PC Requirements Speculation?

#1 Posted by Donos (1188 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Hey all, I haven't been paying much attention to PC requirements for games in the last year, so would anyone care to speculate on what this game might need? ie minimum vs perfect?

#2 Posted by PhatSeeJay (3311 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

It's Dx10/Dx11 so no Windows XP compability.
That's about it so far.

#3 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990.

If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best.

For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do.

#4 Posted by BrainSpecialist (555 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

8 MB RAM.

#5 Posted by ErEl (126 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Minimum: 4.2Ghz Octo-core, AMD 6990, 8gigs of RAM.

#6 Posted by Donos (1188 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.

#7 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Donos: Your processor should be sufficient with a bit of overclocking.

#8 Posted by Daveyo520 (6549 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Far more then this POS can run :(

Online

#9 Posted by DystopiaX (4852 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Just based on the gi article, they said somewhere that they're pushing even top end pcs for the full mp battles for high settings, no idea about minimum requirements though. With them really pushing it as a mainstream pc title I doubt they'd set it too high.

#10 Posted by mosdl (3010 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

The @Donos said:

"
Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.
"

I have a i5 750 as well (2.66GHz) and am assuming that should work good enough given that is isn't very taxed playing bfbc2.

#11 Posted by Mikemcn (6791 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Battlefield games also seemed CPU heavy, Maybe its just me.

#12 Posted by Seppli (7730 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Since it's optimized for DX11 and DX9 is completely dropped, it will be less hardware taxing than it looks. Any decent DX11 GPU with 1GB RAM will do. Don't know about CPU and RAM though. Guess Quad-Core and at least 4GB to run it smoothly at high rez and medium-high quality settings. More will not hurt either.

Gameinformer and Gamestar singleplayer previews were demonstrated to them on a HD5870, as far as I know. Good first generation DX11 cards will definitely do the trick. The third generation of DX11 cards will be available around launch, which should be significantly more powerful. Current generation GTX 580 and HD6900er have the power of about 1,2x-1,4x HD5870.

Either way, if you ain't bought into DX11 yet, it's about time.

#13 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4036 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade.

#14 Posted by hicks91 (757 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

i think my old core may finally need upgrading
2.9ghz dual should be fine though (i hope)
really wanna play this game right

#15 Posted by Solemn (278 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

I may have to call NASA and borrow one of their computers when this game is released.

#16 Edited by LeYcH (85 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm guessing the bare minimum would be something along the lines of
3GB ram, a really good dual core CPU or an average quad core, ATi 4870 or ATi 5770,
at about 800x600 on low settings averaging about 30-40 fps.?
I HOPE SO because my computer is 3 years old and I'm totally skint.

#17 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "

I max out BC2 with extremely playable framerates (I never get a noticeable dip) on a 9800GX2...

I think you're way overestimating system requirements.

#18 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Donos: Your CPU is fine even at stock. Your GPU won't be allow you to max out the game though. If you have a few hundred to drop picking up something like a GTX570 wouldn't be a bad idea.

#19 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18957 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@FrankCanada97 said:

" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "

its about time for me anyway

#20 Edited by benpicko (1515 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "

You can max out Bad Company 2 on a HD 5770, and I doubt they'd have 6870 for medium quality, especially seeing as it runs on the 360.

Edit: After reading all the comments, I think you're all overestimating. A lot.

#21 Posted by Afroman269 (7388 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

This game is making me want to get an actual desktop rig solely for gaming.

#22 Edited by SomeJerk (2096 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

I expect a dualcore requirement, though leaning towards triple, the engine as of BC2 *wants* three because the sound engine can take hold of one.

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @FrankCanada97 said:
" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "
its about time for me anyway "

Me three. Just want to say that we all need to sit on our eager hands (and wallets) and wait until like August or September before investing, AMD Bulldozer platform's due in the second quarter and RAM prices are rollercoasting heavily - and small quick SSDs will look even better as dedicated game drives by then. (SSD for me eliminated all stutter/hitching that appeared around the BC2V launch in BC2, did side by side tests)

#23 Edited by Mikemcn (6791 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Afroman269 said:

" This game is making me want to get an actual desktop rig solely for gaming. "

Do it, give into the urge. Are you planning on playing on PC?

@somejerk: Do they even make triple cores? And it'll be two core minimum i think.

#24 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18957 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@somejerk said:

" I expect a dualcore requirement, though leaning towards triple, the engine as of BC2 *wants* three because the sound engine can take hold of one.

