Battlefield 3 PC graphics settings explained

By Fred Dutton Published 25 October, 2011

From Low to Ultra, and everything in between.

The console version of Battlefield 3 is roughly equivalent to the PC game running at the lowest graphics setting, according to DICE.

An exhaustive hour-long presentation from Johan Andersson, the game's rendering architect, at the recent GeForce LAN 6 event in San Francisco, detailed in full how the game's PC visuals were put together and what its graphical settings actually mean.

In a nutshell, here's how Andersson broke it down:

Low = "lowest possible":

  • Similar visuals to consoles, lots of stuff disabled
  • Still contains the essential visuals not to be unfair in MP
  • Minimum: GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB RAM

Medium = "good performance":

  • Most important visual features enabled

High = "what the game is designed for":

  • All major features on except MSAA (if you have DX11 card)
  • Recommended: GeForce 560 TI or better

Ultra = "highest possible":

  • Intended mainly for multiple GPU machines for 60+fps

Want to know what you're missing out on if your machine can't handle Ultra mode?

"Ultra sort of cranks things up further," explained Andersson.

"The shadows are a little bit sharper, the terrain is a little bit more tessellated. And also a big setting we have on Ultra is anti-aliasing. We use our multi-sampling there which is really memory-consuming and performance-consuming in general.

"It looks better but it's not a giant step in visual quality. So if you have a multi-GPU machine, like a dual 580 or a dual 560 for that matter, you can run Ultra at 60fps."

You can see the full presentation below, broken up into six manageable chunks. Make sure you've got your jargon dictionary to hand.

For more on how to get the most out of the PC version of Battlefield 3 ahead of its launch this Friday, take a look at the recommended system requirements and Digital Foundry's tune-up advice.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (39) Latest comment 7 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bravestinsane #1 7 months ago

    all i know my 4870x2, cant even handle low, and that was better than a 8800..

    So they obviously only done development on Nvidia and left ATi out of the loop.

  • Inmediasress #2 7 months ago

    Ati is always left out of the loop.
    Wonder why people keep buying it anyway.
    I am not an Nvidia fanboy but fact is that most of the time screw ups only happen with Ati cards.
    I know that they can be as good as Nvidia cards or even better but that doesn't mean anything if the developers almost always intentionally "forget" to test/tune their games to Ati cards.

  • Diomedes117 #3 7 months ago

    What are you guys talking about? ATI/AMD cards play the game just fine. And the 4870X2 will definitely be able to handle it.

  • Tiiti #4 7 months ago

    My i7 2600k with a single 580 Lightning card ran the beta at 45fps through a 2560x1440 display on Caspien Border brilliantly. Why the need for the extra 15fps plus? Although I won't say 70-80fps in BC2 doesn't feel much nicer...

    Edit: This is on Ultra with full AA, etc...
    Edited by Tiiti at 25/10/11 @ 09:30

  • Tiiti #5 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:54 12-12-2011

  • hiddenranbir #6 7 months ago

    I auto got put on High and it runs like a dream. I honestly expected medium settings on its way.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #7 7 months ago

    Ultra sounds a bit like Crysis - brilliant looking but hardly anyone will play it.

  • Rob_B #8 7 months ago

    X6 @ 3.5GHz
    6GB RAM
    5850 @ 800/1075

    Runs at 1920, Vsync, everything on high except shadows on medium, 2XAA, 8X AF, I think Textures are also on Ultra.

    I don't think High/Ultra are limited to ninja rigs at all, runs luvly for me, probably not 60FPS but I see no tearing or slowdown so I couldnt care less! I think talk of the requirements has scared people a little.
    Edited by Rob_B at 25/10/11 @ 09:16

  • GAmbrose #9 7 months ago

    ATI (now AMD) graphics cards were poorly supported when it came to playing RAGE, but the Battlefield 3 BETA ran really well on my HD 6870. Sure I set everything to ULTRA and it was at least 40fps. Might have been due to low(ish) resolution of 1650x1080 though.

  • FanBoysSuck #10 7 months ago

    It's really nice to see dev's taking advantage of high end hardware. I'm grabbing this on 360 because of my clan but I'll be picking up the PC version when it's going cheap and the next generation of GPUs are out.

  • neilka #11 7 months ago

    How many FPS can I expect from my Voodoo2?

