromise.

4) If the game could be cranked on lower hardware, I would be disappointed. Would you prefer it that the game just didn't look as good? Because you can't have it both ways. Personally I am fed up of gaming technology being held back by the consoles, where most games today barely look any better than they did 5 years ago. Surely it's better to have games that look amazing and you can just tweak the settings for your own PC. and some day when you upgrade, it will be able to look even better.

5) The medium settings are still unchanged.... So if you have hardware as good as that or better (which it seems most of you do), then you have nothing to worry about. The game will still look good on the settings between medium and cranked. The only thing you are likely to miss out on is fully cranked AA and AF etc, which is hardly much of a compromise.

How do you have a computer like that, and yet not know what it can do, and not know how to compare the components to the provided list?

 

I suspect that some of the 'Will this spec: [insert great hardware here]...' type questions are more a case of 'Look at my awesome hardware: [insert great hardware here]'

(This post is a thinly veiled 'Is jealous of other people's awesome hardware' type post )

 

I agree but I didn't buy my second 460 just for BF 3 my intention was to be able to max out Crysis and it did do that very well. I thought I would be able to play BF 3 maxed out as well with my set up.

Anyway I would try to max out the game and if it doesn't run very well I would have to lower the settings a bit.

 

man, i just got myself a 2nd hand Q6600 with an Abit Ip35 pro and a HD5870 OC edt, and am hoping to get near to recommended. I am only running on 1680x1050 res though so still hopefull.

 

Certainly wont be making any rash decisions until i have played the final game! I have access to beta so that should give everyone a idea of where I am. My overclocked 480 should at least let me play it at high if not ultra a 1080p...so thats going to do me fine. Good to see a new benchmark other than crysis..

 

Thats such a backwards and selfish perspective to hold. If sensibly priced hardware was all that a developer limited themselves to, then you'd have BF3's 'Ultra' setting which is on par to what 'Medium' will actually be.

Most people buy computer hardware in the hope of it streching 2-3 years, some longer. Why shouldnt developers be encouraged to keep their games visually relevent for years after its release? Its not like we've hit a wall on processing power, in a years time todays £600 worth of processing power will cost £300, so its not like them offering a *currently* unachievable Crysis-like spec will never be obtainable for sensible money, it may take 1-2yr for *some* to afford hardware capable of doing this, but by just stopping at Medium or High then your simply stopping at an inferior quality than they can offer.

I've recently spent about £700 on hardware, i suspect i'll be floating somewhere between High & Ultra with my res, and that doesnt bother me at all. Why should it? Theres enough console port games shipping Medium and calling it High. I for one would rather developers code games that would be relevent in gameplay and visuals, for a number of years rather than limiting it at settings marginally better than a consoles specs. Its nothing to do with cost, its to do with lifespan.

 

Maybe I'll just wait for the GTX 600 Series for me to be able to play this in a single gpu solution...

 

I like this.
a new game SHOULD stretch the limits of what is possible in the "Ultra" setting, that's what it's for. Makes you feel good when you return a year later and really max it out.
Normal gameplay should be considered "high", and as soon as you turn AA off, any-'ole card will pull it

 

This is all marketing hype and myth. No AAA game that wants to dethrone Call of Duty will ship with such high specs. A 580 is a top end card and will, on its own, be able to max BF3 at 1920* resolutions.

 

I'm hoping my 5850 will still be good for BF3 medium settings.

Currently play bc2 on high 4xAA 1920x1200

 

Only, SLi doesn't suck - does it? I just see pages of people whining and worrying about whether they'll be able to play it. It's no surprise really if you look at the screen shots and footage why this game will push hardware.

 

+1
Spot on.

 

Can we have some game tests on Nvidia Quadro cards. out of pure curiosity. I'm typically sat next to a workstation with a £2-4k quadro graphics card in it and i'd love to know if it can play games at all well. this seems like a great oppourtunity.
I would test it myself, but the workstations are all locked down.

 

If the workstations are locked down how would you ever play it, thus why the curiousity?

Also, nVidia just released new beta drivers apparently 'created for Battlefield3' that can increase by performance up to '38%'.

So, GTX460 play on ultra now?

Performance increase ad taken with a grain of salt naturally...

 

DICE/EA/nVidia have some mad PR skillz. You are all now assuming this game will be the next step in graphical fidelity, so DICE/EA have just won. You are all now only talking in terms of nVidia's cards, specifically the GTX580, so nVidia have won.

None of this is based on benchmarked fact. The original statement has been partially contradicted by a senior developer at DICE. As Lord-Vale3 has just reminded us all, new drivers can and do improve performance.

Everybody needs to take a step back - machines that can happily max BC2 are going to be able to max BF3.