@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @FrankCanada97 said:
" Whatever it is, I'm certain I need an upgrade. "
its about time for me anyway "
Me three. Just want to say that we all need to sit on our eager hands (and wallets) and wait until like August or September before investing, AMD Bulldozer platform's due in the second quarter and RAM prices are rollercoasting heavily - and small quick SSDs will look even better as dedicated game drives by then. (SSD for me eliminated all stutter/hitching that appeared around the BC2V launch in BC2, did side by side tests) "

i wont have any money before September anyway..

i got my sexy new job last month, and i estimate my income from January till September 2011 to be around.. 7500 USD. 1K of which im spending on the new rig !!
it all works out perfectly.

#25 Posted by Afroman269 (7388 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Mikemcn: Of course I am. I'm not gonna be a chump and get it for consoles. My laptop can run a good amount of current games on medium to high but I know I'm going to have to get an actual desktop rig to play this game at the level that I want.

#26 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno said:
" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "
I max out BC2 with extremely playable framerates (I never get a noticeable dip) on a 9800GX2... I think you're way overestimating system requirements. "

@benpicko said:

" @Geno said:
" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "
You can max out Bad Company 2 on a HD 5770, and I doubt they'd have 6870 for medium quality, especially seeing as it runs on the 360. Edit: After reading all the comments, I think you're all overestimating. A lot. "

No, on the contrary most people overestimate their systems. Benchmarks make it quite clear that you need along the lines of what I said to max it out, perhaps even more:

(GTX 480 ~ GTX 570)

360 version will most likely run on low settings 1280x720, like it did with Metro 2033.

#27 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher.

#28 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "

You're running it "locked out of certain things" (no DX11) on Windows XP (1xAA) and you don't give a definite framerate (I've heard people call 30fps smooth as butter as well). That's not maxed out, so it has no relevance to what I said. The AA and AF listed are standard for PC gaming. The max AA setting for BC2 goes up to 32x AA.

The faultline video was 43fps according to Gamersyde; that would then entail you'd need something 50% stronger than a GTX 580 to play it at 60fps at max settings, which is assuming they were even running at max settings, and that the final game won't be more demanding. That's actually in line with what I said earlier, about 6990 level performance.

#29 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno said:

" @RsistncE said:
" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "
You're running it "locked out of certain things" (no DX11) on Windows XP (1xAA) and you don't give a definite framerate (I've heard people call 30fps smooth as butter as well). That's not maxed out, so it has no relevance to what I said. The AA and AF listed are standard for PC gaming. The max AA setting for BC2 goes up to 32x AA. The faultline video was 43fps according to Gamersyde; that would then entail you'd need something 50% stronger than a GTX 580 to play it at 60fps at max settings, which is assuming they were even running at max settings, and that the final game won't be more demanding. That's actually in line with what I said earlier, about 6990 level performance. "

Basically you're talking about benchmark performance not performance which a normal person running the game would get. Realistically there's not much of a visual advantage (at least not that most people can tell) that comes with AA set at over 4x and AF over 8x. Even then those are a bit high. On top of that you are aware that alpha code almost ALWAYS runs worse than gold code right? It's poorly optimized, one of their jobs is going to be to clean it up so it runs a lot better. I'm not sure about you, but that video they showed ran buttery smooth and it's pretty dumb to demand 60 FPS from your hardware when you won't even be able to tell the difference. All in all I still think you're way overestimating what people will require in terms of hardware to run this game at the level they were running it at at GDC.

#30 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno said:
" @RsistncE said:
" @Geno: Well I don't know what to say other than I run the game pretty much maxed out (locked out of certain things since I'm still on XP) at 1920x1080 and it runs as smooth as butter. Oh wait...you're including the highest level of both AA and AF...mine are set at like 4 and 8, so that's still close. Either way the alpha build that they were showing off at GDC was running off of a single 580. That ran PERFECTLY and it was alpha AND it was single player. I'm pretty sure a 580 will run the final retail version exceptionally well. In fact I bet you'll be able to max out with a 470 or higher. "
You're running it "locked out of certain things" (no DX11) on Windows XP (1xAA) and you don't give a definite framerate (I've heard people call 30fps smooth as butter as well). That's not maxed out, so it has no relevance to what I said. The AA and AF listed are standard for PC gaming. The max AA setting for BC2 goes up to 32x AA. The faultline video was 43fps according to Gamersyde; that would then entail you'd need something 50% stronger than a GTX 580 to play it at 60fps at max settings, which is assuming they were even running at max settings, and that the final game won't be more demanding. That's actually in line with what I said earlier, about 6990 level performance. "
Basically you're talking about benchmark performance not performance which a normal person running the game would get. Realistically there's not much of a visual advantage (at least not that most people can tell) that comes with AA set at over 4x and AF over 8x. Even then those are a bit high. On top of that you are aware that alpha code almost ALWAYS runs worse than gold code right? It's poorly optimized, one of their jobs is going to be to clean it up so it runs a lot better. I'm not sure about you, but that video they showed ran buttery smooth and it's pretty dumb to demand 60 FPS from your hardware when you won't even be able to tell the difference. All in all I still think you're way overestimating what people will require in terms of hardware to run this game at the level they were running it at at GDC. "

