For reference, Portal 2 runs smoothly at medium settings (any other Valve games I can pretty much crank up), and Metro 2033 runs like the unoptimized pile of dog shit that it is.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Ordered my new computer today. Going with;
Core i7 2600k
Corsair H80 closed loop liquid cooler
8gb DDR3 1600
2x MSI GTX 560ti Hawk eddition (Twin Frozr III, 1gb GDDR5, OC'd)
Caviar Black 1tb SATA rev 3
Asus P8Z68 Deluxe
I am reusing my 1000 watt (80+) PSU and Antec p182 case. I picked the Hawk video card for a number of reasons. Out of the box, a single Hawk benches almost as fast as a reference GTX 570 and costs $100 less. 2 of these are going to blow a 580 out of the water.
@JMT_AOTP You are not crazy for speding $1400. That is about what all of my shit would cost. I know I am going to be able to run BF3 at max settings with no issues.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
Since we've veered onto BF3 and hardware, did any other ATI users have any issues with the demo? My 5970 wasn't doing as awesomely as it should have and I'm curious if that's just an optimization issue.
Wow, jets are in for console? Well that is pretty cool.
I wanted to chime in on people saying the helicopters were nuts on the console and having bad luck with the tracer dart. I am freaking ace with the tracer darts and have a pretty easy time of taking down the choppers. There is one exception, however. The damn smoke ability that, I believe, the gunner has that wipes out the tracer dart. If they could either lower the reload time on that thing or make it finite then I would have no issue. As it stands it is ridiculous. They can wipe it out and reload at the same speed I reload darts. it is nuts.
0
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Since we've veered onto BF3 and hardware, did any other ATI users have any issues with the demo? My 5970 wasn't doing as awesomely as it should have and I'm curious if that's just an optimization issue.
The alpha ran better than BC2 on my 5850, not to mention not having to deal with the stuttering after every map load.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
Core i7 2600k
Corsair H80 closed loop liquid cooler
8gb DDR3 1600
2x MSI GTX 560ti Hawk eddition (Twin Frozr III, 1gb GDDR5, OC'd)
Caviar Black 1tb SATA rev 3
Asus P8Z68 Deluxe
I am reusing my 1000 watt (80+) PSU and Antec p182 case. I picked the Hawk video card for a number of reasons. Out of the box, a single Hawk benches almost as fast as a reference GTX 570 and costs $100 less. 2 of these are going to blow a 580 out of the water.
@JMT_AOTP You are not crazy for speding $1400. That is about what all of my shit would cost. I know I am going to be able to run BF3 at max settings with no issues.
im glad i wasn't the only one to spend a little for this. lol
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
Edit: It's apparently 24 players on consoles. My mistake.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
Yeah, totally forgot about frame rate, but I guess its less important so long as youre okay playing at whatever frame rate your computer gets when the game is maxed out.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
So...This making my broke ass feel better and better. I will miss not being able to play on big ass 64 player servers...But 32 is pretty solid and the inclusion of jets just makes me happy. Hooray for the poor dudes out there.
And i've never had a top of the line PC except for when the Pentium 133 was the best you could get. So as long as it looks like BC2 i'll be perfectly happy.
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
24-player
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited August 2011
I'm fine with very occasional drops into the 50s-40s when massive OMGSplosions happen right in front of me, but normally, I want 60FPS whenever possible. I will turn down a setting here or there to achieve that goal (but never no AA, oh god the jaggies )
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
24. It's a 24-player limit on consoles, just like BC2.
Edit: So Beat'd
I'm wondering if they're going to restrict it to just one jet per side with such low player counts. Also, I'm not sure how they'd remake a map like Caspian so that it's smaller but still plays well. It might end up like Heavy Metal...long, boring, and easy to spawn lock.
My computer can't even run BC2 at a decent frame rate, ever.
Phenom II X4 940 overclocked to 3.8
4 gigs ram
Radeon 4890
I run it on lowest and the stupid tank firing effect while a gunner makes it dip low. Other than that I am around 50-60 with a few small exceptions.
Thats weird since my E8400 (stock and OCd to 3.6), 4GB ram and 4850 ran BC2 just fine. Im pretty sure I took a performance hit when I put in the GTX 570.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
Eh, if it doesnt drop below 30 youre all good. 60 is preferable, but as long as it doesnt stutter...
My computer can't even run BC2 at a decent frame rate, ever.