  • Dduckster #12 7 months ago

    @neilka How many FPS? 3! Wolfenstein, Doom and if you're lucky Quake

  • StooMonster #13 7 months ago

    Ultra all the way baby, give my Crossfire a stretch.

    Although I'm wondering more when to buy this; have loads of good games lined up, and might wait to see if it's available on platforms other than Origin after the initial rush.

    FanBoysSuck: next generation of GPUs are out

    Fudzilla recently reported that next-gen AMD's 28nm GPU branded HD 7000 range are pushed back to Q1 2012 for volume production, although are mentioned in the 11.11 drivers, we might see some review cards out before end of this year but you won't be able to buy one until January 2012.

    Also that's ahead of Nvidia who's next gen Kepler aren't due until end March 2012 maybe well into Q2 2012.

  • ISmoke #14 7 months ago

    Ran the beta fine at a stable 80fps on 1920x1080 with ultra with my two 5870's so I think I'll be fine. I'll be buying two 590s in the next few months as I hate AMDs support but that's another subject.

  • SirRodSpode #15 7 months ago

    I have never owned a PC that was able to play cutting edge games on über-max settings at launch. I've always had to stick to medium.

    A few years later when I've gone back with new hardware and played the game maxed out, it's no more fun, no more enjoyable than it ever was.

    Smooth frame rates and decent game play are what's important IMHO. The quality of visuals is neither here nor there. Sure you'll say wow at first but very quickly you'll forget about it and focus on the game itself.

    And by the time you do have a PC that will run it on ultra, there will be a new game that makes this one look tired and you'll need new hardware all over again.

    It's been the same story ever since 1997 and the first 3DFX Voodoo card.

    What annoys me with PCs though is they're saying LOW is equivalent to consoles but it needs an 8800GT 512Mb. 360 and PS3 have significantly less grunt than that!!

  • LFace #16 7 months ago

    There's videos on Youtube of the game running on lower spec cards than the "minimum required" and it looks alright to me. I have a lowly 9500GT card and according to their guidelines its not enough to run the game, but the vids on youtube show it running quite adequately.

  • obscured021 #17 7 months ago

    @1080p/ultra my 2600k with 2 GTX 570 did a solid 60fps on Caspien Border but often hit 90 fps, with any luck vsync will work on launch, and my mac book pro was doing 50fps on low settings, and it was just as much fun as playing on my desktop.

  • Liquidoodle #18 7 months ago

    Do we really need a trailer for Uncharted 3 before every video now? :S

    Looks awesome though :D

  • ThePissartist #19 7 months ago

    1. Consoles graphics are equivalent to the PC's lowest setting.
    2. Need to install game to HDD on 360 for higher resolution textures.
    3. Beta not a great deal of fun.

    These are the reasons I will not be buying this game.

  • ballshock #20 7 months ago

    Said it before and I'll say it again.
    Some people like to brag about their PC specs to compensate for their small penises.
    Edited by ballshock at 25/10/11 @ 12:35

  • Bravestinsane #21 7 months ago

    @Inmediasress..

    I absolutly know what you mean dude, trust me

    The problem is Nvidia are a hell of a lot more expensive, and if there was no ATi, then that will be EVEN more expensive beyond a joke.

    It's not that ATi are bad, i mean my card can run almost every game on High, albeit a few settings disabled to get rid of particle effects in modern games like Shogun 2, but still this not on low?

    Low doesn't look much better than BC2, albiet the trees and bushes a look a little nicer, textures are sharper but not immensely better.

    @Diomedes117

    Im talking about my Beta experience (YES I KNOW ITS A FUCKING BETA, so i don't want the "its a beta" remarks) However following the ATi driver updates they are all for the 5,6 series, only patch 4 series had was for rage and nothing to do with BF3.

    I have experienced it bad, and until i see improvements first hand i don't want to fork out for the game AS much as i REALLY want it.

    Would love to have a Nvidia card, but it's just price, a 580 is like £100 more than a 6970.

    Also i have only had it for 3 years... is it wrong of me to expect continued support for a product i spend £400 on at the time, i mean i want it to last years, i doubt i will buy a new card for the next 2 years, will be the 9 series of ATi before i upgrade.

    Im not asking for much, im not crying cause i can't play on Ultra like i can with MOST other games on the market, but for me to expect it to play on LOW is a simple thing.


