I'm running on AMD Phenom X4 965 BE with 4 GB RAM and a 1 GB AMD 5870HD. Pretty much a standard medium-high-end first generation DX 11 system with about the performance of a medium gaming system these days. Damn - BF3 run fine. Operation Métro runs without a hitch on 1080p Ultra with 2x AA and 16x AF at around 50 FPS. Just as smooth, if not smoother than BF:BC 2. Guess 64 player Conquest will be somewhat more taxing, but I should run it on high at 60 FPS no problem. Frostbite 2 is god-damn amazing.

What rigs and settings are you running BF3 Beta on? Have you been able to try Caspian Border? How was performance in comparison to Operation Métro? Love to hear some feedback. How are minimum speccs treating you?

I have GTX 560ti, Core i5 2500k, 4GB RAM. On 1920x1200 Ultra I have around 30-35 FPS outside and 45-50 inside the buildings.

Didn't try Caspian Border, though. Btw, is is just me, or FPS really drops down when you just enter the subway tunnel or look at the smoke?

I'm on a GTX 560 (not Ti), 2500k, 8GB RAM. I'm playing at 1080p on high with AA on low, very low motion blur, and SSAO. The game runs at about 50-75 FPS on Metro, but I've yet to try Caspian Border.

6870 crossfire, 1060T@3,7Ghz, 4gb RAM.

1080p, everything on Ultra (which I guess is still High?), 2x AA with motion blur turned off I get 55-120 FPS on Metro. I wonder how bad it gets on Caspian.

I barely played BC2 online but it feels mighty similar, I'm liking this more though.

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing, I'm clocking 55-90FPS via FRAPS.

How is everyone's CPU/GPU temps?

Well as ultra isn't even ultra, I'm rocking a 6870 at 'ultra' with ~40fps on Caspian border. ~55 on metro.

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing, 

Played a game on metro on medium settings on my laptop. Ya...I didn't expect it to run as well as I had expected, but I did turn down the resolution to 720p so that's why. Have an i5 M460 @ 2.53 Ghz. GPU is geforce 435m. I didn't have time to check the FPS but it definitely felt above the typical 30 frames, definitely not 60 though.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

been running ultra settings (no tweaking) on this rig.  
 
gtx 480
i7 2600k @4.4ghz 
1920x1080 resolution
 
35-45 fps in the park area, 50-60ish fps average in the subaway, and toll area.
 
Looks really nice.

55-65 outside, 80-90 inside at 1080p 
Everything on ultra, no MSAA just medium post AA and SSAO, FOV set to 90
i5 760 2.8GHz
GTX 470 SLi 
 
Pretty happy with it, hopefully the full release will run a little better and nVidia will release more mature drivers.

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Exactly, the amount of aliasing is negligible and it gives me another 5-8 frames of performance as compared to having 4x on.

I have an ATI 5850 I think. That and an AMD Phenom, its like 2.6 GHz, I think.

I'm running on ultra without any AA. Runs smooth.

Anybody have any idea how the GTX460 is holding up?

Running a GTX 470 (1280 MB), i7 930 4x2.8 (overclocked to 3.2 or so), 6G RAM, Windows 7 64bit. Latest drivers (linked on Battlelog website). Only getting 44 fps outside on all MEDIUM? Pretty disappointed.

i7-930 Quad-core, 6GB ram, Radeon 5850. Running on High is smooth, in Ultra the FPS is noticeably not has smooth. Gonna use Fraps to see that the numbers really are.

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

Phenom II X4 945 8GBs ram and a 2GB 4870. At 1080p, the beta runs about the same as BFBC2 did on ultra - 20-30fps by my estimation. Not great, but I can live with it.
 
Also,there are no setting options in the beta... You can set it to ultra, but it doesn't do anything. So I don't know what y'all are talkin' about. We're all running it on high-ish.  
 
Seriously. Try setting it to low. No difference.

Phenom II X4 965, 4GB Ram, and a 460 GTX SE...runs silky on mostly high settings...haven't pushed beyond that yet.

Intel i7 2600K

8GB RAM

GTX570

At 1080p on ultra the game runs the game runs very nice. I haven't actually checked the FPS but it I'm not seeing any slow down or screen tearing. It runs much better than I expected it to.

@Akrid said:

Phenom II X4 945 8GBs ram and a 2GB 4870. At 1080p, the beta runs about the same as BFBC2 did on ultra - 20-30fps by my estimation. Not great, but I can live with it. Also,there are no setting options in the beta... You can set it to ultra, but it doesn't do anything. So I don't know what y'all are talkin' about. We're all running it on high-ish. Seriously. Try setting it to low. No difference.

FALSE. The game needs to be restarted for the changes to take in effect. This has been said countless times on many of the benchmarks that are out there. There IS a difference between settings. They are marginal, but they exist. Expect the official release to be optimized much better.