Phenom II X4 940 overclocked to 3.8
4 gigs ram
Radeon 4890
I run it on lowest and the stupid tank firing effect while a gunner makes it dip low. Other than that I am around 50-60 with a few small exceptions.
Thats weird since my E8400 (stock and OCd to 3.6), 4GB ram and 4850 ran BC2 just fine. Im pretty sure I took a performance hit when I put in the GTX 570.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
Eh, if it doesnt drop below 30 youre all good. 60 is preferable, but as long as it doesnt stutter...
If the FPS jumps from 45 to 60 you will notice it and the game will jump around a little. BC2 was horrible for this, the aim would slide around and do weird shit all the time. I used fraps to watch my FPS for several games noting what it did.
My computer can't even run BC2 at a decent frame rate, ever.
Phenom II X4 940 overclocked to 3.8
4 gigs ram
Radeon 4890
I run it on lowest and the stupid tank firing effect while a gunner makes it dip low. Other than that I am around 50-60 with a few small exceptions.
Thats weird since my E8400 (stock and OCd to 3.6), 4GB ram and 4850 ran BC2 just fine. Im pretty sure I took a performance hit when I put in the GTX 570.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
Eh, if it doesnt drop below 30 youre all good. 60 is preferable, but as long as it doesnt stutter...
If the FPS jumps from 45 to 6 you will notice it and the game will jump around a little. BC2 was horrible for this, the aim would slide around and do weird shit all the time. I used fraps to watch my FPS for several games noting what it did.
Yeah, but 6 is way below 30. If the frame rate dropped from 60 to 45 or 45 to 30 you probably wouldnt notice.
My computer can't even run BC2 at a decent frame rate, ever.
Phenom II X4 940 overclocked to 3.8
4 gigs ram
Radeon 4890
I run it on lowest and the stupid tank firing effect while a gunner makes it dip low. Other than that I am around 50-60 with a few small exceptions.
Thats weird since my E8400 (stock and OCd to 3.6), 4GB ram and 4850 ran BC2 just fine. Im pretty sure I took a performance hit when I put in the GTX 570.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
Some people think max settings at 20 FPS is okay, some people think max settings at 60 FPS that dips to 30 is okay. Some people are wrong.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
Eh, if it doesnt drop below 30 youre all good. 60 is preferable, but as long as it doesnt stutter...
If the FPS jumps from 45 to 6 you will notice it and the game will jump around a little. BC2 was horrible for this, the aim would slide around and do weird shit all the time. I used fraps to watch my FPS for several games noting what it did.
Yeah, but 6 is way below 30. If the frame rate dropped from 60 to 45 or 45 to 30 you probably wouldnt notice.
Mean to say 60. Even 50 to 60 is noticeable in BC2.
Now that I think about it, I actually have no idea what my FPS is at in BC2 since the game doesnt have a built in FPS checking thing. Will BF3 have one? I assume it wont, but I would really like one...I know I could just use FRAPS but eh.
Don't feel too bad if you can't run BF3 at full specs (I said, trying to console myself). In some ways, we might be the lucky ones.
Consider this: everyday we look at unarguably the most realistic representation of reality in the world. Yet there is no such graphical wow factor accompanying our every waking vision,save when we see something extremely novel. My point is, that graphical Ooomph mostly stems from seeing something we haven't seen before. So we who gradually update our graphics might be getting more enjoyment in the long run. Plus its that gameplay that looks fun as hell yo!
I used to have my Audigy 2ZS, which gave pretty nice sound with my cheap Sennheiser HD201's, however the crispness and bass these G35 give out is amazing. They come with their own sound processor, and being USB I believe they get to draw more power for that bass.
The positional audio sounds great, the HD201's did an awesome job with that, since I don't notice a huge difference. But now all weapons sound incredibly good. The bradley/bmd3 main cannon has this amazing thud thud thud sound to it now. Really good purchase at $75, with a free subscription to Star Trek online ($20 value oh my!).
So, jets are in the console version? I can dl the caspian border trailer on my xbox right now, so if theyre not in, that could be a little misleading to some people
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
24-player
Could have sworn it was 32 on console. My mistake.
0
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
Pheh, you guys are plebeians. I only play 70fps constant and above.
(But I can handle it without screen tear god damn I love my 120hz monitor)
Also Satsumomo, I've been fiddling with the bass and treble on this bad boy all night. What settings are you running?