I was talking about max settings. I also gave an estimate for what I'd consider "reasonable"; a 6870. You yourself said that you will probably "be able to max out with a 470" (given your definition of "max out" seems to be mean "play at reasonable settings" instead of the conventional definition). A 6870 is that performance level. Maybe you should re-read my original post since it seems like you're missing a bunch of stuff.

I don't know about you but I can easily tell the difference even between 50 and 60fps. 60fps isn't "pretty dumb" or "benchmark performance", it's the performance target of most PC gamers.

By the way, stop saying "buttery smooth", PC gamers use numbers instead of vague qualifiers. We have means to easily measure framerate.

#31 Posted by salad10203 (648 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno said:

" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "

That is by no means true. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/104990-13-battlefield-company-benchmarks-here It needs around a 280 gtx for 60+ and 4870 for 40+ fps. Stop stretching the truth.

#32 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@salad10203 said:

" @Geno said:
" It's definitely going to be more demanding than BC2. BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out, so I'm conservatively going to estimate around GTX 580 level to max out BF3. More broad estimate might be HD 6990. If we're going for minimum they'll probably "recommend" something like Nvidia 8000 series, which will get you to main menu at best. For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "
That is by no means true. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/104990-13-battlefield-company-benchmarks-here It needs around a 280 gtx for 60+ and 4870 for 40+ fps. Stop stretching the truth. "

Read those benchmarks again.

#33 Edited by salad10203 (648 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: What?

Scratch that, i forgot rule # 11 of the internet.
http://rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

#34 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@salad10203 said:

" @Geno: What? "

Firstly, you may consider linking to the Techspot article since that is the original source.

As for what's specifically wrong:

-1680x1050 (>50% of PC gamers use 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitors)
- HBAO disabled - the most demanding feature, and the preset that really makes those benchmarks useless
- 2xAA (unconventional AA, below 4xAA standard)
-4xAF (unconventional AF, below 16xAF standard)

The numbers are far from max settings.

Maybe you should do your research before you accuse others of "stretching the truth".

#35 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: Look man, all that counts is how it looks, not the numbers. If the game ran at 18 FPS but ran really smoothly then what does it matter? People use 30 FPS, 60 FPS, etc. because that's what looks GOOD to them. Only jerks with giant e-peens need to talk about their FPS without any regard given to, "yeah but how does it LOOK like it runs?"

And your concept of what is "standard" is absolutely ludicrous. I guarantee that the majority of PC gamers don't run all their games on this imaginary standard of 4xAA and 16xAF that you've quoted. And I've said it once but I'll say it again: that demo looked incredible and ran at 43 FPS on an ALPHA build. I guarantee you it will run a lot better by the time it goes gold so as a result I think it's fair to say that you'll be able to make it look as good as it looked at GDC with a 470.

Again, most people aren't here to jerk off their e-peens: they're here because they like to play games and they want their game to look good and run good. Numbers mean jack shit if those conditions are satisfied.

#36 Posted by m1k3 (1286 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

requirements are probably enough to make me upgrade from my 9800gtx

#37 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno: Look man, all that counts is how it looks, not the numbers. If the game ran at 18 FPS but ran really smoothly then what does it matter? People use 30 FPS, 60 FPS, etc. because that's what looks GOOD to them. Only jerks with giant e-peens need to talk about their FPS without any regard given to, "yeah but how does it LOOK like it runs?" And your concept of what is "standard" is absolutely ludicrous. I guarantee that the majority of PC gamers don't run all their games on this imaginary standard of 4xAA and 16xAF that you've quoted. And I've said it once but I'll say it again: that demo looked incredible and ran at 43 FPS on an ALPHA build. I guarantee you it will run a lot better by the time it goes gold so as a result I think it's fair to say that you'll be able to make it look as good as it looked at GDC with a 470. Again, most people aren't here to jerk off their e-peens: they're here because they like to play games and they want their game to look good and run good. Numbers mean jack shit if those conditions are satisfied. "

I think you're missing the part where we're talking about PC requirements for this game. Not individual preferences. 1920x1080, 4xAA 16xAF is a common ground standard that most PC gamers can accept, and also one that is commonly used in reviews, so that we can further discuss that common standard quantitatively. Framerate is also an objective performance standard, with 60fps being the natural frequency on most conventional displays at the moment. Nobody is "jerking off their e-peen" here. It appears either your standards are too low, or you aren't familiar enough with PC gaming to talk about spec requirements properly. Basically my argument goes:

1) benchmarks at commonly accepted max settings for PC gaming show that you need a GTX 570/GTX480/HD6970 for 60fps performance in BC2 at max settings.
2) BF3 looks better than BC2 while being in somewhat the same sized environments, therefore:
3) BF3 will be more demanding than BC2
4) and the only cards that are significantly more powerful than the cards listed above at the moment are GTX 580, HD 5970 and soon to be released HD 6990. What I said originally.

