Preparing your PC for Battlefield 3

By Richard Leadbetter Published 22 October, 2011

Give it a Digital Foundry tune-up.

Page 1 of 3

In an age where triple-A game development leads on console, there's a strong argument that cutting-edge PC development is a thing of the past, a relic of a bygone era. But next week, PC gaming enthusiasts can afford themselves a little old-school rejoicing, because DICE's Battlefield 3 changes that: it's a top-of-the-line experience that leverages the power of PC architecture and offers up a game that is technologically way in advance of its console siblings.

So is now the time for the enthusiast gamer to consider a PC upgrade? There are some compelling arguments. For a start, we're approaching a time of transition in the games market. Realistically we are now just two years away from the release of next-gen hardware from Microsoft and perhaps Sony. Developers are embracing the new technological possibilities offered by DirectX 11 on PC because it's a stepping stone to the next wave of consoles. In that respect, a PC upgrade offers a taste of tomorrow's games today - with the added bonus that, in most cases, you get a console-beating experience by default on virtually every multi-platform game released today.

In this article we'll be taking a look at Battlefield 3 and what's required from a hardware perspective to handle the game at its higher quality levels. We're assuming that a top-end BF3 experience in the here and now will be more than enough to handle games over the next couple of years until the next-gen consoles come along. We'll be offering up tips on how to upgrade your system, and making suggestions on brand new PC gaming hardware if your current rig is a lost cause.

First up, let's take a look at the official minimum and recommended specs:

Minimum system requirements

  • OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
  • Processor: Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz or Athlon X2 2.7GHz
  • RAM: 2GB
  • Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card, ATI Radeon 3870 or higher, Nvidia GeForce 8800GT or higher
  • Graphics card memory: 512MB
  • Sound card: DirectX compatible sound card
  • Hard drive: 15GB for disc version or 10GB for digital version

Recommended system requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • Processor: Quad core Intel or AMD CPU
  • RAM: 4GB
  • Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950
  • Graphics card memory: 1GB
  • Sound card: DirectX compatible sound card
  • Hard drive: 15GB for disc version or 10GB for digital version
battlefield1
battlefield2

It's safe to assume that you're going to require something in excess of the minimum recommended spec in order to get the PC version of Battlefield 3 running with the level of graphical 'bling' we see here.

We kicked off by taking a look at the recent Battlefield 3 multiplayer beta on something close to the minimum spec - this is the sort of PC you could probably buy from eBay second-hand for around £200 to £250. We ran a Pentium E2140 overclocked to 2.66GHz and married it up with an NVIDIA 250GTS - this is basically the same as the 9800GTX. On top of that, we ran with 3GB of RAM - a spare gig over the minimal level.

The results were best described as sub-optimal. Whether we ran the game at 1680x1050 or 1280x720, frame-rate varied between 20-30FPS even on lower settings, and it's clear that the game was really struggling, visibly stuttering in terms of both audio and video.

So if you already own a PC like this, where do you go from here in getting a superior Battlefield 3 experience? First up, it's important to know exactly what components you have in your system. CPUID's CPU-Z is the tool of choice for identifying system components. From there, it's a case of figuring what can be upgraded - if anything - and how you can do it.

Step 1: The CPU

The brains of your system. While the graphics card is most directly tied into game performance, CPU power is increasingly becoming much more important. The future is "many core" and most games these days are optimised for quad-core systems. Battlefield 3 is a case in point: tests reveal that an Intel Core i3 530 CPU running the game in "ultra" mode at a tiny 640x480 resolution offers just 25-26 per cent of the performance of the exact same setup using a Core i5 quad core CPU.

In assessing a CPU upgrade to an existing system, there are two routes going forward:

If your PC was prebuilt by an OEM like Dell or HP: Go to the support website, find the quad core (or even hex core) CPUs supported by your platform, then use Google to double-check on enthusiast forums - sometimes more powerful CPUs are compatible, but are not officially recognised. Figure out which CPU offers the best price vs. performance and go for it.

cpu1
cpu2

Two CPUs that will run Battlefield 3 admirably well. On the left we have hex core AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, while on the right we have Intel's 2600K quad core chip.

If your PC was custom-built: Use CPU-Z to determine the motherboard you have in your system, go to the support website of the vendor and see which chips are supported and make your choice from there. In all cases, you should update the BIOS of your motherboard to the latest in order to make sure that the most recent CPUs are supported. Failure to do this could result in the system failing to boot once you've swapped the chip over.

Recommendations: A system with an Intel Core 2 Duo should easily be able to run a Core 2 Quad. After a BIOS update, it's a simple drop-in replacement and provides up to a 200 per cent improvement in frame-rates. However, not all quads are equal: swapping an AMD Phenom X2 to an bargain basement Athlon X4 quad core only gave something in the region of a 33 per cent boost but the improvement is substantial by scaling up to a Phenom II X4. The newest Intel "Sandy Bridge" chips provide the best performance for Battlefield 3, but the AMD Phenom II X6 hex core CPUs are very worthy runners-up and are highly cost efficient, and the Phenom II quads appear to offer marginally superior performance to the older Intel Core 2 Quads.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (107) Latest comment 7 months ago

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

  • George-Roper #1 7 months ago

    Yeah baby, just got my new build through specifically for Skyrim and this. I don't want to be messing about with low frame-rates on such beautiful looking games.

    Bring em on!

  • TONYgr #2 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:58 12-12-2011

  • dxm #3 7 months ago

    I tried running the pc beta on my aged pc rig. Hasn't been touched in something like four years.
    Intel core 2 duo (1.8 something), 8800 gts (I think), lots o ram. It ran like a dog. Didn't check the framerate or anything so not very scientific, but it was clearly a no go.
    So it's a complete rebuild, motherboard up for me.

