Please note that a desktop 460 is about 40% faster than a desktop 260. Also, mobile GPUs and CPUs are around 10% to 20% slower than their desktop companions. Also, the e8400 is a good deal faster than any of the CPUs stocked in that notebook.
I hate to break it to you, but your laptop is simply not going to be able to play BF3 on high. You should be able to manage low settings.
Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't aware there was that significant a difference between laptop and desktop equipment these days.
For people experiencing crashes to the desktop: I switched to Chrome to decrease the RAM used and the game hasn't chrashed nearly as often as with Firefox.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
Please note that a desktop 460 is about 40% faster than a desktop 260. Also, mobile GPUs and CPUs are around 10% to 20% slower than their desktop companions. Also, the e8400 is a good deal faster than any of the CPUs stocked in that notebook.
I hate to break it to you, but your laptop is simply not going to be able to play BF3 on high. You should be able to manage low settings.
I had no illusions of playing this game on high... I just want it to function and be playable.
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
For people experiencing crashes to the desktop: I switched to Chrome to decrease the RAM used and the game hasn't chrashed nearly as often as with Firefox.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
Good for you! I only have 4 gigs total on my PC though, and I'm (still) running Windows7 32bit.
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Please note that a desktop 460 is about 40% faster than a desktop 260. Also, mobile GPUs and CPUs are around 10% to 20% slower than their desktop companions. Also, the e8400 is a good deal faster than any of the CPUs stocked in that notebook.
I hate to break it to you, but your laptop is simply not going to be able to play BF3 on high. You should be able to manage low settings.
Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't aware there was that significant a difference between laptop and desktop equipment these days.
No problem. It looks like you might have bought that notebook right as they were phasing out that hardware set. It's a shame that laptops are not as upgradable as a desktop might be.
I hope they address rambo recons running around with no scopes one/two shotting peeps. It's kinda annoying to run into the rambo recons in this game who go all out with this method. Don't get me wrong, its effective, but its also irritating. I feel that its not working as intended.
Why? Recons are SUPPOSED to be ahead of the force picking people off and getting shit done. I've been playing Recon this way for a while now because back in the day when the class was called special ops, that was kinda the entire point of the class. Then they went and merged it with the sniper class and suddenly everyone forgot that Recon was supposed to be a precision problem solver. They started camping on hills a mile away and doing fuck all. Now with the scope glint added and a bevy of red dot semi-auto rifles/universal SMGs at our disposal, there's really no reason for the Recon class not to be the vanguard force pushing ahead and shitting squad beacons all over the map. In a defensive situation, the Recon should be running around and countering anyone trying to be a sneaky git. I'm not saying that the Recon shouldn't occasionally play at being an overwatch sniper, because it's definitely a handy thing to do at times but it's definitely not their main role.
I think the complaint more stems from how overpowered the starter sniper rifles are than from the class going solo behind enemy lines. There's just not enough downside to the starter sniper rifles not to use them as better assault rifles. They fire fast, kill in generally 2 hits or less, and have seemingly no more movement penalty than any other assault rifle.
The starter semis are kinda gross, but I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the damage glitches. Hell, I occasionally one shot people with the SKS that I use and I know that gun can't normally do that.
server browser isn't updating the server list anymore for some reason. though I can still join servers I just have to hope the one I'm clicking isn't full
For people experiencing crashes to the desktop: I switched to Chrome to decrease the RAM used and the game hasn't chrashed nearly as often as with Firefox.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
Good for you! I only have 4 gigs total on my PC though, and I'm (still) running Windows7 32bit.
Then you only have 3. :P
Chrome uses about 100MB of RAM on my computer, BF was using just over 1GB. I guess I should check more? I dunno, that's all it was using when I checked.
For people experiencing crashes to the desktop: I switched to Chrome to decrease the RAM used and the game hasn't chrashed nearly as often as with Firefox.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
Good for you! I only have 4 gigs total on my PC though, and I'm (still) running Windows7 32bit.
Then you only have 3. :P
Chrome uses about 100MB of RAM on my computer, BF was using just over 1GB. I guess I should check more? I dunno, that's all it was using when I checked.
Alternatively, close whatever browser you use after you start the game. It won't close the game. Ta da, now you're not wasting any of that precious delicious memory
Please note that a desktop 460 is about 40% faster than a desktop 260. Also, mobile GPUs and CPUs are around 10% to 20% slower than their desktop companions. Also, the e8400 is a good deal faster than any of the CPUs stocked in that notebook.