    But based on the beta experience of BF3, my 4870x2, most defiantly can't handle it on low, despite auto settings putting it on high =/



    Anyway sorry for turning this into a little rant, but with 100 Battlefield articles a day, a little info on the Red side of things would be nice as well.

  • aldo_14 #22 7 months ago

    @Tiiti

    Ultra was disabled on the beta IIRC; the higher graphics setting didn't actually do anything.

  • Matfink #23 7 months ago

    'Video not found' error. Come ON EG!

  • JumpinJackFlash #24 7 months ago

    @SirRodSpode

    I agree with many of your points.For all the PC has to offer in terms of better frame rates and higher resolutions, etc, you still get the exact same experience on consoles.

    It's one of the many reasons i'm done with PC gaming.

    Consoles are the lead platform now, therefore developers are hardly pushing those £300/400 GPU's as it's mostly console ports the PC gets anyway.

  • Rob_B #25 7 months ago

    @Bravestinsane Then something is wrong with your rig, considering the 4870x2 is more powerful than my 5850 and the game plays smoothly for me…

  • StooMonster #26 7 months ago

    @llaa56 How do you ignore in the new EG?

  • Drygore #27 7 months ago

    The articles are STILL not working through your iPhone app. Fix it :-[

  • Bravestinsane #28 7 months ago

    @Rob_B


    Nope my card is fine, ATi or Dice are just doing fuck all about it.

    Take a look at the patch notes on the latest drivers, they are sorting out the 5 series and the6 series, 4 series have been left in the dark.

  • Rob_B #29 7 months ago

    @Bravestinsane Aaah, I forgot they targeted 5xxx and upwards, shame as the 4870x2 has some damn good grunt behind it.

    You could probably sell yours & buy a 5850/5870 for £0 difference but that shouldn't be the answer and you'll lose performance in other areas.

    To be fair though the 4 series is getting older now, they have to stop at some point although whether thats due to hardware limitations or just to get you to buy a 6xxx is another question.

    @ StooMonster - I'd tried to figure that one out too.

  • priesty_lfc #30 7 months ago

    Yawn.

  • Alkohallick #31 7 months ago

    Am I missing something or is there no longer a way to download the video instead of watching it via the stream?

  • Vic #32 7 months ago

    Can my i7 GTX 570 play this on ultra and get a decent frame rate?

  • Kaminari #33 7 months ago

    Look at the silly configs posted in this thread and try refraining to laugh. PC fanboyism in its full glory. (Yeah, I've *only* got a 3.3 quad-core and a single 4870.)

  • JumpinJackFlash #34 7 months ago

    What's the point spending £400 for a GPU when most games don't even take advantage of the hardware as it's mostly console ports these days. Yeah, you get higher FPS, etc but it's never enough to justify spending that much on a GPU. You can get the exact same experience on a console.

    Also, the PC platform is just an after thought now for publishers and developers as all the money to be made is on consoles.

  • gjgjg #35 7 months ago

    high for me then:) yippe

  • danidrums #36 7 months ago

    @Bravestinsane: My single 4870 1gb is handling the game with all settings at high at 40 with very few drops to 30's. Maybe it's your cpu? Don't get me wrong, just guessing ;)

  • Andeus #37 7 months ago

    @Bravestinsane No, there really must be something wrong there.

    I have a 4890 and I'm getting same performance as danidrums said on the previous comment, on high settings. Maybe your CPU is the problem? No idea.


    As for VGAs, NVidia loses on all the consumer segments on both performance and performance/money ratio.
    It's just that since they are rich they can pay developers to make many games as NTWIMTBP (=Nvidia The Way It's Meant To Be Played), thus scoring better compatibility.

    AMD remains the consumer friendly choice for now. We'll see how things will go with the new generation.

  • MuppetThumper #38 7 months ago

    So are there any PC tech savvy types out there who can tell me whether this will run (and at what settings) on the smallest Alienware laptop, the M11x?

    Specifically I have the i5 processor option, 4Gigs RAM and the stock Nvidia g335M 1GB gfx card

  • TudeScud #39 7 months ago

    Running two 590s SLi is a waste. You're much better off cross-firing three 6970s as they cost less and scale better at higher resolutions. The AMD support will come in time.