  • Leolian #4 7 months ago

    Beta ran great on my core2quah 6600 and radeon 5850. High rather than ultra settings tho.

  • Immaterial #5 7 months ago

    Now do the same thing for laptops.

  • SaintDaveUK #6 7 months ago

    Nice, I bought their recommended 560ti setup a couple of months ago, but with an i7 2600. BF3 beta looked so good!

  • Errol #7 7 months ago

    Already purchased a new system specifically for BF3:

    i72600K (overclocked)
    8gb system ram
    gtx 580 Gainward 'good'
    128mb SSD

    Also going to order new ASUS rog 27 inch 1080 monitor.

  • WAusJackBauer #8 7 months ago

    There's no point in deciding if you're going to upgrade your computer from playing the beta, or even after playing the game at launch for that matter. Wait about 2 months after launch, there's bound to be a few patches that improve performance and possibly even a 2nd set of graphics drivers to help (yes I know they're releasing Nvidia drivers for BF3 on monday, but there could be another set afterwards)

  • Pinky_Floyd #9 7 months ago

    Ran between 30-60 fps on ultra at 1080p on my system which is:Q6600 @ 3.2ghz4gb ramRadeon 5850

  • kirankara #10 7 months ago

    Ill be honest, dropping between £500 & £700 on a new pc to play this one.game, just isn't appealing. I'll stick to consoles for now , as pc gaming just sounds too expensive and too complex.

  • aphex187 #11 7 months ago

    Looking for a new card guys! Got around £200 to spend, currently running the GTX465 1GB with an i5 Sandbridge and 8GB DDR3.

  • Rack #12 7 months ago

    Bollocks can something with a core 2 duo run a core 2 quad. This is the PC and PCs are fundamentally impossible to upgrade. Whatever your system was the only things you can re-use are the case and the PSU, ANY upgrade demands a new mobo.

  • mcwildcard #13 7 months ago

    Here's a handy chart for finding the power draw for specific graphics cards, it helped me greatly when I was upgrading my 200w itx system recently:
    http://www.geeks3d.com/20090618/graphics...

  • LHH #14 7 months ago

    My 955 and 6950 run GoG games really well

  • Mindstorm #15 7 months ago

    mmh I wonder how much I could get out of my system

    amd phenom II BE (three cores unlocked)
    4ddr3 gig ram
    GTX 460 SE OC
    Windows7 64

    I'd be happy with a 1360x768 at high settings, even 720p high would be totally fine.

  • Darren #16 7 months ago

    "However, in our testing with the beta we found that a single GTX580 in combination with a 3.33GHz Core i7 gave us around 55-60FPS in most cases."

    Exactly the same setup I have and I was getting around 50-60 fps on both maps in the beta at 1920x1200 with maxed out settings and high AA. Game looked very good I thought, shame then that I have no interest in actually playing it...

  • Darren #17 7 months ago

    @kirankara - You're not just upgrading for one game though; all your games will benefit from the upgrade and give improved performance across the board allowing you to, say, crank up the settings to max, add more anti-aliasing and even run at higher resolutions even with multiformat games.

    I tend to upgrade my graphics card when I come across two or three games that I cannot max out the graphics setting at my preferred resolution of 1920x1200 with at least 8xAA. Fortunately, with the number of console-led multiformat games it means that my three year old Core i7-920 is still a beast for every game I play and I've only had to replace the graphics card once (technically it's twice but I consider the HD 5870 CFX setup I had for six months to have been a huge mistake as the drivers were pitiful IMO - I should have just stuck with NVIDIA).

  • Eraysor #18 7 months ago

    I've built my own PCs for about 8 years but this was a good article regardless.

  • Arsecake_Baker #19 7 months ago

    @kirankara

    I concur, the cost and hassle for just one game albiet a phenomonal one is just way too prohibitive, pc gaming on a such a scale is still a world for the uber geek, the majority who will be playing BF (yes the majority) will not have a clue in the world the game is even playable on a "home computer."

  • aphex187 #20 7 months ago

    I ask a question on what card to upgrade too and someone neg's me down? WTF? some people on here are fkn plebs.

  • kutocer #21 7 months ago

    Well I think my system should be able to handle it.

    i7 2600
    8gb DDR3@1600
    2x560ti Twin Frozr in Sli
    74gb Raptor with a Samsung F3
    Antec 850w Signature
    Asus 23" 3D Monitor

  • orangpelupa #22 7 months ago

    i though DF will tell if there any performance improvements over the BETA...
    im hoping it got more optimized in final release...

    on my 3 years old PC,
    Phenom II x2 550BE (unlock to 4 cores)
    Radeon HD 4770 512MB (DX10.1 class)

    the BETA give me 30-45fps in low -> (customized) high.
    weird, almost no performance difference at all. (but the visual difference is there)

    "Windows can get a bit shirty about memory with mixed specs, so make sure that the RAM you buy exactly matches what's already in there in terms of speed/latency"

    isnt that actually BIOS problem?

    and usually can be a workaround, by placing the SLOWEST RAM in the first slot, can be read as SLOT 0. (or number 1, depends on the label in mainboard).

  • kutocer #23 7 months ago

    @aphex187

    Lol why someone would neg ya.... No idea instead should have helped ya out. I upgraded from a GTX 275 to a 560Ti Twin Frozr and it storms through all my existing games. I managed to get hold of a 2nd cheap so I Sli'd up and was getting 50-80fps on high, we all know that the Ultra mode was locked out so I have a little room to play when trying Ultra. My first I got from Scan was for £180 so I would recommend this card.
    Edited by kutocer at 22/10/11 @ 11:01

  • Mindstorm #24 7 months ago

    @orangpelupa
    same CPU as you but my 4th core turned out to be unstable under stress. Did you do something to increase stability?