I hate to break it to you, but your laptop is simply not going to be able to play BF3 on high. You should be able to manage low settings.
Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't aware there was that significant a difference between laptop and desktop equipment these days.
No problem. It looks like you might have bought that notebook right as they were phasing out that hardware set. It's a shame that laptops are not as upgradable as a desktop might be.
Yeah... Ive apparently hit the hardware wall... couldnt come at a worse time (BF3... I have no fucking money). I switched to laptops becuase I travel to a friends house every weekend to sit around, game, talk shit and watch movies...
I may have to buy it on PS3 if this is any indicator of how its going to be... /shame
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Please note that a desktop 460 is about 40% faster than a desktop 260. Also, mobile GPUs and CPUs are around 10% to 20% slower than their desktop companions. Also, the e8400 is a good deal faster than any of the CPUs stocked in that notebook.
I hate to break it to you, but your laptop is simply not going to be able to play BF3 on high. You should be able to manage low settings.
Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't aware there was that significant a difference between laptop and desktop equipment these days.
No problem. It looks like you might have bought that notebook right as they were phasing out that hardware set. It's a shame that laptops are not as upgradable as a desktop might be.
Yeah... Ive apparently hit the hardware wall... couldnt come at a worse time (BF3... I have no fucking money). I switched to laptops becuase I travel to a friends house every weekend to sit around, game, talk shit and watch movies...
I may have to buy it on PS3 if this is any indicator of how its going to be... /shame
I've been using this thing since PAX whenever I ship out and it's been a baller piece of hardware. I have a gaming laptop, but due to how well this case is working, I will not be using my gaming laptop for much longer. Once my backlog on that thing is cleared out, I'll be abandoning my laptop as my primary mobile gaming device.
For people experiencing crashes to the desktop: I switched to Chrome to decrease the RAM used and the game hasn't chrashed nearly as often as with Firefox.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
Good for you! I only have 4 gigs total on my PC though, and I'm (still) running Windows7 32bit.
Then you only have 3. :P
Chrome uses about 100MB of RAM on my computer, BF was using just over 1GB. I guess I should check more? I dunno, that's all it was using when I checked.
Alternatively, close whatever browser you use after you start the game. It won't close the game. Ta da, now you're not wasting any of that precious delicious memory
I know I'm missing out on some RAM, that's why I mentioned the 32bit thing, but when I put the system together I was thinking about only getting 2. Anyway, closing the browser is a good tip, I didn't know closing it would make no difference. But it makes sense since the server take care of stats no matter what.
Hmm, I don't suppose I could pop my Win7 DVD in and tell it to make my windows 64bits?
So guys, how processor and ram heavy is this game? I have the Intel Core2Quad Q9550 at 2.8ghz or some such and 5 gigs of DDR2 ram. I have a 280GTX that I think I'd like to upgrade but does everything need a facelift?
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
So guys, how processor and ram heavy is this game? I have the Intel Core2Quad Q9550 at 2.8ghz or some such and 5 gigs of DDR2 ram. I have a 280GTX that I think I'd like to upgrade but does everything need a facelift?
You could try the beta and see how it runs? You should be able to run it reasonably well, at least on low. Medium might be a bit more painful.
I'm in the beta and it seems reasonable. Maybe 40-30 fps on medium, which is a bit of a disappointment as I'd like to have my PC all ready and raring to go for launch day, which probably will not happen.
I'm just not sure if I should build me a whole new box or just throw in a 580GTX and call it quits.
You should be optimistic about the game's performance. DICE has already stated that the release version will run better. And then ATI and Nvidia will probably put in some work to optimise their drivers.
Metro rush is a small map, but I'm really impressed with how smoothly the game runs. I got slowdowns in BC2 and I'm sure I will get it in BF3 as well on larger battles but I didn't think I could get BF3 running smoothly on Metro with my old computer. (Q6600 & GT8800)
I'm also thinking about upgrading but with the varied reports of how the beta runs on the same hardware I'm skeptical that using the beta as a benchmark has any merit. Wait until release and see if you still feel the need to upgrade.
I'm in the beta and it seems reasonable. Maybe 40-30 fps on medium, which is a bit of a disappointment as I'd like to have my PC all ready and raring to go for launch day, which probably will not happen.
I'm just not sure if I should build me a whole new box or just throw in a 580GTX and call it quits.