Don't forget to set your speaker count to 8 in the settings.ini as well.
But I completely understand why. Battlefield is a game that is famous for, if nothing else, sound design. If I was living by myself, I'd rather spend the money on a non-headphone system, but I know that's not always an option. It is simply better to feel bass, instead of just hear it.
0Replace4Displace on
0
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited August 2011
For people who want to see some more awesome gunplay on Operation Metro:
Pheh, you guys are plebeians. I only play 70fps constant and above.
(But I can handle it without screen tear god damn I love my 120hz monitor)
Also Satsumomo, I've been fiddling with the bass and treble on this bad boy all night. What settings are you running?
Don't forget to set your speaker count to 8 in the settings.ini as well.
In BC2 I play at 100+. I'm just saying 50 is my bare acceptable minimum whenever I get a new game. The minute I see my FPS go below that I start speccing upgrades, lol. The one expception to that rule was Metro 2033, but that's just because at launch it ran like total shit on ATI cards. It's fine these days.
Yeah, but 6 is way below 30. If the frame rate dropped from 60 to 45 or 45 to 30 you probably wouldnt notice.
Depends on the individual tbh. I find 30 to be damn near unplayable for me. 50+ is where I kinda stop caring about how many FPS I'm getting since it appears smooth to me, but the more it drops below that, the more jarring it is.
0
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
I was kind of parodying everyone's posts. :P
But in actual fact, my FPS in BC2 goes from a solid 70 to 110 fps.
No, $1400 is definitely crazy when half that will also let you run it at max settings.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
You gotta keep a few things in mind here
First, they run those exhibition demos with such hardware because they don't want to risk a framedrop even once. They want it smooth as butter and they will overcompensate in the hardware department if they have to - to ensure this.
Secondly, the game is most likely still not fully optimized yet at highest settings. The release version in two months will most likely be more tweaked and even a few months after that the performance will get even better (like it did with BC2).
With this said, if you're playing a 64-player map on the absolute highest settings I think an SLI/crossfire setup and a powerful CPU would be a very good thing to have. If you're okay with resolutions around 1600 though I doubt you need a monster computer to play this at all
Posts
Battle rifles (semi auto) are recon only.
everyone can use sub machine guns and shottys tho.
i7 M620 @ 2.66Ghz
4GBs 1066MHz DDR3 RAM
GeForce GT 330M
For reference, Portal 2 runs smoothly at medium settings (any other Valve games I can pretty much crank up), and Metro 2033 runs like the unoptimized pile of dog shit that it is.
Core i7 2600k
Corsair H80 closed loop liquid cooler
8gb DDR3 1600
2x MSI GTX 560ti Hawk eddition (Twin Frozr III, 1gb GDDR5, OC'd)
Caviar Black 1tb SATA rev 3
Asus P8Z68 Deluxe
I am reusing my 1000 watt (80+) PSU and Antec p182 case. I picked the Hawk video card for a number of reasons. Out of the box, a single Hawk benches almost as fast as a reference GTX 570 and costs $100 less. 2 of these are going to blow a 580 out of the water.
@JMT_AOTP You are not crazy for speding $1400. That is about what all of my shit would cost. I know I am going to be able to run BF3 at max settings with no issues.
Allow me to revise my statement. It will allow me to run it at Max settings with full AA and AF @1920x1200. Seeing as how the demo videos were being run off 3x 580s in Tri-SLI, I don't think it's overkill at all. You are not going to be able to run BF3 at full everything with a computer that costs half this.
I wanted to chime in on people saying the helicopters were nuts on the console and having bad luck with the tracer dart. I am freaking ace with the tracer darts and have a pretty easy time of taking down the choppers. There is one exception, however. The damn smoke ability that, I believe, the gunner has that wipes out the tracer dart. If they could either lower the reload time on that thing or make it finite then I would have no issue. As it stands it is ridiculous. They can wipe it out and reload at the same speed I reload darts. it is nuts.
And this is a point that keeps getting overlooked: my idea of "max settings" may not be the same as your max settings.
I know that when I threw $1000 bucks into my upgrade for just a CPU, motherboard, two Radeon 6850's, and 8 GB of RAM, I know what I'll be able to handle at 1080p will please me.
But max settings can really only mean one thing - everything turned up as high as it will go, with the only difference being resolution.