  • aphex187 #25 7 months ago

    @kutocer

    Hey thx for the reply m8! ;)

    Have you played RAGE by any chance? if so how was the performance with your card?

    Again thx for the reply bud ;)

    edit** what about buying another 465?
    Edited by aphex187 at 22/10/11 @ 11:24

  • Nephirion #26 7 months ago

    I would advise to wait for driver updates and patches, take rage for example runs pretty badly on nvidia because claimed by ID that the drivers are no good, at the time of posting nvidia still haven't released an updated set, so it is impossible to gauge the performance of your hardware without properly working and tested drivers.

  • Ryboy #27 7 months ago

    Chillblast.com are also excellent.

  • obscured021 #28 7 months ago

    @1080p with 2 gtx 580/2600k at max settings on the big map it was hanging around the 80-90 fps mark with the beta drivers.

  • Corben_Dallas #29 7 months ago

    LOL.... Buy a new one u PC Scrubs!!!!!
    Edited by Corben_Dallas at 22/10/11 @ 19:37

  • souljah #30 7 months ago

    What about the OS? Won't you need to re-install if you change motherboard or CPU?

  • LHH #31 7 months ago

    @Aphex

    The 465s were crap when released. Just jump straight to the 5xx series and sell the 465 to some mug on ebay

  • kutocer #32 7 months ago

    @aphex187

    Yup finsihed Rage and it blew it out of the water on max on a single 560ti and I never noticed a performance drop, got SLI off right now as it lag's Fifa 12 and any game I throw at it right now runs at max. Once Batman:AC, Skyrim and BF3 (ofc) are out SLi will be on.

    Have a read of this about 465 and make your own mind up. [link url=http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-sli-review/11
    ]http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gt...[/link]

    Kut...
    Edited by kutocer at 22/10/11 @ 11:53

  • StooMonster #33 7 months ago

    Preparing your PC for Battlefield 3

    #1. Working drivers

  • orangpelupa #34 7 months ago

    @mindstorm
    to stable in 4 cores i unplug one of my ODD.

    previousply i use 5 HDD and 2 ODD.
    4 cores = unstable

    then i unplug one of the ODD, it become stable.


    so in my case, i have perfectly healthy 4 cores but my PSU that seems not enough Wattage.

    in your case, it can be like me PSU problem,
    but also can be the 4th core is really broken in your CPU.

    basically unlocking is lucky if got all cores healthy.

    thanks, and sorry bad english :)

  • metatron197924 #35 7 months ago

    my i7 920 at 4.2 and my gtx 295 could play this game at 1080p without aa at 60 fps my xbox 360 is for other games and i dont let the inferior xbox to ruin the game i waiting

  • TheVoice #36 7 months ago

    For anyone interested in a pre-built, I can highly recommend the Dell Outlet - they sell all the systems that people have ordered and then cancelled, or returned because they're unwanted, wrong spec, have superficial damage etc. Got myself an XPS 8300 with Core 7 2600, 8GB of RAM, 2x1TB HDDs and a Radeon 6870 1GB for £600 - the same machine brand new is £840 after a 15% discount code. Brand new condition too, still had all the protective plastic film on the front bezel, and even had a wireless card inside which is usually another £20. Even managed to get Dell to upgrade the RAM after they supplied it with 4x2GB rather than 2x4GB as advertised. Works out even cheaper than building your own.

    Ran the BF3 beta flawlessly on high settings at 1680x1050, the game looked utterly superb. Great system too, very quiet.

  • Andeus #37 7 months ago

    Overkill builds like Errol's on the comment above, make me a little sad (no offense or anything m8, don't mean to, anyway). Unless he plans on SLI'ing that PC.

    For single-vga strictly gaming configurations on 1080p, i7 is a waste of money.

    An i5 or a Phenom II X4 965 is more than enough. Nowadays it's the GPU that bottlenecks your system, not your CPU. So any excess CPU overhead you get from i7 is pretty much wasted.

    Benchmark examples on BF3 beta:

    [link url=http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/gaming-software/13498
    ]http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/gami...[/link]

    (site is down atm? I get a SQL error so I'll post a couple of pics from there that I have cached)

    High settings:
    [link url=http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stories/bf3beta/intelhigh.jpg
    ]http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stori...[/link]
    [link url=http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stories/bf3beta/amdhigh.jpg
    ]http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stori...[/link]

    Max Settings:
    [link url=http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stories/bf3beta/intelmax.jpg
    ]http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stori...[/link]
    [link url=http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stories/bf3beta/amdmax.jpg
    ]http://www.hitechlegion.com/images/stori...[/link]

    As you can see the difference on a high end card like GTX 580 is a couple FPS, which is negligible. Does that mean that a 965 is as powerful as an i7 2600k that costs 160+ more euros?
    Nope, it means that this is as far the GTX 580 can go and thus it limits both CPUs to the same processing power, thus making i7's overhead over the 965, wasted. That's a GPU bottleneck right there.

    To alleviate that you need 2 VGAs in SLi/Crossfire to increase the VGA output and make use of the CPUs excess processing power.

    Bottom line: Unless you do professional work such as 3DSMax, Cinebench, high-end Photoshop, rendering etc. or you have at least 2 VGAs, an i7 is a total waste of money better spent elsewhere. An i5 2500k is ideal and a Phenom II 955/965 will do everything just fine.Give them an aftermarket cooler and an Overclock and you can get even more CPU power for your money

    If someone told you otherwise or sold you an i7 as a single-vga 1080p gaming CPU then either he's clueless or ripped you off.