The following site even has animated .gifs showing the differences.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Battlefield-3-Beta-Performance-Testing-and-Image-Quality-Evaluation-Day-1/Gam

Got the very same system like the OP, but a 5770 for graphics card, and it truly is the bottom imho if you want playable and medium. Of course I value framerate stability over bling so I set everything to the lowest and hunt pixels like a god. It seems near official that AMD's 7000 series won't make it out this year because the foundry that prints the chips sucks so.. 6870 , by the end of October, while keeping the 5770 for spares.

Which is an important thing. Always have spares of expensive mission critical items. Monitors and graphics cards primarily because they'll break before a PSU or a CPU does, normal usage.

@Akrid said:

Phenom II X4 945 8GBs ram and a 2GB 4870. At 1080p, the beta runs about the same as BFBC2 did on ultra - 20-30fps by my estimation. Not great, but I can live with it. Also,there are no setting options in the beta... You can set it to ultra, but it doesn't do anything. So I don't know what y'all are talkin' about. We're all running it on high-ish. Seriously. Try setting it to low. No difference.

FALSE. The game needs to be restarted for the changes to take in effect. This has been said countless times on many of the benchmarks that are out there. There IS a difference between settings. They are marginal, but they exist. Expect the official release to be optimized much better.

The following site even has animated .gifs showing the differences.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Battlefield-3-Beta-Performance-Testing-and-Image-Quality-Evaluation-Day-1/Gam

@thornie said:

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

Wait what? You get like 15 more fps than me and you have a 590? Something is wrong with your setup dude.

@AlexW00d said:

@thornie said:

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

Wait what? You get like 15 more fps than me and you have a 590? Something is wrong with your setup dude.

I have vsync forced on through the driver which locks FPS at my monitors refresh rate which is 60. if I turn that off I get wild spikes, something like 75 fps - 140 and all over the place. My GPU was running hot and I hated playing through all the spikes and drops. I much prefer playing at a solid 60 fps.

@thornie said:

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

To be fair, Crysis 2 has much smaller play areas and less destructibility. My performance on metro is about the same as my crysis 2 performance, but I go to caspian border and my computer is like "you're hurting me".

@thornie said:

@AlexW00d said:

@thornie said:

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

Wait what? You get like 15 more fps than me and you have a 590? Something is wrong with your setup dude.

I have vsync forced on through the driver which locks FPS at my monitors refresh rate which is 60. if I turn that off I get wild spikes, something like 75 fps - 140 and all over the place. My GPU was running hot and I hated playing through all the spikes and drops. I much prefer playing at a solid 60 fps.

Try thislittle program.

It's mainly an extensive frame capture tool akin to Fraps, however, the biggest draw in this thing is the ability to limit framerate without starting to record anything. You just run it, set the limit for video output and go. Worked fine for most games I've tried it with, and it is EXTREMELY useful in cases like yours where framerate is very high but all over the place and definitely preferable to having to force VSync just to cure that issue. I am utterly perplexed as to why a framerate limiter has not yet been implemented as a default feature in today's GPU drivers really!

You'll be downloading the trial, but the frame limiter works fine in that. You don't need the full version for it.

runs like a dream on my i5 2500k/GTX570 rig

AMD Phenom II x4 965, Asus AMD Radeon 6950 2GB, 4 gigs of Gskill 1333Mhz RAM. Runs fine on default (haven't checked FPS yet but it was insanely smooth) settings as I haven't configured yet but at a quick glance it was running smoothly on mixture of high/ultra with a little bit of AA (I think it was only 2x). I'll tune the settings up a bit once I add 4 more gigs of RAM tomorrow, and then see how it runs.

Is there a setting that lowers the effect of those stupid flashlights? I will literally run it on lowest if that lowers the affect of those on gameplay, because so far that is game-ruining when you are playing the metro level and a small squad of people using only pistols and flashlights dominates the whole other team because no one can aim at them accurately and end up having to blindfire and hope for the best.

@SlasherMan said:

@thornie said:

@AlexW00d said:

@thornie said:

I'm running a i5 2500k, 16GB RAM, GTX 590. I force vsync and triple buffering in the Nvidia driver since vsync is not working in the beta. I keep all of my settings on "HIGH" with the exception of texture quality which I set to "ULTRA". AA Post is set to medium, AA is set to 2x, and I use SSAO. I never dip below 60 FPS in Metro, and I get 40-60 in caspian, w/ an average of 53 FPS.

It is clear the game is not optimized and I expect the actual game to have better performance. The game is gorgeous, but it ain't no DX11 Crysis 2, which I can run without a hitch.

Wait what? You get like 15 more fps than me and you have a 590? Something is wrong with your setup dude.

I have vsync forced on through the driver which locks FPS at my monitors refresh rate which is 60. if I turn that off I get wild spikes, something like 75 fps - 140 and all over the place. My GPU was running hot and I hated playing through all the spikes and drops. I much prefer playing at a solid 60 fps.

Try thislittle program.

