Battlefield 3 Clubhouse

[Wrigleyvillain]

Well we have yet to see what Destruction 2.0 requires in terms of horsepower. And that obviously won't be the only hardware-taxing change from the Alpha.

[FreedomEclipse]

I wonder if the game will run better with an Nvidia card for dedicated PhysX

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

I wonder if the game will run better with an Nvidia card for dedicated PhysX

Why would it run better with a dedicated PhysX card? Its doesnt use PhysX. Its Havok based.

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

Ummm no it won't. The alpha trial was a incomplete game, but it was the full core engine. The retail product will be only slightly higher demand than the alpha and beta tests due to the engine simply being used more. It would never be even twice as demanding.

It could be close to it in all honesty. They didn't have destruction 2.0 running in the Alpha so a LOT of physics processing wasn't being done.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Why would it run better with a dedicated PhysX card? Its doesnt use PhysX. Its Havok based.

now that suprises me....

Did Nvidia's sales pitch for trying to get EA to incorporate PhysX in game fail?

Nvidia are usually the first to get in there and say we want something optimised for Nvidia cards

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

now that suprises me....

Did Nvidia's sales pitch for trying to get EA to incorporate PhysX in game fail?

Nvidia are usually the first to get in there and say we want something optimised for Nvidia cards

Why would it surprise you? None of the Battlefield games have EVER used PhysX. DICE has been a fan of Havok for years now.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Yeah not PhysX but I am still looking forward to discovering what, if any, real differences there are between red and green (both perf and IQ). Wish could more easily (cheaply) test for myself. I have my first SLI mobo and if there's any good reason I would get two NV cards instead.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Well we have yet to see what Destruction 2.0 requires in terms of horsepower. And that obviously won't be the only hardware-taxing change from the Alpha.

Not much. It is scalable multi-threaded code which works just fine on quad-core CPUs. No one here will be running less than quads, so I don't see a massive jump in the game taxing your system. Also those calculations are done on the fly as needed and will result in performance dips. It will not be an across the board constant resource jump.

Also Frostbite 2.0 and the destruction sub-set are just updated, better optimized, and broader code. While it will hurt older and/or underpowered systems, I just don't see it being too much taxing than Bad Company 2. Yes, I expect it to be more resource hungry than Bad Company 2, but not on the scale of a magnitude higher. As I said, I doubt this game could be twice as resource taxing and will fall somewhere around 120% to 135% over Bad Company 2. Memory use on the other hand, is a whole different story.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Yeah not PhysX but I am still looking forward to discovering what, if any, real differences there are between red and green (both perf and IQ). Wish could more easily (cheaply) test for myself. I have my first SLI mobo and if there's any good reason I would get two NV cards instead.

Both camps are supporting this game. No side should have a real edge.

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

Not much. It is scalable multi-threaded code which works just fine on quad-core CPUs. No one here will be running less than quads, so I don't see a massive jump in the game taxing your system. Also those calculations are done on the fly as needed and will result in performance dips. It will not be an across the board constant resource jump.

Also Frostbite 2.0 and the destruction sub-set are just updated, better optimized, and broader code. While it will hurt older and/or underpowered systems, I just don't see it being too much taxing than Bad Company 2. Yes, I expect it to be more resource hungry than Bad Company 2, but not on the scale of a magnitude higher. As I said, I doubt this game could be twice as resource taxing and will fall somewhere around 120% to 135% over Bad Company 2. Memory use on the other hand, is a whole different story.

I dunno man. DICE already said there isn't a rig today that can max it out.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

No one here will be running less than quads

not true.

there are a few members here that are running older dual core rigs. (i think there was a i5 2400 user somewhere)

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I dunno man. DICE already said there isn't a rig today that can max it out.

That counts AA of course, I personally don't run that maxed in anything, use to have to back when I ran 1280x1024, but high res has helped. AA is very taxing.

[DannibusX]

Is anyone going to be resorting to drastic measures for BF3? Personally, I'm going to completely tear down my system, clean, wipe the SSD and reinstall Windows for it. I think I'll be good with my i7 940 and 5970, but I have plans to upgrade if needed.

I can't decide if I need to put BF3 on my SSD or my Raid drive.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

Is anyone going to be resorting to drastic measures for BF3? Personally, I'm going to completely tear down my system, clean, wipe the SSD and reinstall Windows for it. I think I'll be good with my i7 940 and 5970, but I have plans to upgrade if needed.