    Still it's a beast of a CPU, so nothing to worry about!
    Edited by Andeus at 22/10/11 @ 12:45

  • self_titled #38 7 months ago

    Just finished building my own PC! The Eurogamer article How to Build Your Own Gaming PC (although massively tongue-in-cheek!) is what made me sit down and really think about doing it. Having had a 360 from launch, I was desperate for a decent step up in gaming. And now with BF3, we're finally gonna get it.

    So glad to read DF's recommendations, since I'm running a ASUS P8P67, i5 2500K, 8Gb RAM, 96Gb SSD, 2Tb HDD, Twin Frozr II 560Ti setup. Took me ages to decide upon everything and get it on budget (£1000-ish for everything except the monitor) but that was part of the fun. Spent about four hours putting it together one night, then a couple of hours installing software the next night. Now that I've been introduced to Steam, the performance difference against my 360 is incredible. I'm currently replaying Batman: AA (a fiver off Steam!) before the PC release of AC and am totally amazed by how much better it looks than the 360. So I am mega-excited to get on BF3 and really put my system to the test!

    @kutocer: I think I'll be joining you with the SLi as soon as my bank account recovers!

  • kirankara #39 7 months ago

    @Darren
    "@kirankara - You're not just upgrading for one game though; all your games will benefit from the upgrade and give improved performance across the board allowing you to, say, crank up the settings to max, add more anti-aliasing and even run at higher resolutions even with multiformat games.

    I tend to upgrade my graphics card when I come across two or three games that I cannot max out the graphics setting at my preferred resolution of 1920x1200 with at least 8xAA. Fortunately, with the number of console-led multiformat games it means that my three year old Core i7-920 is still a beast for every game I play and I've only had to replace the graphics card once (technically it's twice but I consider the HD 5870 CFX setup I had for six months to have been a huge mistake as the drivers were pitiful IMO - I should have just stuck with NVIDIA)."

    I understand what you are saying, it's just the number of games that would add sufficient upgrades in quality, in terms of frame rate, resolution, etc etc, to the games I play on console, just arent high enough. Games like bf3 and crysis 2 when running dx11 look amazing, but most other games are nicer no doubt, but just not big enough difference to make me get excited about. The frame rate advantage would be nicer in most cases though tbh. After playing rage on 360 recently, I can finally appreciate those 60fps differences Ive always said I couldnt really notice.

    I am happy to wait a little longer till consoles are upgraded, and i dont have to feck about with all the hassles of pc gaming . i see all the complaints in threads about pc gaming with drivers etc etc, and just think, i wouldnt have patience or know how to fix most these issues. i was close to buying gaming pc over summer, but just couldnt be bothered after I weighed everything up.

    this game looks stunning though.

  • kutocer #40 7 months ago

    @self_titled

    Batman:AA With SLI on I play full wack everything on and it run's like a dream and looks stunning and in 3D :D I can't wait for AC to grace my screen. Only reason I got a 2nd was because it came with a 20" monitor for £180 which I sold. Wouldn't have otherwise.

  • LHH #41 7 months ago

    @Andeus

    Well that's what happens when people want to brag and jump on the "master race" platform without actually having done any research into what makes PCs tick and the requirements that would suit your applications best. I find the same sort of people always post their system specs in their message board signatures.

  • Ryze #42 7 months ago

    Q6600 / 6GB RAM / AMD Radeon 3870 currently here.

    I've tonnes of storage, but a new DX11 GPU and the best CPU for my current MBoard are probably in order here.

    No rush however. I'll watch prices and jump in when I'm ready. It'll be an nVidia though, as I've had enough during the past 10 years spending hours pissing around with ATi drivers. They're they're like Sony where software's concerned. Hit and miss.
    Edited by Ryze at 22/10/11 @ 13:09

  • DirectAim #43 7 months ago

    Mobo: Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD5-B3 P67 Socket 1155 GB LAN 8 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard
    Memory: Corsair XMS3 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit
    Case: Antec 902 v3
    Gfx: Asus ATI Radeon HD 6950 OC 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express
    Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4GHz (Sandybridge)
    Power: OCZ ZX Series 850W '80 Plus Gold' Modular Power Supply

    Runs everything on Ultra no problem. It will eat Skyrim, BF3, MW3 and the rest for breakfast!

    Just saving up for 3 monitors for eyefinity. The base unit cost me £1200 with a view to spending another £500 on monitors. Already had keyboard and mouse.

    A PC can be used to make money from places like ebay, facebook etc. Convince yourself that its worth spending silly money on a PC because of the time you will spend on it and the money it will make you!

    Thats what I did lol!

  • DirectAim #44 7 months ago

    I also want to point out that if you have a average graphics card, you maybe able to buy another identical gfx card and run 2 gfx cards in cross fire, this will boost performace!

  • Davemanz #45 7 months ago

    The nvidia 580 is a horrible waste of money - the performance you get over the 560ti for the extra cost is simply not worth it. I'm using a 560ti I just got for the BF3 beta and the game ran flawlessly - you don't need to drop that much money for this game.

  • knightmt #46 7 months ago

    It is not the hardware that is difficult, I would happily change my motherboard and processor, but then I have to fuck around with the OS. I really should get a dedicated PC for games. I would like SATA 3 does this make a difference with SSD's.

  • spekkeh #47 7 months ago

    I read "Preparing your anus for Battlefield". Curse you interwebs for defiling my innocence.

  • Sharzam #48 7 months ago

    I have a GTX 570 GLH, which is a bit overclocked and i was getting solid 60fps on ultra 1080p in the beta with the beta drivers. Althourgh i dont tend to have more than 4X AA.