Unless you majorly overclock your CPU (like Jimmy Marku) or plan on getting a new mobo+cpu combo, getting a gtx580 would be a waste of money. BF3 is very CPU intensive, and a graphics card that powerful would get bored waiting around for a Q9550 to keep it fed. Make no mistake, you WOULD get better framerates with the 580, but a lot of its potential would be wasted on that CPU, and you don't buy a $500 graphics card to waste half of its potential :P A 560ti is arguably a better fit for your setup, which can be had for less than half the price of a 580.
Again, assuming you're not planning on upgrading to a new sandy bridge or ivy bridge setup in the near future.
Just hit a weird bug where the attacking team started respawning in the air about 500ft up and parachuting in to off-map areas and dying. It was hilarious for about 30 seconds.
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
Just hit a weird bug where the attacking team started respawning in the air about 500ft up and parachuting in to off-map areas and dying. It was hilarious for about 30 seconds.
Could have been from an odd placement of a mobile spawnpoint. In open maps like Caspian, when you place the mobile spawn point outdoors you spawn parachuting down from several hundred feet up, just as you described.
Just hit a weird bug where the attacking team started respawning in the air about 500ft up and parachuting in to off-map areas and dying. It was hilarious for about 30 seconds.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I'm in the beta and it seems reasonable. Maybe 40-30 fps on medium, which is a bit of a disappointment as I'd like to have my PC all ready and raring to go for launch day, which probably will not happen.
I'm just not sure if I should build me a whole new box or just throw in a 580GTX and call it quits.
Unless you majorly overclock your CPU (like Jimmy Marku) or plan on getting a new mobo+cpu combo, getting a gtx580 would be a waste of money. BF3 is very CPU intensive, and a graphics card that powerful would get bored waiting around for a Q9550 to keep it fed. Make no mistake, you WOULD get better framerates with the 580, but a lot of its potential would be wasted on that CPU, and you don't buy a $500 graphics card to waste half of its potential :P A 560ti is arguably a better fit for your setup, which can be had for less than half the price of a 580.
Again, assuming you're not planning on upgrading to a new sandy bridge or ivy bridge setup in the near future.
I would like to 2nd the 560ti. I spent a good few months researching my current rig before I bought the parts. The 560ti is the best card for the money right now. The version I have is called the Hawk. It's a factory overclocked 560ti with a custom cooling solution on it. My top card idles at around 35c and peak in the mid to high 50s. The great thing about the Hawk (and any 560ti with a good custom cooler on it, overclocked) is that it is almost as powerful as a reference design 570 and costs about $100 less. It has been a great card(s; I have 2 in SLI) and I would highly recommend it. 2x in SLI will smoke a single 580 and will run you around the same cost. The only real downside is the power comsumtion. For 1, you want at least a 650watt (I recommend a 750 if you have more than one HDD) and for 2 you will want at least an 850 watt (I have a 1000 watt).
Looks like you'd get a boost of around 8-10fps. Not sure that'd be worth another $200+ tbh.
Man, getting that second 6950 and running in crossfire is looking mighty tempting right about now
I am going to echo carbon again here. You really would not see a massive benefit. Nvidia has a new line of cards due out mid 2012 that might be what you are looking for. Supposedly Kepler is going to have some pretty major improvements over Fermi. More so than Tesla (Not to be confused with the current GPU line with the same codename) over Fermi
0
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
That benchmark is weird, because my single GTX580 runs the game with 4x antialiasing at 60+fps at 95% of the time.
don't buy a new GPU just for BF3. It's pretty much the only game that makes good use out of expensive graphics cards. The rest of the market has completely stagnated when it comes to graphical development
For what it's worth I have a i5-2500k, 8GB RAM, and a 560ti and ran FRAPS for a few sessions with avg of 53 fps according to the log. This was on the general "high" setting BF3 has at 1920x1200. Not sure how that stacks up against what you have now.
I've switch over to "Ultra" a few times but it's not smooth enough for my tastes.
Posts
Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't aware there was that significant a difference between laptop and desktop equipment these days.
I've not found a lot of issues with RAM usage. I'm using FireFox and my system monitor shows only 3.8ish GBs of RAM used while playing.
If the MAV was somewhat easier to use(on 360) I'd probably play the beta more this weekend.
I had no illusions of playing this game on high... I just want it to function and be playable.
Good for you! I only have 4 gigs total on my PC though, and I'm (still) running Windows7 32bit.