You argument goes:

1) IT LOOKS GOOD ENOUGH TO ME

So unless you plan to get serious, I suggest you butt out of this discussion.

#38 Posted by BabyChooChoo (3579 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

Minimum: A nuclear reactor

Maximum: Jesus.

#39 Posted by Jadeskye (4324 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

baring in mind it's also going on the consoles, i'm gonna say not much.

#40 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: And I think you're missing the part where people want to know the system requirements to see if they can realistically run this game while having it look as good as it's been shown. Most people aren't going to care to add on the extra (relatively useless might I add) bells and whistles such as 32xAF and 8xAA.

My argument is about reality of the situation and that is that people want to know if this game will be playable (which usually means frame rates above 30 and no lower) while also having it look amazing. Instead of getting all hypothetical and pulling out essentially useless numbers by comparing two different games to one another we can just use a little common sense here: the game was running on a single 580 at ~43 FPS at settings that made most peoples jaws drop. This was all happening on an alpha (pre-alpha?) build of the game which frankly is supposed to run like relative shit compared to later builds. Now of course if you want numbers here you go: at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 the observed yield of a 580 over a 470 is ~52% in BC2. I know that many games see a sizeable performance jump from beta stages to final (we're talking anywhere from 10-40% depending on what issues existed with the beta build). The performance increase from pre-alpha and alpha to beta is supposed to be even more sizeable so take that as you will but we could argue that optimization should increase performance to almost match the current difference in performance yield between the 470 and 580 by the time the game hits gold status. That means the 580 should run the game much better than it currently does and on top of that the 470 should be able to run the game as well as the 580 ran the alpha build. Additionally the footage they showed off was single player which is considerably more taxing than multiplayer because of the existence of AI etc.

Also I know you're going to whine about how "THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS USE 1920x1080"

No. They don't. If you honestly think that you're out of your mind. That or you're just lying. How do I know? According to Steam's hardware survey only 18.86% use 1920x1080 followed closely by 1680x1050 at 18.25%. Discounting all proportions at 1920x1080 or higher that means the majority at 69.41% use display resolutions less than or equal to 1680x1050, with the majority AGAIN using resolutions UNDER 1680x1050. So again, I don't think your "standards" are everyday PC gamer standards...they're more like "everyday epeen standards". The game will run at the settings that they showed off at GDC with similar performance on a 470 or higher.

#41 Edited by Sooty (6709 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno said:

" BC2 needs along the lines of GTX 570 or HD 6970 to max out"

No it doesn't, I used to run it maxed out with some AA at 1920x1080 on a 4870, now I'm running it with 8xAA on a GTX 470.

Smooth as butter, the game doesn't look massively better than Bad Company 2 as it is so I wouldn't expect such a huge shift in requirements.

I have an overclocked 470, an i5 at 4Ghz, I'm expecting this to run at high settings with no trouble, maybe not totally maxed out but I'll be very shocked if I go from running Bad Company 2 at 60FPS with 8xAA (multiplayer) to not being able to play Battlefield 3 smoothly with no AA at high settings.

If it really does kill my card that much though (to the point of having to go down to medium) I will definitely upgrade, I need 60FPS.

#42 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno: And I think you're missing the part where people want to know the system requirements to see if they can realistically run this game while having it look as good as it's been shown. Most people aren't going to care to add on the extra (relatively useless might I add) bells and whistles such as 32xAF and 8xAA.

Strawman. This is already looking bad. Nobody said anything about 8xAA or 32xAF. You might also want to note that there's no such thing as 32xAF in gaming if you don't want to get laughed out of all tech discussions.

@RsistncE

said:

My argument is about reality of the situation and that is that people want to know if this game will be playable (which usually means frame rates above 30 and no lower) while also having it look amazing.

I made that argument as well. I said HD 6870. You say GTX 470. They are the same performance. I don't know what you are so uppity about in this regard. I'll quote myself as it seems you either have poor reading skills or a short memory:

@Geno

said:

For medium settings and reasonable performance probably something like a 6870 will do. "

Medium, by definition = not the best, not the worst. Reasonable = not necessarily 60fps, but playable.