    So all this talk of using GTX580 in SLI i find rather odd as thats a huge amount of power but i cant think how would use it, unless were talking multi monitor/3D.
    Edited by Sharzam at 22/10/11 @ 14:30

  • Tyronne #49 7 months ago

    Seriously considering getting rid of my steel battalion bundle and my sega multi mega to get myself a new decent spec pc...think it is about time I put them up on ebay as the multi megas alone are going for about £250 quid on there.

  • BeachGaara #50 7 months ago

    *waves chicken around*

    Didn't read, pc is already rad.

  • Uncompetative #51 7 months ago

    Curious to see if this would work on my Quad-Core iMac under Boot Camp:

    4 x 2.5 Ghz Intel Core i5

    4 GB RAM 1333 Mhz DDR3

    AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512 MB

    101.75 GB free for a Windows and Game installation

    I'm unlikely to get it on the Mac as I do all my gaming on my 360, but it would be nice to know if it were capable as I never do anything to stretch it at the moment - just surfing WWW and .rtf files in TextEdit.

  • Goodfella #52 7 months ago

    People are going overboard here with system specs. Battlefield 3 will run superbly on a 'mid range' classed PC. For a cheap and very good upgrade get a GTX460 1Gb, it's also very easily and safely overclocked by quite a lot so it's better than the more expensive 470.

    http://www.ebuyer.com/232853-gigabyte-gt...
    Edited by Goodfella at 22/10/11 @ 15:21

  • Badassbab #53 7 months ago

    Goodfella-

    Depends on what the video settings are. Mid range PC will not be able to get anywhere near the coveted 1080p/60fps @ Ultra high settings.

    Me? I'll be glad @ 720p/60fps @ Ultra high since I like to game on my HDTV.

  • TheMoonRat #54 7 months ago

    indeed, people seems obsessed with only being able to play a pc game if you can run it at 1080p on ultra settings with 8x anti aliasing. The reality is, you don't need those insane settings to be able to enjoy the game.

  • Goodfella #55 7 months ago

    Exactly, and it will still look significantly better on a good mid range PC compared to the console versions.

  • todoso #56 7 months ago

    This article reinforces my personal belief:
    Yes, I would love to play games on premium gear, hell even just watch games be played.
    No, I will never spend the money on premium gear and
    No, I will never spend the time learning the intricacies of PC gaming.
    Yes, I'm a console-tard.

  • Timotei #57 7 months ago

    It ran fine on my PC, a core 2 quad and a GTX260 with 4GB RAM.

    Obviously that's only DX10, but it ran fine on the highest settings. Only 1280x1024 though.

  • azic #58 7 months ago

    No probs here on i72600K OC to 4.6GHZ
    Z68x mobo
    Dual 590's GTX
    8GB RAM
    2000 Watt PSU
    Corsair water cooling CPU
    Air for the gpus

  • Goodfella #59 7 months ago

    @azic

    Nobody likes a show off.

  • MattyD #60 7 months ago

    You cant just bung in a load of ram and get double or triple channel, you need to set the bios properly and may also need to put the ram sticks into particular slots for the configuration you want, depending on the motherboard. The article doesn't make this clear.

  • Rens11 #61 7 months ago

    Built my first PC a couple months back
    Z68 mobo
    Intel 2500k
    6870 black edition
    Antec 550w psu
    Samsung f3 Hdd
    Pioneer disk drive
    Thermaltake dokker case
    Cost about £520 and was surprisingly easy to build and I'm useless with tools. scary locking the CPU into place though! If anyone's considering it I'd say go for it the games look amazing and you can get some proper bargains too e.g gta pack off steam which includes gta 1234 both episodes from liberty city San Andreas and vice city for a fiver!

  • TaruKeys #62 7 months ago

    Phenom II X6 1090T @3.8
    8 Gb GSkills
    Radeon HD 5850
    Caviar Black SATA 3 1 Tb

    I just need a SSD or a raid now

    I was running everything at ultra settings exept shadows and textures with 60ish fps at 1680x1050 4x AA and 16 AF. At cap I had like 25-35 fps, it did not worth it for me and the difference wasnt big at all. I'm confident I won't be far behind full settings in the retail version. It cost me 800$ CAD. Not bad at all in my opinion. Learn and custom your pc guys, it's so worth it and after that, you won't depend on others to help you. Plugs and cables in a PC are made for retards. It's very simple to build a PC.
    Edited by TaruKeys at 22/10/11 @ 18:23

  • WJF #63 7 months ago

    I just popped an MSI Twin Frozr 580GTX in my (budget) Athlon X4 3Ghz machine and I'm running BC2 at 1080, 60fps, everything at max, 32x AA (I didn't even know it went up that high before today!). That's a hell of a lot better than the 450GTS ever managed.

    Was a lot of money - £380 is my idea of a new PC - but I doubt it'll have too many issues with BF3, and given it's a high-end card it should fetch a good price on eBay for a number of years to come should I want to upgrade again.

    Also 32x AA on a 21" screen is completely pointless. Pretty if you take a magnifying glass up to the screen, though ;-)

  • Snaggletooth #64 7 months ago

    @Kutocer

    nice PSU....you clearly know about your hardware.

  • TheGuvernor #65 7 months ago

    Ran great on my washing machine with quad core hamsters & a pair of socks in SLI.
    Think I need more detergent though.

  • Davemanz #66 7 months ago

    @WJF

    I got the MSI Twin Frozr 560ti, and I agree, it's a great card. I'm living in a really hot part of the states so having a cool-running rig was really important to me.

  • aphex187 #67 7 months ago

    @kutocer

    Yeah RAGE ran ok with frames from 60 down to 30 yet i did notice it locking up from time to time yet it never went below 30!?

