I'm trying to decide if I should get this for PC or console. I definitely prefer PC for this one, but my PC is not exactly high end anymore.  I can run all existing games pretty well and BF BC2 runs on medium/high-ish settings, so I know I COULD run Battlefield 3, but... Anyway, here are my specs. 
 
Processor:  Intel Core 2 Quad, Q8300 @ 2.5 GHz 
RAM: 8 GB 
OS: 64-bit, Windows 7 
Video card: ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MB GDDR3  
Display: old 17" monitor, yipee!  1280x1024
 
I definitely meet the minimum sys req in all areas, and all the recommended specs except for they recommend a 1 GB video card memory. However, I noticed that my video card is actually ranked higher than many 1 GB cards on this list (not sure how accurate these things are).  So anyway, spending $150-$250 on a new video card would be ideal, but not an option for me right now unless I want to get NO games this fall/winter.  Any idea if my PC will run this game okay? Any idea if there will be a demo beforehand so I can try it out for myself?

Your best bet would be to wait until the open beta in September. Try it out and see how your PC holds up.

Your best bet would be to wait until the open beta in September. Try it out and see how your PC holds up.

Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.

Your best bet would be to wait until the open beta in September. Try it out and see how your PC holds up.

 "Battlefield 3 is expected to have similar system requirements as the previous Battlefield game, Bad Company 2. Battlefiled 3 is powered by the Frostbite 2.0 engine, which is based on the previous Frostbite 1.5, which powered Bad Company 2. While the Frostbite 2.0 engine has a lot of new features compared to 1.5, it is also more optimized as well, which will most likely result in similar performance and Battlefield 3 system requirements for the PC. Since Battlefield 3 won’t be supporting DirecX 9, it won’t run on Windows XP."

Those specs look decent so it'll definitely be playable.

I think you should go PC since you'll get the higher player count.

I think it will work as your PC is still stronger than the PS360.
But if you can use crossfire I would almost recommend to get another 4850.

I have very very slightly worse specs than you and the alpha ran flawless at 1280x1024 , medium settings.

I have very very slightly worse specs than you and the alpha ran flawless at 1280x1024 , medium settings.

I think you will be fine for medium settings. Stick with PC.

@thehexeditor said:

I have very very slightly worse specs than you and the alpha ran flawless at 1280x1024 , medium settings.

Nice! Thank you for that info.

2 HD 4850s crossfire would be cheaper though and also very powerful.

@Seppli: You keep in mind some things as well: The alpha was very rough and unpolished; final will perform better. Also I noticed that the LOD tech on the engine is quite substantial; things that are far away/ not in view are very much reduced in visual quality.

LOL. Dude you should be fine. Maybe a new video card at worst. Sick of people with better rigs than me asking if they can run shit. You just trying to rub it in?

And yeah, wait for the beta before deciding.

Buy another 4850 for like $50 or however much they go for and you'll probably be fine on high and maybe even very high at that resolution.

Yeah, at that resolution spending money on a big powerful graphics card would be a waste. I would imagine a GTX 460 would be able to max it.

Buy another 4850 for like $50 or however much they go for and you'll probably be fine on high and maybe even very high at that resolution.

@yorro said:

Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.

haha yeah no.. Just 42 players of difference, dedicated servers and .. that game looked better in the alpha at Low that what they've show on console.

@Nate: I think it will run just fine in medium with a decent FPS, most likely you only problem it's going to be some loading times.

The GamesCom booth used 580GTXs in SLI and likely some type of Sandy Bridge 4+ Core CPU.

4850 should be able to run BF3 on medium settings at your monitor's resolution. Although if you want to play the game at HD resolutions, you would probably want to upgrade.
 
I'd say get the game for PC.

Confused here. The 4850 doesn't do DirectX 11 does it? So what does it matter how many of them you have, you're still not going to get the "sexy tessellation" and other stuff that BF3 seems to be relying rather heavily on. Unless the 4850 does DX11, but I know my 4870 doesn't, and that's why I'm looking to upgrade.

Any recommendations on a reasonable DX11 supporting card that'll be worth ditching my 4870 for?

@yorro: mid range on PCs should look better than on any current gen console

also BF3 on consoles will be slightly below 720p

Don't listen to these fools. This game was meant to be played on consoles.