@RsistncE said:

Instead of getting all hypothetical and pulling out essentially useless numbers

Yes, benchmarks are so useless. That's why each and every review of every graphics card for every game is based on benchmarks. But they're useless when they're used to prove you wrong right?

@RsistncE

said:

we can just use a little common sense here: the game was running on a single 580 at ~43 FPS at settings that made most peoples jaws drop. This was all happening on an alpha (pre-alpha?) build of the game which frankly is supposed to run like relative shit compared to later builds. Now of course if you want numbers here you go: at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 the observed yield of a 580 over a 470 is ~52% in BC2. I know that many games see a sizeable performance jump from beta stages to final (we're talking anywhere from 10-40% depending on what issues existed with the beta build). The performance increase from pre-alpha and alpha to beta is supposed to be even more sizeable so take that as you will but we could argue that optimization should increase performance to almost match the current difference in performance yield between the 470 and 580 by the time the game hits gold status. That means the 580 should run the game much better than it currently does and on top of that the 470 should be able to run the game as well as the 580 ran the alpha build.

So benchmarks are hypothetical, but you proposing 50% performance increase through optimization isn't?

@RsistncE

said:

Additionally the footage they showed off was single player which is considerably more taxing than multiplayer because of the existence of AI etc.

Nobody mentioned multiplayer.

@RsistncE

said:

Also I know you're going to whine about how "THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS USE 1920x1080" No. They don't. If you honestly think that you're out of your mind. That or you're just lying. How do I know? According to Steam's hardware survey only 18.86% use 1920x1080 followed closely by 1680x1050 at 18.25%. Discounting all proportions at 1920x1080 or higher that means the majority at 69.41% use display resolutions less than or equal to 1680x1050, with the majority AGAIN using resolutions UNDER 1680x1050. So again, I don't think your "standards" are everyday PC gamer standards...they're more like "everyday epeen standards". The game will run at the settings that they showed off at GDC with similar performance on a 470 or higher. "

I was actually going to refer you to that survey earlier, but since you decided to shoot yourself in the foot just now I guess I don't need to.

1920x1080 + 1920x1200 monitors = 26%. This is the single largest group of monitor resolutions that there is. Amongst hardcore PC gamers (e.g. the type that are into Battlefield), this number is probably closer to the majority. It is also worthwhile to add that according to the Steam Hardware Survey, this number is growing by about 1-2% per month, while the resolutions below are shrinking in population every month.

Taking ALL other resolutions and clumping them into one group is completely fallacious, especially since you are the one referring to "buttery smooth and looking great". The video shown was 1080p. Will a 1024x768 monitor with a GPU from 2006 run the game "buttery smooth and looking great"? Probably not. So why are you including it in your group?

It's clear to me that you have little to no understanding of PC hardware. It's also clear to me that you lack fundamental reading skills. I'm not really interested in regurgitating common knowledge to you, or listening to your outlandish statements (benchmarks are "hypothetical and useless"?) anymore. Suffice it to say that BF3 will be more demanding than BC2 at the same settings. That's about as simple as I can boil it down for you since you refuse to gain any knowledge in the area before opening your mouth.

#43 Edited by ShaunassNZ (2125 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Donos said:

"
Any thoughts on CPU requirements? At the moment I have an i5 750 and a GTX 260, and if they're both less than great I might as well start looking for a new computer instead of just upgrading the graphics card.
"

You're fine dude. Get a new GPU though, CPU isn't in much of a need to upgrade.

#44 Edited by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: @Geno: I suggest you learn what a strawman argument actually is because in no way did I distort your view or position on the matter. Additionally I meant to quote your value of 32xAA. I screwed up, my bad.

No, the argument you made was that you'd need a 6870 to run at MEDIUM. The argument I'm making is that a 470 will run the game at the settings presented at GDC which were more than likely very close to maxed out.

You're using benchmarks for an entirely different game. You can't just carry over results directly like that. Either way that's why I decided to play along and start spewing general numbers that are probably not very relevant to a single piece of software. It's nice to see that this bit of reasoning eluded you though.

Yes, NO ONE mentioned multiplayer. I mean obviously people who play Battlefield games are only interested in the single player...wait, WUT? Are you for real?