    Might SLi another 465 then or go for a 570 ;)

    Thx anyway m8 for your help ;)
    Edited by aphex187 at 22/10/11 @ 19:32

  • kutocer #68 7 months ago

    @Snaggletooth

    PMSL Yeah I sure do!!!

    @aphex187

    I would if I had the money gone for a 570 Sli setup as they do rock but from a price performance side of things the 560Ti is a great little card for the cost.
    Edited by kutocer at 22/10/11 @ 19:39

  • BraveLilCrumpet #69 7 months ago

    My specs are:

    Intel i7 2600k CPU
    8GB DDR3 Corsair Vengeance RAM
    MSI Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II GPU
    Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM 600GB SATA 3 HDD
    Asus P8P67 Deluxe Motherboard
    Corsair 850w HX series PSU

    I ran the beta on default settings which were set to "high" at a res of 1920x1200.
    The beta also ran on "ultra" but I did see a drop in FPS although it was still playable.

    Something that hasn't been mentioned in this article is a site I came across a few weeks back:

    [link url=http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10482/
    ]http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10482/
    [/link]

    It scans your system and gives you feedback if you can run the game or not. It may come in useful for some...

  • Goodfella #70 7 months ago

    Maybe it's not that we are super uber geeks, it's just that you have sub par intelligence? Look at what name you chose and tell me I'm wrong.

    Haha, yeah that's about right. I'm not some 'super uber geek', far from it really but I like my gadgetry and I've done my own research for years and been building my own PC's for years now. It really isn't rocket science or something only these supposed uber geeks can do.
    Edited by Goodfella at 22/10/11 @ 20:52

  • loboMuerto #71 7 months ago

    This is the problem with gaming laptops... upgrades are marginal at best and I won't buy a new one or build a new desktop just to play one game. Well, good thing I'm not into military action: shooting guys for Queen and country has gotten stale over the years.

  • Darksjeik #72 7 months ago

    @TonyGR

    Batman AC is an UE3 game, slightly higher res textures on PS3, better framerate and ambient occlusion on 360. Winner 360. That how things work with UE3 in general.

  • WJF #73 7 months ago

    "It really isn't rocket science or something only these supposed uber geeks can do."

    I'd echo that. Tbh, I rarely upgrade my PC, but when I do I spend an hour or two looking at benchmarks and reading reviews from tech sites, then I order what I think I need (and what I can afford). I get caught out occasionally as I don't follow things closely anymore - last upgrade my PSU didn't have the right connection for the card, for instance - but it's never anything serious.

    In the past when you had to flick jumpers with screwdrivers in certain positions just to eek out 10Mhz, the wrong combination shorting your CPU, then - yeah - it was for uber-geeks.

    Nowadays everything is packed with safety features and are designed so everyone can fit everything. Hell, even the cards just literally slot straight in (rather than require forcing them ever-so-slightly stronger than is comfortable for an expensive component!)

  • Andeus #74 7 months ago

    Since the article and lots of peeps here talk about BF3 beta and how many FPS they got, let's clarify something:

    According to DICE there weren't any Ultra settings in BETA. When you selected Ultra in the options menu, you got the high ones. When you selected high ones you got...well, the high ones again.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even include the full HD assets in the beta client (I know they didn't on the BC2 PC beta).

    One more tip for a tad bit more advanced PC gamers on a budget: DF suggests a Radeon 6870 as a great performance/value card, which is true.
    What it didn't mention is that the ultimate in performance/value is a Radeon 6850 under certain circumstances.

    You see, the 6870 is pretty much an overclocked 6850, an overclock that you can do yourself manually @ home via AMDs driver software. If you feel confident about overclocking then you can get a 6850, overclock it to 6870 numbers (or even more, search the web for the right numbers) and save yourself some money.

    Even noise and power will be at around the same levels as a 6870.

    Also, someone mentioned a GTX 460 1 GB. I know it's a bit of a subjective matter (hey, some people prefer Nvidia others AMD) but I wouldn't recommend that. The 460 has a worse performance/money ratio than the AMD offerings and uses way more power (I think like 50W more on load? can't remember the benchmark right now off the top of my head).

    If you want to go Nvidia then go for GTX 560 and above. Even then you have to consider the 6950 1GB which simply is better than Nvidia's 560Ti, although the latter has seen a very nice price reduction recently, making it a great buy.

    Oh and by the way there's a rumour that after BF3 is released Nvidia and AMD will offer BF3 for free as a bundle with select video cards (I believe 560Ti and above for Nvidia and 6870 and above for AMD).

    Currently you can get Batman: AC with select Nvidia cards and Dirt3+Deus Ex:HR with select AMD cards. Remember that these offers are on select retailers too, so search for the right store before you buy
    Edited by Andeus at 23/10/11 @ 00:41

  • Andeus #75 7 months ago

    Also for people looking to buy a video card, or have a look at what's going on with VGAs this is a good guide, which is updated each month:

    Best Graphics Cards for the Money: October 2011.

    [link url=http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-graphics-card-gaming-performance,review-32301.html
    ]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-graph...[/link]

    PS: I know that this is, essentially, a double post but since the previous one looked more like a wall of text, I decided to put this in a new one. Harder to miss and it might help some people reading these comments.
    Edited by Andeus at 23/10/11 @ 00:31

  • Davemanz #76 7 months ago

    Good posts, Andeus, thanks.

    For those looking to SLI/Crossfire two weaker cards, know that you're probably not going to get the best value for your money: you're better off just upgrading to a newer card. SLI/Crossfire generally follows the law of diminishing returns.