I can't decide if I need to put BF3 on my SSD or my Raid drive.

Going to pull out the Commodore 64 and do a fresh install

[FreedomEclipse]

I think my drastic measure was selling off my Q9550+5850 Xfire rig and going with a 2500k and 2 6970s.

Im still gonna get a Saitek X52 FCS instead of running with my old Logitech 3D Xtreme. but that has to wait as my money has to go on a new PC case

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

Is anyone going to be resorting to drastic measures for BF3? Personally, I'm going to completely tear down my system, clean, wipe the SSD and reinstall Windows for it. I think I'll be good with my i7 940 and 5970, but I have plans to upgrade if needed.

I can't decide if I need to put BF3 on my SSD or my Raid drive.

Tough to tell on the SSD part man. The whole battlelog thing could be taxing closing and reopening BF3 constantly.

[brandonwh64]

trying to find a coupon for BF3

I also have a FS thread for bf3 funds

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Tough to tell on the SSD part man. The whole battlelog thing could be taxing closing and reopening BF3 constantly.

Must be a lot of reading/writing going on then? It doesn't really matter to me, I'm more than happy with my Raid0. I recently bought a nice laptop and it has standard drives in it. It makes me miss my main PC so much, games just take too long to load.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Both camps are supporting this game. No side should have a real edge.

Regardless of official "support" there are usually some differences, at least in IQ. More and more so slight as to be essentially unnoticeable but still differences.

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Regardless of official "support" there are usually some differences, at least in IQ. More and more so slight as to be essentially unnoticeable but still differences.

As long as my ATI cards don't take 2-5 minutes to load a game, I'll probably be good. AFAIK the only differences between the 2 camps will be driver optimization, I expect horrible things to happen on day 1-7.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by FreedomEclipse

not true.

there are a few members here that are running older dual core rigs. (i think there was a i5 2400 user somewhere)

Intel Core i5-2400 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.4GHz Tur...

That is a quad-core CPU. And running a i3 2120 which is 2 cores but 4 threads I am still counting as quad. While technically not truth, this kind of workload has been tested and proven to run just fine with hyperthreading.

For anyone running an Athlon II X2 550....you should have realized from Bad Company 2 that this is not going to cut it. Time to upgrade.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by thelaughingman

for anyone running an athlon ii x2 550....you should have realized from bad company 2 that this is not going to cut it. Time to upgrade.

+1000

Or may as well sit on your comfy couch and play the XBox version.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

Must be a lot of reading/writing going on then? It doesn't really matter to me, I'm more than happy with my Raid0. I recently bought a nice laptop and it has standard drives in it. It makes me miss my main PC so much, games just take too long to load.

when im on my laptop, I miss my PC cuz it has an SSD as boot.... its hard adjusting from a 10s cold boot to 20-30s+

[TheLaughingMan]

Why are so many people crapping their pants about this game? Are you guys just fishing to give yourself an excuse for upgrades and maintenance you should have done a while a.....I think I just answered my own question.

*Helping the economy* You are all right. This game is far too pretty to run on your pathetic $1000 PC. You are going to need at least another $1000 worth of awesome to even turn this game on. I mean did you see those videos? If you are not balls to the wall on graphics settings, you are insulting the game, DICE, me, and all your friends here.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

Why are so many people crapping their pants about this game? Are you guys just fishing to give yourself an excuse for upgrades and maintenance you should have done a while a.....I think I just answered my own question.

*Helping the economy* You are all right. This game is far too pretty to run on your pathetic $1000 PC. You are going to need at least another $1000 worth of awesome to even turn this game on. I mean did you see those videos? If you are not balls to the wall on graphics settings, you are insulting the game, DICE, me, and all your friends here.

I don't build PC's to play on medium settings.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I don't build PC's to play on medium settings.

I haven't seen medium settings in 3 years. I may turn AA and AF down a notch or 2 to smooth out stuttering or performance drops (often only caused by point blank explosions in my face).

I am a practical person. As long as everything else is maxed, I don't waste time with superfluous tech BS. And I don't waste time benchmarking and running FRAPs and complaining that I only get 55 FPS average, blah blah blah.

If it turns on, looks as pretty as I want and runs smooth enough for me to pwn fools left and right, all is right with the gaming world. All the expensive PC parts you can find will not stop me from making the M1911 look OP.

[FreedomEclipse]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I don't build PC's to play on mediocre settings.

+1 & fixed