Recall when Crysis came out in like 2007 ? THAT mind-blowing graphics ! that was the next-gen in that period , i wouldn't call "next-gen graphics" till is see sth like that for this period ...
terrible thread with massively down sampled press shots(which still dont hold a candle to ryse/killzone/infamous). and bf3 doesnt run at ultra settings 60 fps on a 400 pc. not even close
in truth, accourding to adandtech benchmarks my 120 dollars HD7870 can do 60fps on ultra 1920x1200
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/548?vs=518
back in 2011 you would need a 400 dollars gtx 570 for that
terrible thread with massively down sampled press shots(which still dont hold a candle to ryse/killzone/infamous). and bf3 doesnt run at ultra settings 60 fps on a 400 pc. not even close
in truth, accourding to adandtech benchmarks my 120 dollars HD7870 can do 60fps on ultra 1920x1200
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/548?vs=518
back in 2011 you would need a 400 dollars gtx 570 for that
terrible thread with massively down sampled press shots(which still dont hold a candle to ryse/killzone/infamous). and bf3 doesnt run at ultra settings 60 fps on a 400 pc. not even close
in truth, accourding to adandtech benchmarks my 120 dollars HD7870 can do 60fps on ultra 1920x1200
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/548?vs=518
back in 2011 you would need a 400 dollars gtx 570 for that
are you daft? in b3 the ultra preset includes 4xaa, and in that benchmark you get 40 fps AVERAGE, meaning a minimum well below that. and FYI, anandtech uses the intro to the jet mission in bf3 single player which is one of the best performing parts of the game. you would get much worse than 40 fps playing a non metro map in multiplayer conquest. not even mentioning how bad your fps would be trying to play bf3 64 player on any cpu you put in a 400$ pc.
heres some actual 64p conquest benches done on a 680 at ultra settings
One group is lying about the $400 PC; another group is lying about no difference in visuals.
These people probably go around telling people they make $20,000 more than they actually do, add 2.5 inches to their height, and say they "sort of look like Brad Pitt" in the personals.
I don't think they are adding those inches to their height if you know what I mean.
BF3 still looks pretty good but it required a beefy pc back in 2011. Is there anyone who has made a comparison between BF3 maxed out and BF4 on ps4? And I'm not sure how BF3 stacks up to the next-gen's finest, I haven't got BF3 fresh in memory. I'm sure there are games that beats BF3 in some aspects but not many next-gen games have open environments together with the caos of 64 players multi player.
We all know the machines could have been more powerful. Wait till E3--we'll se what Naughty Dog does with the ps4. And besides that, it is what the developers do with the hardware. Pc fanboys laugh at the ps4, yet an even lower spec console, in wiiu, has put out the best looking game to come out in quite a while in Mario Kart 8. It goes to show where the best art designers are. All I see on pc pics is "realistic" textures which are honestly just scaled down photographs which, unless perfect, are always going to look slightly off.
Actually BF3 can look a lot better than any of those screenshots showed.
I actually don't doubt that. It's just that anything by the developers themselves should not be trusted. If someone cranked up the resolution to 4K, plus added some MSAA, it would look quite better than most of the games released today. But it's that "VG247" logo.
I haven't been in System Wars for years. You guys are getting out of control. xD
I wish I had a 4K monitor! But I still have to say that most of the games I play on my PC look way better than it's console counterpart or even some of the current exclusives on the Xbox 360 or PS4. But Killzone and Ryse are good to look at.
gtx 580 is THE card to play bf3, it was built with this card in mind, the recommended system for bf3 has a gtx 560 but it cant reach 1080p ultra 4x msaa 60fps
the card for this job is the gtx 580, and gtx 580 performs the same as my 120 dollars hd 7870 in bf3
my 70 dollars quad core cpu has 60% usage in bf3, the gpu is my bottleneck for bf3 and my 7870 delivers ultra 60fps (in most scenarios)
sure a 64 players on close quarters (designed for 24 on pc and 16 on consoles) will kill my performance, i also can't get constant 60fps on a rush match with 64players instead of 32
but its just my cheap 400 dollars PC, a better PC with a 7950 or a 7870xt costing some 100 dollars more you also be better
the point here is 400 or 500 pc running a 2011 game have better grphics than a next gen corridor exclusive
gtx 580 is THE card to play bf3, it was built with this card in mind, the recommended system for bf3 has a gtx 560 but it cant reach 1080p ultra 4x msaa 60fps
the card for this job is the gtx 580, and gtx 580 performs the same as my 120 dollars hd 7870 in bf3
my 70 dollars quad core cpu has 60% usage in bf3, the gpu is my bottleneck for bf3 and my 7870 delivers ultra 60fps (in most scenarios)
sure a 64 players on close quarters (designed for 24 on pc and 16 on consoles) will kill my performance, i also can't get constant 60fps on a rush match with 64players instead of 32
but its just my cheap 400 dollars PC, a better PC with a 7950 or a 7870xt costing some 100 dollars more you also be better
the point here is 400 or 500 pc running a 2011 game have better grphics than a next gen corridor exclusive
the point here is youve just proven with that video that you get nowhere near 60 fps in bf3 at ultra settings. the fps pinballs around randomly between 30 and 45 even on an empty ass, barely populated rush server. shit would be a total disaster on a 64p server with smoke and particle effects everywhere. lol @ you.btw recording a video only hurts your fps if you are cpu limited.
you even admitted you basically cant play bf3 w/ more player than ps360 LOLOLOL.
Log in to comment