    And, as stated, there's very little gaming need to spring for an i7; an i5 will handle everything games throw at it from a CPU standpoint.
    Edited by Davemanz at 23/10/11 @ 01:50

  • MrSandwicHead #77 7 months ago

    i5 Sandybridge 3.3Ghz @ 4.7Ghz
    Two Asus GTX560ti's in SLI
    8GB Corsair Vengeance RAM
    Asus P8P67 Motherboard
    Two Corsair 60GB SSD's
    2TB Hitachi SATA III HDD
    Corsair TX950 Power Supply

    Runs Crysis highest settings, 8AA, 1080p and get 80fps...

    Battlefield 3 at over 60fps?... No sweat!...

  • stoopidgreg #78 7 months ago

    The Intel 2500K is the chip to beat at the moment. It's in the price sweet spot, comes unlocked and people have been getting very impressive overclocks with basic cooling.

    I was a bit disappointed the article didn't even mention overclocking. Who buys or builds a system and doesn't overclock it - you're losing out on a good 30% extra power if you don't. Even stock coolers can let you overclock a fair bit. I just built a 2500K system (first upgrade in over 3 years!) and got a "modest" overclock from 3.3 to 4.3 GHz with just a £16 Zaward Vapor 120 cooler.
    Edited by stoopidgreg at 23/10/11 @ 03:04

  • azic #79 7 months ago

    @Goodfella
    Everybody must else who posts specs must be showing off then.
    Thinking about it, I'm actually an idiot as I own 2 cards that are more than will be dated very soon, and I'll have to of them!
    Also means spending money on newer cards is limited.
    So I fail to see how I'm showing off? But if that's how it came across let me apologise as that's not what I intended to do.

  • Mentat_Idaho #80 7 months ago

    @souljah

    You don't have to reinstall windows when you change your mobo/CPU, though it isn't a straightforward process. You can find guides online for it if you look around. I personally would reinstall though if I changed those components. I wouldn't bother if I changed anything else.

    Another thing not mentioned in the article that is worth knowing is that you have to install 64 bit windows if you want to utilise more than 4 Gb RAM, and that includes your VGA card RAM.

    I just recently upgraded, and ended up going for the i5 2500k. I was considering the i7 2600k, but after looking at benchmarks online decided it wasn't worth the extra 100 USD or 70 quid. I haven't pushed the limits of the chip yet, but I also got it running at 4.3 GHz and that was just using ASUS automatic overclock available on some of their motherboards. At some point I'm going to see how much performance gain I can get doing it manually.

  • aphex187 #81 7 months ago

    @kutocer

    Cheers m8 might just look into that 560 ;)

  • rodpad #82 7 months ago

    Good to see you promoting sensible wattage Richard. The amount of enthusiasts recommending 1000w PSUs for your average build is pretty shocking.

  • Scimarad #83 7 months ago

    "....DICE itself recommends two top-of-the-line NVIDIA GTX580s..."

    What planet are they living on exactly?!?

  • stoopidgreg #84 7 months ago

    "You don't have to reinstall windows when you change your mobo/CPU, though it isn't a straightforward process."

    It's always been straightforward for me. I've never had a problem booting up older Windows formatted drives with different mobos/processors.

  • Tiger_Walts #85 7 months ago

    My setup when I was on the beta was,

    Asus P5Q motherboard
    Core2Duo E8200 @ 2.67Ghz (Stock)
    Radeon HD 6870 1GB
    2 x 2GB PC2-6400 (800MHz)
    Vista 32bit

    Running at 1600x1200, Custom settings (Ultra with a few things turned down/off. Some settings like AA are pointless at that res)

    Metro ran smooth, Caspian was a little erratic, mostly fine but chugged a bit when sounds didn't load in too sharply or if there was a bit of web traffic. Metro had the odd sound blip too, but stabilised after the first occurrence.

    I've since OCed the CPU to 3.2GHz, but that was after the beta. The chip is stable at even higher speeds (with a V bump) and I bought a new HSF that is double the TDP of the CPU (It's now nice and quiet) but the memory is holding things back. So when I look into ugrading to Win7 I'll get some faster memory too and see If I can get it up to 4GHz.

  • Lucodeath #86 7 months ago

    Whats the best graphics card for my zx spectrum 48k with rubber keys? 720p @ 60fps would be fine.

  • spiny #87 7 months ago

    Over the course of the beta, I did a mobo/cpu/ram swap. Core2 Duo E6750 to i5 2400. It was playable on the c2d, but much smoother on the i5.

  • Drygore #88 7 months ago

    @kirankara

    Not exactly true. I bought a monster rig almost two years ago (albeit more expensive than your average comp..) and it still maxes out all games. Got two 5870's in crossfire. You last longer today with new comps than you did several years ago. Plus, pc games are alot cheaper. It's worth it in my book.

  • kutocer #89 7 months ago

    Still makes me laugh to hear some people tweaked it down from Ultra..... Ultra was disabled within beta so you was running at high even though it said ultra and if you tweaked it down from ultra to high you did nothing at all. Tweaking AA is a different kettle of fish and will make a difference yes. I noticed no FPS change from ultra to high.

  • TONYgr #90 7 months ago

    Mr digital foundry batman ac face-of please,pretty please!

  • FeralJim #91 7 months ago

    That was actually a really good article, nice job Richard Leadbetter.

  • AngeloCameo #92 7 months ago

    I was quite surprised how well my Radeon 5850 was able to handle the game on high.

  • Sodding_Gamer #93 7 months ago

    Hey guys. I'm looking to build a rig in the next few months. What's the best motherboard in terms of future proofing? Thinking of getting an overclocked i5 2500k to start off. Also does anyone know of a good website that gives you step-by step walkthrough of how to do it? I built a few pc's years back but things have changed a lot inside nowadays!