Don't ever take a statistics class you'll fail. You're taking a single proportion from a sample and inferring it is the mean of the total proportion. That is not true. The FACT of the matter is that the VAST majority of users use display resolutions that are under 1920x1080. You said very clearly before that most gamers use 1920 x 1080. This is a load of shit. If the above argument is hard for you to process, let me dumb it down for you a little more:

80% > 20%

Your bullshit statistic about "hardcore gamers (e.g. the type that are into Battlefield" apparently using the bigger monitor is such a load of shit. There is no reliable form of data to support your conclusion and what you're saying is anecdotal evidence at best. On top of that the only sample we have that we could refer to is competitive gamers...and guess what? They use smaller monitors with lower resolutions generally. Even then we can't conclude anything regarding who uses what monitor and we certainly can't make the broad and sweeping claim that people who own big monitors are the ones that play battlefield.

#45 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno: @Geno: I suggest you learn what a strawman argument actually is because in no way did I distort your view or position on the matter.

You implied that I said 32xAA (or AF) is needed to properly play a game. I never said such a thing. I never even said 32xAA was max settings. I said 4xAA is what's conventionally considered max settings, to which you replied that AA past 4x had no real visual advantage, seemingly a non-sequiter since graphics cards companies and games are still pushing AA standards, and as an example up to 32xAA for BC2. Also, there are huge visual advantages but that's another discussion.

@RsistncE

said:

No, the argument you made was that you'd need a 6870 to run at MEDIUM. The argument I'm making is that a 470 will run the game at the settings presented at GDC which were more than likely very close to maxed out.

We don't know what settings they were running at GDC. It was alpha build so just as they could optimize it from now till launch, there could also be more demanding features added from now till launch. We don't know. What we do know is

a) how BC2 runs, and
b) that BF3 looks better than BC2.

Even if it was max settings, again, I will repeat this for you ever so clearly:

Battlefield 3 at

1920x1080
Max in-game settings
4xAA
16xAF
60+ fps

Will likely be harder to attain than:

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 at

1920x1080
Max in-game settings
4xAA
16xAF
60+ fps

Because BF3 looks better than BC2, and has the same gameplay in what looks like the same sized environments. When a game looks better than another game (in this case significantly), and they run on similar engines, I don't think it would be a surprise to anyone if the better looking game was more demanding. To get 60fps in BC2 at the above settings you need GTX 570 or HD 6970 level of performance as shown in benchmarks, therefore you will likely need something stronger based on the previous conclusion in order to get the same performance at those settings in BF3.

If you want, we could compare it at "RsistncE's custom settings that he deems good enough for everyone" too! This is what it will look like:

Battlefield 3 at

1920x1080
Max-in game settings with some features turned off
4xAA
8xAF
"Buttery smooth"

Will likely be harder to attain than:

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 at

1920x1080
Max in-game settings with the same or equivalent features turned off
4xAA
8xAF
"Buttery smooth"

How hard is this for you to understand?

@RsistncE

said:

Yes, NO ONE mentioned multiplayer. I mean obviously people who play Battlefield games are only interested in the single player...wait, WUT? Are you for real?

The BF3 video was single player, and I've been talking about benchmarks for BC2 single player. We've been talking single player this whole time. While it's nice that you recognize BF has a somewhat revered multiplayer legacy, it's irrelevant to what we've been discussing. Additionally, performance demands of multiplayer compared to single player vary. Not all games have a less demanding multiplayer.

@RsistncE

said:

Don't ever take a statistics class you'll fail. You're taking a single proportion from a sample and inferring it is the mean of the total proportion. That is not true.

No, you seem to be missing the point completely. First of all, the video shown was taken at 1080p with a GTX 580. I'm not getting the part where the game will look equally good on a 1024x768 monitor. Secondly, OP asked what it would take for "perfect" settings, or as I understood it, max. Technically the largest single-sized monitor is 2560x1600 resolution, but only about 1% of PC gamers have a display of that size so the next best thing was to go a res bump lower, which at least 26% of the PC gamer population has, a much more reasonable percentage. Your "69%", is not a single resolution tier, has little to no benchmarks to provide performance figures, and is overall outside of the realm of what could reasonably be deemed "perfect" or max.

@RsistncE

said:

On top of that the only sample we have that we could refer to is competitive gamers...and guess what? They use smaller monitors with lower resolutions generally.

Missing the point again. What does competitiveness have to do with how the game looks? It's common knowledge that most professional gamers will play at minimum settings in order to see units more clearly. This applies to OP's question about "perfect" how? Perfect most certainly doesn't mean "minimum" by anyone's interpretation.

