Yes, But Can Your PC Run Battlefield 3?

28 responses to “Yes, But Can Your PC Run Battlefield 3?”

1. 

   Mark

   July 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm

   sweet, the money I spent upgrading my 2 year old comp looks to have paid off, the specs of my PC are comfortably above the recommended specs

   Reply
   1. 

      Toolboy

      July 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      +1 😀

      Reply
   2. 

      travis

      July 11, 2011 at 8:30 pm

      +1

      Got these specs in the 😀

      Keen to have this cranked to the max on my 27″

      Reply
2. 

   Ethan

   July 11, 2011 at 5:14 pm

   In terms of the comparison to Crysis’ reputation to being hard to run, the minimum specs don’t really reveal much.

   Considering that Crysis’ recommended specs were a Nvidia 7800GTX or ATI X1800XT. Now keep in mind that you still can’t run the game on maximum settings (and over 60fps all of the time) for any single GPU currently on the market. By contrast, Bad Company 2 cites similar cards for its minimum. Now it’s still easier on hardware than Crysis is. (GPU-wise).

   Nevertheless, we need something on the market to justify the power of current systems. 😀

   Reply
   1. 

      Ethan

      July 11, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      EDIT: That should be an average of 60 fps. The GTX580 only pulls ~40 at maxed 1080p.

      Reply
      1. 

         weresmurf

         July 11, 2011 at 7:50 pm

         Please also bear in mind that it’s commonly known in the industry that Crysis is one of the WORST optimised games *ever* made. It’s beautiful yes, but three more months work and they could have got those specs down a smidgeon more.

         Reply
         1. 

            Abacus

            July 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm

            Crysis Warhead addressed some of these issues, mind you. Also, my computer runs Bad Company 2 poorly compared to Crysis… What gives?

            Reply
      2. 

         Snacuum

         July 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm

         I find it strange that you think 60fps is considered the minimum. Yes, it is the ideal and comfortable frame rate for games to be played at, and therefore is made priority by racers and fighters, however 30 fps is the considered the lowest comfortable frame rate before people can see the difference between one frame and the next.

         Thusly it would be of no surprise to me that the Recommended specs are the cheapest hardware capable of running the game on maximum settings at 30fps.

         Reply
         1. 

            Ethan

            July 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm

            Hang on. You’re saying that people can’t tell the difference between frames past 30 fps? There’s two reasons I quote is as the minimum:

            – Firstly, it might depend on the person playing it, but most of us can clearly tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Hell, the difference between 60 and 120 fps is quite clear. I personally find FPS games incredibly hard to play on 30 fps.

            – Secondly, most monitors are 60 Hz native. As such, framerates below that will go up and down, appearing inconsistent. In many ways, this is worse than a consistently low framerate, because you can’t adjust.

            I always drop the settings to keep things above 60 fps, even if it means running on low. Native resolution stays, though.

            I’ll be fine for the game, should I choose to get it.

            Reply
3. 

   Dunnowhathuh

   July 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm

   Meh, comfortably over min specs (aside from the whole Windows vista or 7, bout time I upgraded I guess) but nowhere near recommended. I’ve been thinking about upgrading, guess it’s time I did just that.

   Reply
4. 

   buckE182

   July 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm

   The recommended specs aren’t that high. I built a computer last December which is slightly better than those recommended specs. At the time of building, I would have considered it mid-range and now a bit lower than that. The PC cost me a fraction under $900 to build (without monitor) so it was pretty cheap. Obviously nowhere near as cheap as a console, but it will run the game much better. I’m considering upgrading the GPU when BF3 is out. There’s some really good Radeon cards now for sub $250AUD that will eat this game for breakfast!

   Reply
5. 

   Ribsi

   July 11, 2011 at 5:56 pm

   It’s about time we kicked it up a notch, we’ve been floundering with console spec requirements for too long now.

   Reply
6. 

   MrTaco

   July 11, 2011 at 6:06 pm

   I’m no PC gamer, but shouldn’t the HDD requirement be smaller for the disc version than the digital version? :/ Doesn’t make sense to me, but if someone has an explanation that would be rad.

   Reply
   1. 

      chris

      July 11, 2011 at 9:35 pm

      yeah it seems a bit sus if thats the case… you might get lower res textures in the electronic version?? Because if they could compress it to 10gb then you would expect to use the same compression on the disc version…

      Reply
   2. 

      John

      July 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm

      Because the versions are basically the same, they both have to be fully installed to the hard-drive.

      Some older games could load assets from discs, but that was when disc space was expensive. These days games just run completely from the HD.

      Reply
      1. 

         John

         July 11, 2011 at 10:27 pm

         Oh wait, I just read your question properly. That is strange.

         Maybe there is less compression on the disc based one? (wouldn’t make sense)

         Or perhaps the extra 5GB is need for temporary files when installing?

         Reply
   3. 

      Eduardo

      July 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm

      The disc version may include all of the different languages, and the digital version may just include the on for your region. That’s my guess.

      Reply
7. 

   OzHuski

   July 11, 2011 at 7:12 pm

   Those recommended specs arent out of the realm of affordability.. Possibly a bit steep for those who havent upgraded recently but yeah, most of it has been stock afair for years except the video card – which is only $280+

   Reply
8. 

   Korwin

   July 11, 2011 at 7:48 pm

   Nothing steep about those recommended specs at all, those are video cards that cost less than 200 bucks (heck the 460 isn’t even in production anymore). That and really, if you haven’t moved on to a quad core by now you’ve got only yourself to blame. Any self respecting PC gamer has 4 cores these days.

   Reply
9. 

   weresmurf

   July 11, 2011 at 7:51 pm

   Minus the monitor (which everyone should own by now…) a gaming rig to run that should only cost you around 1100 bucks and thats if you have it built. How do I know? I had one built myself and it exceeds those specs.

   Reply
10. 

    moleman

    July 11, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    yea my PC will run it easy :p

    Reply
11. 

    justachap

    July 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    yeeaahhh, I definetly need to upgrade

    Reply
12. 

    watermelonpizza

    July 11, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    Well lucky I upgraded a while ago 😀
    Core i7 and a 6950; should run it nicely.

    Reply
13. 

    Lillee

    July 12, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Pfft is that all?

    Reply
14. 

    adrian

    July 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    GTX560 would be the go for a budget card to replace the 460, and it’s like $200+/-.

    will be interesting to see if this is a bad console port like BF-BC2. what good is a game like this with out the ability to prone?

    Reply
15. 

    Kyall

    July 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I have these specs, and yet bad company 2’s frame rate stutters sometimes on my PC when in high detail.

    Reply
16. 

    Jason

    July 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    i got a new gaming rig pretty much just for this game 🙂 and yes i fit those specs VERY comfortably

    Reply
17. 

    Ben

    July 14, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    @adrian.
    Actually BF3 is being optimised for PC’s first then getting exported to consoles. I just got a new rig which should play the game comfortably.

    Reply