No problem. It looks like you might have bought that notebook right as they were phasing out that hardware set. It's a shame that laptops are not as upgradable as a desktop might be.
The starter semis are kinda gross, but I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the damage glitches. Hell, I occasionally one shot people with the SKS that I use and I know that gun can't normally do that.
aka holy fuck - I love this gun. It's like a more stable version of the M249, which is perfect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z4ZL0Z3oiK8#t=467s
Then you only have 3. :P
Chrome uses about 100MB of RAM on my computer, BF was using just over 1GB. I guess I should check more? I dunno, that's all it was using when I checked.
8->
Alternatively, close whatever browser you use after you start the game. It won't close the game. Ta da, now you're not wasting any of that precious delicious memory
Yeah... Ive apparently hit the hardware wall... couldnt come at a worse time (BF3... I have no fucking money). I switched to laptops becuase I travel to a friends house every weekend to sit around, game, talk shit and watch movies...
I may have to buy it on PS3 if this is any indicator of how its going to be... /shame
I've been using this thing since PAX whenever I ship out and it's been a baller piece of hardware. I have a gaming laptop, but due to how well this case is working, I will not be using my gaming laptop for much longer. Once my backlog on that thing is cleared out, I'll be abandoning my laptop as my primary mobile gaming device.
I know I'm missing out on some RAM, that's why I mentioned the 32bit thing, but when I put the system together I was thinking about only getting 2. Anyway, closing the browser is a good tip, I didn't know closing it would make no difference. But it makes sense since the server take care of stats no matter what.
Hmm, I don't suppose I could pop my Win7 DVD in and tell it to make my windows 64bits?
You could try the beta and see how it runs? You should be able to run it reasonably well, at least on low. Medium might be a bit more painful.
I'm just not sure if I should build me a whole new box or just throw in a 580GTX and call it quits.
I tried lowering the options to smooth it out a bit but nothing changed so I think it just feels pretty stuttery at the moment.
Unless you majorly overclock your CPU (like Jimmy Marku) or plan on getting a new mobo+cpu combo, getting a gtx580 would be a waste of money. BF3 is very CPU intensive, and a graphics card that powerful would get bored waiting around for a Q9550 to keep it fed. Make no mistake, you WOULD get better framerates with the 580, but a lot of its potential would be wasted on that CPU, and you don't buy a $500 graphics card to waste half of its potential :P A 560ti is arguably a better fit for your setup, which can be had for less than half the price of a 580.
Again, assuming you're not planning on upgrading to a new sandy bridge or ivy bridge setup in the near future.
Could have been from an odd placement of a mobile spawnpoint. In open maps like Caspian, when you place the mobile spawn point outdoors you spawn parachuting down from several hundred feet up, just as you described.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
I would like to 2nd the 560ti. I spent a good few months researching my current rig before I bought the parts. The 560ti is the best card for the money right now. The version I have is called the Hawk. It's a factory overclocked 560ti with a custom cooling solution on it. My top card idles at around 35c and peak in the mid to high 50s. The great thing about the Hawk (and any 560ti with a good custom cooler on it, overclocked) is that it is almost as powerful as a reference design 570 and costs about $100 less. It has been a great card(s; I have 2 in SLI) and I would highly recommend it. 2x in SLI will smoke a single 580 and will run you around the same cost. The only real downside is the power comsumtion. For 1, you want at least a 650watt (I recommend a 750 if you have more than one HDD) and for 2 you will want at least an 850 watt (I have a 1000 watt).
Edit: I stand corrected!
Take into account this is testing based on the beta...there may be further optimizations (though the spread will likely be similar between the cards)
http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/
@ 1920x1200
Looks like you'd get a boost of around 8-10fps. Not sure that'd be worth another $200+ tbh.
Man, getting that second 6950 and running in crossfire is looking mighty tempting right about now
I am going to echo carbon again here. You really would not see a massive benefit. Nvidia has a new line of cards due out mid 2012 that might be what you are looking for. Supposedly Kepler is going to have some pretty major improvements over Fermi. More so than Tesla (Not to be confused with the current GPU line with the same codename) over Fermi
For what it's worth I have a i5-2500k, 8GB RAM, and a 560ti and ran FRAPS for a few sessions with avg of 53 fps according to the log. This was on the general "high" setting BF3 has at 1920x1200. Not sure how that stacks up against what you have now.
I've switch over to "Ultra" a few times but it's not smooth enough for my tastes.