@RsistncE

said:

Your bullshit statistic about "hardcore gamers (e.g. the type that are into Battlefield" apparently using the bigger monitor is such a load of shit. There is no reliable form of data to support your conclusion and what you're saying is anecdotal evidence at best. On top of that the only sample we have that we could refer to is competitive gamers...and guess what? They use smaller monitors with lower resolutions generally. Even then we can't conclude anything regarding who uses what monitor and we certainly can't make the broad and sweeping claim that people who own big monitors are the ones that play battlefield. "

The Steam numbers are diluted with casual gamers; proof is that the average mid-end card (as stated by AMD and Nvidia in their white papers) is along the lines of GTX 460 or HD 6850, whereas according to the Steam stats it's more along the lines of 9800 series, about half the performance strength. Similarly, the typical CPU for a Steam user is stated to be a ~2.4Ghz Intel dual core, which is nowadays surpassed by even entry-level Intel processors (2.4Ghz quad core would be maybe considered mid end). For the past several years 2GB RAM was the most common amount, when it has been at least 4GB amongst hardcore PC gamers for a while. It's not unreasonable then to presume that the same hardware deficiency extends to every component, including displays. Therefore larger displays are more likely than not vastly underrepresented from the Steam stats, possibly by as much as a factor of 2 given the aforementioned numbers. Additionally, there would have to be a large number of casual gamers on Steam for games like "Mystery Case Files" to sell.

Also, I take it you've never visited an enthusiast forum before, where they actually know their stuff about hardware and where almost everyone buys games like BF3. 1920x1080 is practically the minimum amongst those gamers.

Basically a lot of this would be clear to you if you were actually at all familiar with the hardware. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 are the most widely represented resolutions in graphics card reviews, the most common resolution that a hardcore PC gamer will play at, and most importantly the resolution that the game was shown running at in order to look it did. In addition 4xAA and 16xAF have been bog standard since 2003-2004. Finally, the OP asked about "perfect", so we can assume max in-game settings.

Using the above, I answered his question based on widely available benchmark information at those exact same settings from BC2, and from the experience that better looking games tend to be more demanding. You on the other hand shunned benchmarks, then started talking out of your ass about optimization (how much do you want to bet that you know more about the engine than I do?), and talking about your individual preferences that apply to nobody but yourself and have no performance figures to back them up. "BUT AS LONG AS IT'S BUTTERY SMOOTH AMIRITE?"

#46 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8532 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: While your arguments are all very sound I also think that BF3 will probably run smoothly maxed out @ 1080p on a Core i5 750 w/ GTX 470 in terms of the SP. It's a PC game for sure, but the SP experience will be shared equally (save for a few differences of scale and precision in set pieces) between the consoles and PC, so it's highly likely that the SP side of things will be pretty low impact. Frostbite 2 has a lot in the way of physics optimisation (which is the single largest CPU crushing factor in a fully loaded BC2 game) and BC2 already proved that the older FB 1.5 could easily handle a small to medium scale single player experience on a 3ghz intel dual core with a 9800GT and I'd imagine that the vast majority of BF3's SP experience will be ground warfare and not overly different to what BC2's was albeit on a larger scale (which the new engine should compensate for in most cases).

Now, when it comes to the MP I think it's likely that (some levels of) FSAA might need to be sacrificed in order to play on a full loaded server across the largest maps replete with all manner of vehicles and in that case even a GTX 470 might struggle to maintain 60 frames a sec all the time when coupled with a midrange Intel quad core. In those cases a GPU with more bandwidth, like a 6970, might do better but then again if BC2's FB 1.5 is any indication a better CPU might be needed too.

Either way, it's still a game which is inherently multiplatform and so will likely not be too demanding overall.

#47 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@SeriouslyNow: Oh don't tell him that because he'll counter with a bunch of unrealistic technical nonsense about how it isn't max if the game isn't running at 60FPS and and all that other bullshit.

He can't seem to get it through his thick skull that the vast majority of users are not going to be running this game with 32xAA, 16xAF, all settings set to highest and on a 1920x1080 display. He's using technical and benchmark expectations to determine what constitutes "maxing out a game" when in reality the layman or average joe PC gamer isn't talking about benchmark standards when they say if they can max a game out. Usually to them it means getting most or all of those settings on highest, probably 2 or 4x AA with 4x or 8x AF. Of course none of this is going to get in the way of his e-peen rant and his unreasonable expectations of what "maxing out a game" actually means to people who, you know, just play games.