The alpha ran better than BC2 on my 5850, not to mention not having to deal with the stuttering after every map load.
im glad i wasn't the only one to spend a little for this. lol
Yes, jets are in the console version. I'm pretty certain that the only differences between console and PC are the typical graphical things, smaller maps on consoles, and a 32-player limit on consoles, as opposed to 64 on PC.
Edit: It's apparently 24 players on consoles. My mistake.
Yeah, totally forgot about frame rate, but I guess its less important so long as youre okay playing at whatever frame rate your computer gets when the game is maxed out.
If it's not running at a minimum of 50 FPS constant then something is hideously wrong.
Phenom II X4 940 overclocked to 3.8
4 gigs ram
Radeon 4890
I run it on lowest and the stupid tank firing effect while a gunner makes it dip low. Other than that I am around 50-60 with a few small exceptions.
So...This making my broke ass feel better and better. I will miss not being able to play on big ass 64 player servers...But 32 is pretty solid and the inclusion of jets just makes me happy. Hooray for the poor dudes out there.
And i've never had a top of the line PC except for when the Pentium 133 was the best you could get. So as long as it looks like BC2 i'll be perfectly happy.
24-player
I'm
24. It's a 24-player limit on consoles, just like BC2.
Edit: So Beat'd
I'm wondering if they're going to restrict it to just one jet per side with such low player counts. Also, I'm not sure how they'd remake a map like Caspian so that it's smaller but still plays well. It might end up like Heavy Metal...long, boring, and easy to spawn lock.
Don't mind me
:arrow:
Thats weird since my E8400 (stock and OCd to 3.6), 4GB ram and 4850 ran BC2 just fine. Im pretty sure I took a performance hit when I put in the GTX 570.
Eh, if it doesnt drop below 30 youre all good. 60 is preferable, but as long as it doesnt stutter...
If the FPS jumps from 45 to 60 you will notice it and the game will jump around a little. BC2 was horrible for this, the aim would slide around and do weird shit all the time. I used fraps to watch my FPS for several games noting what it did.
Yeah, but 6 is way below 30. If the frame rate dropped from 60 to 45 or 45 to 30 you probably wouldnt notice.
Mean to say 60. Even 50 to 60 is noticeable in BC2.
Consider this: everyday we look at unarguably the most realistic representation of reality in the world. Yet there is no such graphical wow factor accompanying our every waking vision,save when we see something extremely novel. My point is, that graphical Ooomph mostly stems from seeing something we haven't seen before. So we who gradually update our graphics might be getting more enjoyment in the long run. Plus its that gameplay that looks fun as hell yo!
I used to have my Audigy 2ZS, which gave pretty nice sound with my cheap Sennheiser HD201's, however the crispness and bass these G35 give out is amazing. They come with their own sound processor, and being USB I believe they get to draw more power for that bass.
The positional audio sounds great, the HD201's did an awesome job with that, since I don't notice a huge difference. But now all weapons sound incredibly good. The bradley/bmd3 main cannon has this amazing thud thud thud sound to it now. Really good purchase at $75, with a free subscription to Star Trek online ($20 value oh my!).
Could have sworn it was 32 on console. My mistake.
(But I can handle it without screen tear god damn I love my 120hz monitor)
Also Satsumomo, I've been fiddling with the bass and treble on this bad boy all night. What settings are you running?
Don't forget to set your speaker count to 8 in the settings.ini as well.
Desktop Amp
You can thank me later.
540 dollar list price.
wat
But I completely understand why. Battlefield is a game that is famous for, if nothing else, sound design. If I was living by myself, I'd rather spend the money on a non-headphone system, but I know that's not always an option. It is simply better to feel bass, instead of just hear it.
50 minutes of gameplay!
I still can't believe the alpha's graphics were so toned down. It looks amazing.
But in actual fact, my FPS in BC2 goes from a solid 70 to 110 fps.
You gotta keep a few things in mind here
First, they run those exhibition demos with such hardware because they don't want to risk a framedrop even once. They want it smooth as butter and they will overcompensate in the hardware department if they have to - to ensure this.
Secondly, the game is most likely still not fully optimized yet at highest settings. The release version in two months will most likely be more tweaked and even a few months after that the performance will get even better (like it did with BC2).
With this said, if you're playing a 64-player map on the absolute highest settings I think an SLI/crossfire setup and a powerful CPU would be a very good thing to have. If you're okay with resolutions around 1600 though I doubt you need a monster computer to play this at all