Get it for PC. You have a quad-core and your video card should be able to get smooth framerates at that resolution. It won't be the same without 64 players and fullsize maps.

@Enigma777 said:

Don't listen to these fools. This game was meant to be played on consoles.

Go play in traffic troll.

Console should never be an alternative solution to "my pc may not run a game the way I want" it's a matter of preference. I love console games, but there are some games I want to play on a console and some games I want to play on a pc. I think any kind of shooter or shooter hybrid should be played on pc. I dislike shooters on consoles, they're slower, auto aim assist enabled by default, no choice to turn that off. I FUCKING HATE THAT SHIT. (see swearing for emphasis)

Anyway, like someone else said, try the beta and see how it runs, the Alpha isn't really a good benchmark to use mainly because it's alpha and may not be optimized to run on anything too different than what it was developed on, supposedly the alienware boxes they were doing live demo's with were like 4000 dollar machines with everything cranked to the max.

I don't have a hardcore gaming rig and I am confident it will run bf3 just fine at a 1600x1200 resolution with things cranked up pretty high. It's going to get hairy in high particle area's rendering light and stuff like that but otherwise like you said it's not going to be much different from a technology standpoint with frostbyte 2 from frostbyte 1. It's more engine enhancements in the newer version.

@137 said:

Console should never be an alternative solution to "my pc may not run a game the way I want"

What? That sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason to play a game on consoles.

Also there's plenty of console FPS games where you can disable aim-assist.

Bros i hope you guys realise this game will violate your pc. This is so freaking awesome.

@Enigma777 said:

@137 said:

Console should never be an alternative solution to "my pc may not run a game the way I want"

What? That sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason to play a game on consoles.

Also there's plenty of console FPS games where you can disable aim-assist.

I may have worded that wrong, but like I said certain games belong on pc. Modern Warfare doesn't care about the pc crowd now that Activision has learned how to release a console fps that isn't a turd, but you still cannot turn off aim assist in MULTIPLAYER in their games, only single player. I don't wan't to beget some pussy hurt argument about consoles vs pc. But in the BATTLEFIELD 3 forum where you posted. PC IS KING.

If you want to buy it for consoles buy it for consoles, you may get to play with more of your friends that way, but if you want to take your battlefield 3 experience to the next level, you know deep down inside of your gamer heart what you need to do.

@137 said:

but if you want to take your battlefield 3 experience to the next level, you know deep down inside of your gamer heart what you need to do.

Yeah, I should buy it on PS3 so that I get the early DLC. Thanks, you've really helped me make my mind up!

@Enigma777 said:

@137 said:

but if you want to take your battlefield 3 experience to the next level, you know deep down inside of your gamer heart what you need to do.

Yeah, I should buy it on PS3 so that I get the early DLC. Thanks, you've really helped me make my mind up!

console DLC means you get it one week before the XBOX Guys. PC guys already got it locked in, there is no gay exclusivity wars between PC/XBOX/PS3 again that's console stuff. Either way I'm glad that's 1 more person playing and supporting Dice and the Battlefield Franchise no matter what you play on buddy!

Don't buy it on console. The experience, even at mid settings, will probably be much better on PC (64 player maps!). That's what it's being designed for first and foremost, anyway. Also, when you get a better graphics card in the future, it'll look that much better.

Obviously, no one really knows yet. But BF:BC2 should be a decent indicator. One of the devs recommended a 560 Ti as a good value/performance card. 560 Ti is also a DX11 card.

As for PC or console. It depends on whether you want BF3 or BC3. Forget about the visuals and frame rates; 24 players, and small maps to compensate, is not a sequel to BF2.

Curse the fact that I only have a laptop from last year with a Nvidia 330m GPU. Direct X 10.1 only for me :[

With that resolution, you will be fine.

@yorro said:

Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.

So you are saying the consoles are Medium settings?

SO WRONG. They tuned down the number of players in MP and the size of the maps so the graphics still look great..

Don't worry, BF3 is nowhere near as much of a system hog as people think. Admittedly the recommended specs seem high but the alpha ran pretty well on a wide range of older hardware.

At 1280x1024 I wouldn't be too surprised if you get away with high settings.You won't have to sacrifice too much put it that way. No matter what, it's going to look considerably better than console.

@Edin899 said:

@yorro said:

Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.

So you are saying the consoles are Medium settings?