#48 Edited by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @SeriouslyNow: Oh don't tell him that because he'll counter with a bunch of unrealistic technical nonsense about how it isn't max if the game isn't running at 60FPS and and all that other bullshit. He can't seem to get it through his thick skull that the vast majority of users are not going to be running this game with 32xAA, 16xAF, all settings set to highest and on a 1920x1080 display. He's using technical and benchmark expectations to determine what constitutes "maxing out a game" when in reality the layman or average joe PC gamer isn't talking about benchmark standards when they say if they can max a game out. Usually to them it means getting most or all of those settings on highest, probably 2 or 4x AA with 4x or 8x AF. Of course none of this is going to get in the way of his e-peen rant and his unreasonable expectations of what "maxing out a game" actually means to people who, you know, just play games. "

Strawmen and ad hominems are not convincing arguments. For the record, once again, this has nothing to do with e-peen. I could be using a Pentium II with a Geforce 3 and I wouldn't say any different. If you want to see what real e-peen is go visit an enthusiast forum where people have HD 5970CF and play games on hexfinity.

I still have no idea why you're participating in a technical discussion when it's clear you know nothing about hardware. If the OP wanted your own special opinion about what max means then he wouldn't have created the topic in the first place. He asked for what would be needed for perfect settings, I don't know what dictionary you're using but that doesn't translate to "average joe" settings to me. You're basically trolling at this point since you've done nothing to answer the OP's question, and all you've proven to me is that you're completely out of touch with PC gaming hardware. Graphics card reviews specifically test at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 resolution the most since that's the most common resolution that hardcore PC gamers play at. It's not unreasonable at all, as it's the most common resolution. You also act as if benchmark numbers are completely irrelevant to actual gameplay; on the contrary, the whole point of benchmarks is to represent the performance level for the end-user while gaming so they can make informed purchasing decisions. They're not there for show or for theory, their existence is entirely practical, and so are the settings at which they are tested.

Typically the people that value their opinion over objective facts such as yourself are the people that I have the most trouble dealing with, since there is no logical common ground, and you are apparently impervious to evidence, common sense or reasoning. Best I can do is direct you to some hardware sites but other than that...yeah, I dunno, I've already broken it down into tiny granules at this point and you're still not getting it.

TL;DR: Your opinion doesn't matter when there's readily available benchmark data at commonly accepted PC gaming standards around. Shut up.

#49 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@Geno: Get this through your thick skull: the vast majority of people here are not asking you what you'll need to run this game at benchmark tech standards, they're asking what they think they'll need to make the game look good and run good. Instead you're blabbering on and on about benchmarks which are running the game at, in my opinion, pointlessly high settings. The vast majority of people won't use 32xAA. The vast majority won't run at 1920x1080 or higher (again, Steam hardware review says the vast majority use a variety of resolutions less than 1920x1080, so all your BS about "hardcore gamers" is nothing but your fucking opinion). That's why there are so many people here that have been telling you that you're overestimating system requirements; it's because you're overestimating PC gaming standards in terms of the average PC gamer.

Typically the people that value their opinion over objective facts such as yourself are the people that I have the most trouble dealing with, since there is no logical common ground, and you are apparently impervious to evidence, common sense or reasoning. Best I can do is direct you to some hardware sites but other than that...yeah, I dunno, I've already broken it down into tiny granules at this point and you're still not getting it. Shut up.

#50 Posted by Geno (6479 posts) - 2 years, 2 months ago

@RsistncE said:

" @Geno: Get this through your thick skull: the vast majority of people here are not asking you what you'll need to run this game at benchmark tech standards, they're asking what they think they'll need to make the game look good and run good. Instead you're blabbering on and on about benchmarks which are running the game at, in my opinion, pointlessly high settings. The vast majority of people won't use 32xAA.

I. Never. Said. You. Needed. 32. X. AA.
No. Benchmark. Tests. At. That. AA. Level. Either.

@RsistncE said:

The vast majority won't run at 1920x1080 or higher (again, Steam hardware review says the vast majority use a variety of resolutions less than 1920x1080, so all your BS about "hardcore gamers" is nothing but your fucking opinion). That's why there are so many people here that have been telling you that you're overestimating system requirements; it's because you're overestimating PC gaming standards in terms of the average PC gamer.

We. Are. Talking. About. Perfect. Settings.
Not. Mid. End. Or. Average. Settings.

I. Proved. Earlier. That. Steam. Has. A. Large. Amount. Of. Casual. Gamers.
That. Makes. The. Survey. Unreliable. For. Gauging. Hardcore. PC. Gamers.

Benchmarks. Are. Run. At. Conventional. Max. Settings. For. PC. Gamers.
1920x1080. 4. X. AA. 16. X. AF.

The. Video. Shown. At. GDC. Was. Running. At. 1080p.

Your. Reasoning. Is. Fallacious.

I. Hope. I. Am. Talking. Slow. Enough. For. You.

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 is DICE's third numerical installment in the Battlefield franchise. It features a single player and co-operative campaign, as well as an extensive multiplayer component.

@RsistncE

@Geno

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

@RsistncE

Comment and Save