  • crazy-paxa #94 7 months ago

    i want buy battelfild3 for xbox360
    it is a very good game
    i am from iran:o

  • Agent_Orange #95 7 months ago

    @Sodding_Gamer
    Well a Z68 motherboard is the latest iteration of chipset and these should allow you to upgrade to ivy bridge chips that come out in march next year (same socket 1155). There are some nice ones about - dont go for the cheapest, as these may lack features like front usb3, and you dont need the most expensive!

  • Sodding_Gamer #96 7 months ago

    @Agent_Orange

    Cheers man appreciate it. Will get saving!

  • suhawk75 #97 7 months ago

    My old PC (bought in 2003) died two weeks ago. It was a Shuttle SFF PC and the motherboard went.

    The old graphics card had died earlier this year and I managed to find a supplier to replace it but no such luck with the motherboard.

    So I've had to buy a new PC. Rooting around on the internet I found Chillblast and I've just ordered their Fusion Flash which should cope with anything I throw at it for the next few years.

    The fact that the motherboard died the same month that Battlefield 3 could be described as fortunate.

  • aplsin #98 7 months ago

    @obscured021 Why do you need TWO gtx 580? Won't the cpu be the bottleneck even with just one?

  • Andeus #99 7 months ago

    @aplsin Nope, it's the other way around. Read my previous 2 comments in this thread.

    He's got a 2600 i7 so he can definitely use the extra bandwidth of a 2nd video card.

  • IneptPercy #100 7 months ago

    I keep looking at upgrading but my system seems to be running so well and so balanced I am defying the benchmarks.

    As it is I have a Foxconn blackops board (X48 chipset), with a Q9550 running at 3.52ghz, 8gb ram and a 5850 running a 1ghz.

    Not tried the BF3 beta but I do have rage installing right now.

    Might just go AMD with next on the processor but its going to take something to make me give up my Q9550 I do wonder if the 12mb cache it has is helping it along.

  • Pickster #101 7 months ago

    Battlefield 3 is a case in point: tests reveal that an Intel Core i3 530 CPU running the game in "ultra" mode at a tiny 640x480 resolution offers just 25-26 per cent of the performance of the exact same setup using a Core i5 quad core CPU
    This I find hard to believe. Link would help.

    Considering the i3 530 has hyperthreading, the absolute worst I would expect is 50%, but 60% - 70% would sound more reasonable.

  • Rens11 #102 7 months ago

    My copy arrived today but my psu decided to fail aswell :( I have such bad luck with my comp 2 months old was sent a 2nd hand graphics card when I ordered a new one the day I recieved deus ex my hard drive decided to fail and now this with bf3 think someone's trying to tell me pc gaming isn't for me! :(

  • thesonglessbird #103 7 months ago

    I'm running on a single 5870 and after turning the AA down to 2x and the AF to 8x on Ultra, I get between 40 and 90 FPS, probably averaging about 50. Not upgraded to the latest drivers either yet...

  • Darren #104 7 months ago

    @Davemanz - The GTX 580 is very expensive I'll admit - mine cost me £380 - but it is a superb card for playing games at 1920x1200 or highe. especially with lots of AA as it has 1.5 GB of memory. Many of the games I play top 1 GB of video memory usage (confirmed with MSI Afterburner's OSD) as I also use triple buffering which means on 1 GB cards like the GTX 560 Ti, using the same settings, I'd experience stutter as the game runs out of video memory. I used to get a lot of stutter for example when I had HD 5870 CFX as both those cards only have access to 1 GB each.

    I think mid-range cards like the HD 6870 and GTX 560 Ti are better suited for 1680x1050 and lower (e.g. 1280x720) myself but, regardless, it's better to have too much performance than too little (if you can afford it) as it means there's less need to upgrade when more demanding games come along. Almost all of my PC games run at 60 fps (v-synced and triple buffered) except for perhaps two or three which still run above 45 fps.

  • Philip46 #105 7 months ago

    I had my under $1000 pc rig last winter cutom built around a I7-930, 9GB of DDR3, and a 2GB 560Ti(first was a 460, but i upgraded for under $80).

    The hardest game on this rig, is actually GTA:IV..modded(using Levo's latest setting) which averages 30fps or lower in 1080..everything maxed(1.6GB vram).

    For BF3, i have everything on ultra, in 1080p(for use on my plasma), so it's maxed out, and i get an average of 40fps during the campaign. That's not shabby, and if i oc the gpu, i'm looking at 45fps.

    BF3 was optimized tremendously for the 'budget' gpu's like the 560ti, that i was shocked i was able to max it out, and still get those frame rates, in 1080p.

    I was going to add another 560ti, for an sli config, but really why bother? For an additional 15-20fps on the plasma(max it can handle is 60fps) or maybe 60-70fps on my 120hz monitor?

    I can easily live with 40-45fps, maxed out. Great job Dice!. Now just add in better gamepad support, so when i'm lazy and playing the campaing, i can map out all the important key bindings on the 360/pc controller.

    I doubt another game will push pc rigs harder then BF3, not for at least another year..maybe more.

    I can see when the next Xbox is released in 2013', how the pc's will be pushed once again, as the console development is what holds back..or pushes the pc development, where it should be going.

  • mejoff #106 7 months ago

    @Rack
    Wait, what?
    Your experience is fundamentally divergent from mine, and I'm prepared to bet I'm far from unique. My mobo is on it's 2nd CPU and its 3rd GPU as of a couple of months ago. Socket AM2+ is a laster and no mistake.

  • mejoff #107 7 months ago

    Shame that the article boils down to 'buy the most expensive bitz' rather than any real analysis of what performance to expect from various price-points.