SO WRONG. They tuned down the number of players in MP and the size of the maps so the graphics still look great..

Dude, console version isn't going to look anywhere near as good as the PC version, even on medium settings. Get over it.

64 player matches will blow your mind.

Overclock your CPU and get a 4870 and crossfire them, then you will hit medium/high with ease.

One of the devs said Recommended specs = High settings.

I find it a bit hard to believe. Unless, unlike a lot of PC games, the difference between Ultra and High is big.

@Zatoichi_Sanjuro said:

One of the devs said Recommended specs = High settings.

I find it a bit hard to believe. Unless, unlike a lot of PC games, the difference between Ultra and High is big.

Revolutionary rendering method & stepping away from DX9 = get way more performance out of your hardware (read : appropriate performance)

BF3 is not held-back by having to conform to a 6+ years old DirectX version and can take full advantage of all the trickery modern DX11 GPUs are capable of.

Obviously the truth lies in the putting. Early access Beta starts this Tuesday. No need to speculate really. And yeah - Open Beta opens up on Thursday/Friday, everybody is invited.

@Gizmo said:

64 player matches will blow your mind.

Overclock your CPU and get a 4870 and crossfire them, then you will hit medium/high with ease.

And I bet people will mod it to support 128 players like BF2 did. Honestly the much higher player count/mods is the real reason to play the PC version versus the console versions.

@Gizmo said:

64 player matches will blow your mind.

Overclock your CPU and get a 4870 and crossfire them, then you will hit medium/high with ease.

And I bet people will mod it to support 128 players like BF2 did. 

@AhmadMetallic said:

@spazmaster666 said:

@Gizmo said:

64 player matches will blow your mind.

Overclock your CPU and get a 4870 and crossfire them, then you will hit medium/high with ease.

And I bet people will mod it to support 128 players like BF2 did.

I don't really see that happening.. DICE sold 9 million copies of their restricted linear player-assisting pew pew title last year, they have hit the jackpot and will now begin pumping out titles all following in the footsteps of that game. The conquest map they've shown and shown off as "big" and "BF2-like" has five flags placed in the center, no 128 men are going to possibly have a good game fighting over such a small death circle. Battlefield 3 is designed for small player counts and then enhanced to seemingly fit "sixty four players", we're way past the glorious days of DICE's true expansive PC game design. Not to mention that they probably won't release mod tools, mod tools don't make $$. And if they release them, they probably will be limited in capabilities. I can't wait to see how that 32-player-conquest-with-dead-empty-space-on-the-sides-to-fit-32-more-people is gonna fail with 64 players. It's gonna be such a sight to behold..

More ain't necessarily more fun - true. That goes for playercount, as well as capture points.

Map-design-wise, BF:BC 1 is my favorite Battlefield to date. Scale-wise, it's somewhere between BF2 and BF:BC 2, pretty much where I see BF3 heading. I've got zero concern, as long as DICE increases scale over what we've gotten in BF:BC 2. And they do. Still don't see how a hotzone of roughly one squaremile ain't big enough. And there's double that space surrounding the hotzone allowing for far angle vehicular/recon tactics and flanking. Not one singular chokepoint in sight on Caspian Border.

I hope most maps in BF3 will be 'just so', instead of too tight and narrow and restrictive, which most BF:BC 2 maps were according to me and most longtime fans. However I don't want the opposite either. You are just way too early to judge BF3 and DICE's design as harshly as you do. Do you always come prematurely?

More ain't necessarily more fun - true.

 That goes for playercount, as well as capture points.

Still don't see how a hotzone of roughly one squaremile ain't big enough. And there's double that space surrounding the hotzone allowing for far angle vehicular/recon tactics and flanking. 

@Edin899 said:

@yorro said:

Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.

So you are saying the consoles are Medium settings?

SO WRONG. They tuned down the number of players in MP and the size of the maps so the graphics still look great..

Obviously you are not a PC Gamer, not because of your name-color but your poor knowledge about these topics.

Graphical quality is not subjective and graphics settings does not revolve around texture quality and anti-aliasing. Sure the console version may have high texture quality and lighting but have poor settings on post-processing, particles, volumetric effects, anisotropic filtering, and so on. Thats why its on medium settings.

I apologize for hijacking this thread.