It's mainly an extensive frame capture tool akin to Fraps, however, the biggest draw in this thing is the ability to limit framerate without starting to record anything. You just run it, set the limit for video output and go. Worked fine for most games I've tried it with, and it is EXTREMELY useful in cases like yours where framerate is very high but all over the place and definitely preferable to having to force VSync just to cure that issue. I am utterly perplexed as to why a framerate limiter has not yet been implemented as a default feature in today's GPU drivers really!

You'll be downloading the trial, but the frame limiter works fine in that. You don't need the full version for it.

This is cool, I'll check it out, thanks.

Running like poop on my patch set up (q6600 burned out or something). AMD X2 64 4200 @2.5 and 2gig DDR400 with a 460GTX card. But stiil somewhat playable with everything off/low. Getting like 15-20 fps.

Plan on getting i5-2500k next week.

Phenom II x6 Tubin OC @ 3.8ghz

OCZ 8gb ddr3 at ~1600mhz

ATI HD 5870 1GB OC'ed

Runs like butter on ultra no hitches, i can't wait for better drivers game is gonna run so smooth.

I might upgrade to a 7870 2gb when that comes out, but if retail runs even better then this beta oh boy will i be a happy boy!!!

Seems BF3 really takes advantage of multithreading, bulldozer with X8 should eat this game up.

I have an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.21ghz processor, GTX 570HD and 8G RAM. Everything ultra/maxed at 1080p, no v sync or AA getting around 50 average both outside and inside the metro.

Yesterday was a shitfest since the servers were so bogged down that it was hard to tell if the game was running bad or if the servers were just causing problems. On high I'm running perfectly smoothly on Operation Metro:

Q6600 @ stock (2.4 ghz)

4 gb ddr2

geforce 560 ti

@Ben_H said:

AMD Phenom II x4 965, Asus AMD Radeon 6950 2GB, 4 gigs of Gskill 1333Mhz RAM. Runs fine on default (haven't checked FPS yet but it was insanely smooth) settings as I haven't configured yet but at a quick glance it was running smoothly on mixture of high/ultra with a little bit of AA (I think it was only 2x). I'll tune the settings up a bit once I add 4 more gigs of RAM tomorrow, and then see how it runs.

Is there a setting that lowers the effect of those stupid flashlights? I will literally run it on lowest if that lowers the affect of those on gameplay, because so far that is game-ruining when you are playing the metro level and a small squad of people using only pistols and flashlights dominates the whole other team because no one can aim at them accurately and end up having to blindfire and hope for the best.

I'm curious as to how that set up runs because I'm considering getting a 965 to go with my 6950.

@Captain_Felafel said:

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Exactly, the amount of aliasing is negligible and it gives me another 5-8 frames of performance as compared to having 4x on.

I did not know this, thanks.

Q9500, HD5770, 4 gigs of DDR2 RAM. Game runs great! It appears that everything is on "high" running at 1080p with 4xAA. Getting about 40-50fps. No idea how.

@PeasantAbuse said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Exactly, the amount of aliasing is negligible and it gives me another 5-8 frames of performance as compared to having 4x on.

I did not know this, thanks.

It makes that big a difference? Interesting............

@Donos said:

@PeasantAbuse said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Exactly, the amount of aliasing is negligible and it gives me another 5-8 frames of performance as compared to having 4x on.

I did not know this, thanks.

It makes that big a difference? Interesting............

There's no way of telling how much difference it will make, of course. It depends on the game and the GPU, but I almost never turn AA on on any game, even before when I had a much lower resolution monitor and the aliasing was far more noticeable. Of all settings to turn off in hopes of achieving better performance, AA is up there with resolution and shadow detail in my experience.

Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz (clocked @ 3.2GHz) - GeForce 8800GTS 512 - 6gigs RAM - Win7 64bit

Runs pretty good on low (better than BC2), on Métro, haven't tried Caspian.

Ultra settings don't work properly in the beta.

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Seriously? I game at 1920x1080 and the lack of AA in some games is horrible. It's very noticeable.

Some games look better than others without anti-aliasing, though.

On some games the performance hit with anti-aliasing turned on is really small as well.

The "Battlefield 3" beta drivers from Nvidia seem to be pretty good. Getting like 5+ fps boost.

Anyone else getting problems with playing right now? I keep getting...

Generic error code 1

and/or

You were disconnected from the login server

I've done the clearing of my browser cache and shit, signing out of everything and then back in again. Get the same errors, I was playing this just fine this morning.

@Sooty said:

Ultra settings don't work properly in the beta.

@Liber said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Captain_Felafel said:

Intel Core i7 930@2.8Ghz, 6GB's of DDR3 RAM and an nVidia GTX 580. Running at 1920x1080 with everything at Ultra minus any Anti-Aliasing,

Why?

You really don't need AA on such a huge resolution.

Seriously? I game at 1920x1080 and the lack of AA in some games is horrible. It's very noticeable.

Some games look better than others without anti-aliasing, though.

On some games the performance hit with anti-aliasing turned on is really small as well.

On my 570 running 1920x1200, I noticed the suggested settings had no AA but did have post-processing AA enabled, and can barely tell the difference.