Quick question to everyone here: My PC meets all of the recommended requirements except for the video ram (recommended 1gb). Can You Run It? (From what other people have said I shouldn't really trust it) tells me that I only have 751.1 mb of ram on my card while everywhere else I've checked (various retailer sites and the card company's webpage) lists it as having 1gb of ram. Is this like hard drive space on a new computer ( a PC will have 500gb hard drive but will have a little less due to the OS installed and whatnot?), or am I being fed false information by either Can You Run It?/Retail sites?

Oh, my card is an AMD Radeon HD6850.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Seppli said:

More ain't necessarily more fun - true.

I didn't say that. I said "more isn't fun anymore because DICE no longer create genuine conquest which actually worked with 64 and even 128 players in the past." Their new design mentality is all about fewer players, fewer, closer control points, and continuous action.
More is DEFINITELY more fun when the maps weren't primarily designed for 24 players, you have no idea.

That goes for playercount, as well as capture points.

Playercount, read above. capture points, I disagree. But after months of conversing with you on these forums, I'm certain that you will never understand what makes 8 flags on a 64 player map just perfect. You just don't pursue that "bigger picture" experience in Battlefield, so I won't try explaining this yet again. Let's agree to disagree.

Still don't see how a hotzone of roughly one squaremile ain't big enough. And there's double that space surrounding the hotzone allowing for far angle vehicular/recon tactics and flanking.

The entire map is like 1.5 kilometers long from one end to the other.. what "one squaremile hotzone"? That 5 flag area must be like 1/2 a square kilometers

We will, as always, have to agree to disagree. While I liked early all the early Battlefield games, I preferred the bigger and simulaniously more focused Joint Operations series, with a playercount of up to 150 and push map conquest (only adjacent maps are conquerable). Battlefield was at its best at 24 players on consoles in BF:BC 1 - to me DICE needs to prove that they can take the fun and pacing and balance and sense of purpose and bring it to 64 player Conquest. As far as I'm concerned, 24 has proven to be the sweetspot between a largescale feeling Battlefield experience and personal empowerment and influence.

Just stop with your delusional rantings about map design specifics without ever having played Caspian Borders. It's about the scale of Gulf of Oman and that's perfectly fine.

btw. You know that there is a very large audience who dislikes vehicular gameplay? Each and every map will work for the infantry only mode and hence you'll never have to run more than 500 meters or so from one capture point to the next. Rightfully so. No matter what mode, I hate to be stuck on foot with unreasonable distances to my next objective. That's just outdated gamedesign and clearly not in the true Battlefield arcade spirit.

@Seppli said:

Just stop with your delusional rantings

Take your own advice you crazy man.

Battlefield was at its best at 24 players on consoles in BF:BC 1 - to me DICE needs to prove that they can take the fun and pacing and balance and sense of purpose and bring it to 64 player Conquest. As far as I'm concerned, 24 has proven to be the sweetspot between a largescale feeling Battlefield experience and personal empowerment and influence.

Just stop with your delusional rantings about map design specifics without ever having played Caspian Borders. It's about the scale of Gulf of Oman and that's perfectly fine.

btw. You know that there is a very large audience who dislikes vehicular gameplay? Each and every map will work for the infantry only mode and hence you'll never have to run more than 500 meters or so from one capture point to the next. Rightfully so. No matter what mode, I hate to be stuck on foot with unreasonable distances to my next objective. That's just outdated gamedesign and clearly not in the true Battlefield arcade spirit.

@Seppli said:

Just stop with your delusional rantings

Take your own advice you crazy man.

@AhmadMetallic:

How is a 5 capture points non-mirrored map with up to 1000m distance between them and lots of open terrain something to throw a fit over? You have not played a second of Caspian Border. How are you remotely qualifyied to critisize it the way you do? Let me give you a hint. You are not. You know nothing except superficial stats.

As for your unreasonable hate of BF:BC 2 and DICE's general design direction. Obviously you lack the ability to take the good with the bad. So constant action is suddenly a bad thing and downtime and long commutes are good? Highly specialized and mostly useless kits and personal insignificance are the epitome of teamplay-centric gamedesign? You got to be kidding me.

As far as I can tell you weren't even willing to master BF:BC 2, that's being about as far from a true Battlefield fan as it gets. Hey - look at me, I'm living in the past, where shit was all real-like! *mock clapping*