A build that can run Battlefield 3 on highest settings?
21 replies, posted
Hey, I need some help here. What do I need to run battlefield 3 at the highest settings.
i5 2500k and a GTX 580
well to run it is one thing, and to run it smoothly is another
[QUOTE=naos;33251719]i5 2500k and a GTX 580
well to run it is one thing, and to run it smoothly is another[/QUOTE]
Money isn't an issue here, but will that processor be sufficient when playing on ultra? SLI/Tri-SLI GTX580 should do its job right?
The cpu is more then enough, and sli 580's will with no issues what so ever max the game and keep the framerate above 60 at pretty much all times.
The i7 2600k does not perform noticeably better within games, but if you need it for things other then gaming, then you could go for it.
Don't go 580, especially if you want to SLI. It's more expensive and only has a performance increase of a few percent.
Get a 570(or two)
I'd go with a i7 2600K, 8GB of ram and a GTX 580 (Or a 590 if you have the cash).
And you should be set.
580's do scale worse then 570'ies, but it is a performance jump. Although two 570's will run the game flawlessly too.
6970's scale quite well too and do perform a tad better then sli 570's, i would consider it be worth it if you could get them for 10 dollars more each.
Sorry for hijacking your thread, but can a 570 max out BF3, providing there is a sufficient CPU? Also, what about a 460?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;33254087]Sorry for hijacking your thread, but can a 570 max out BF3, providing there is a sufficient CPU? Also, what about a 460?[/QUOTE]
570 definitely can at about 50-60FPS. A 460 not quite, more around 30 FPS or so.
[QUOTE=Ridz0r;33252481]I'd go with a i7 2600K, 8GB of ram and a GTX 580 (Or a 590 if you have the cash).
And you should be set.[/QUOTE]
If I'm not mistaken, a 590 isn't more than 100% faster than SLI 570s. 2 570s are cheaper than 1 590, and would perform better.
Then again, you could get 1 590 now and another later, but I do not believe it'd be worth it really.
You should go for a Core i5 2500k, 8GB of RAM and a GTX 570. 2500k is the best processor on the general market you can get for gaming. A single GTX 570 is best for price/performance and can max BF3. Get a second GTX 570 for SLI if money isn't an issue.
I found out I can afford 3 GTX570's. Bet that'll do its job.
[URL="http://www.komplett.no/k/shoplist.aspx?mode=receive&si=1007735&su=4D1F831B-9560-4105-B39D-9112D8B7B9D2"]Here's my shopping list so far.[/URL]
Three 570's and a single 1280x1024 monitor, 2700k with a D14, 24gb of RAM, what a massive waste of money.
Honestly though, are you this adamant on spending all of this money for no apparent reason other than what seems to be bragging rights? You can max BF3 on a single 570/580 at 1080p with more than playable frames, unless you're going triple monitors, 2560x1600+ single monitor or 3D all these cards are wasted, money in the bank is the best way to future proof your computer.
What you want is a 2500k/2600k, 570 or 580 and 8gb of RAM unless you can justify the 2700k, multiple cards or 24gb of RAM.
[QUOTE=David Tennant;33257075]Three 570's and a single 1280x1024 monitor, 2700k with a D14, what a massive waste of money.
Honestly though, are you this adamant on spending all of this money for no apparent reason other than what seems to be bragging rights? You can max BF3 on a single 570/580 at 1080p with more than playable frames, unless you're going triple monitors, 2560x1600+ single monitor or 3D all these cards are wasted, money in the bank is the best way to future proof your computer.[/QUOTE]
I have 3 other monitors, I will also be using the cards for rendering in certain applications.
But question is if you will actually be playing on all monitors. I would find it quite uncomfortable to play on three 19" 1024p monitors. You'd also be better of with getting a dedicated gpu for rendering purposes, and a separate one for games if that is the case. I do recall that gpu's that are made for that purpose are significantly better then one that is made for games.
[QUOTE=PepperMD;33254229]570 definitely can at about 50-60FPS. A 460 not quite, more around 30 FPS or so.[/QUOTE]
Could a 460 run it on mid-low settings with a high framerate? Also, is a 560 a significant increase in power?
The 460 will surely run it in 1080p on medium settings at a decent framerate. And the 560 is significantly better, 560ti is even more so.
How much do the 560 and the 560ti cost?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;33266997]How much do the 560 and the 560ti cost?[/QUOTE]
560ti is about $230 560 is bout $190
[QUOTE=farmatyr;33257042]I found out I can afford 3 GTX570's. Bet that'll do its job.
[URL="http://www.komplett.no/k/shoplist.aspx?mode=receive&si=1007735&su=4D1F831B-9560-4105-B39D-9112D8B7B9D2"]Here's my shopping list so far.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I'd change the Seagate if I were you, the barracudas are renown to not last long, especially the green series. If you can maybe swap over to Samsung, if you really want 2tb an F4 might do you otherwise I'd suggest getting two F3's if you think it can manage it.
I'd also like to add I've had some bad things happen with large barracudas so I might just be a little biased for them dying after a couple of months...
[QUOTE=eddy-tt-;33267494]I'd change the Seagate if I were you, the barracudas are renown to not last long, especially the green series. If you can maybe swap over to Samsung, if you really want 2tb an F4 might do you otherwise I'd suggest getting two F3's if you think it can manage it.
I'd also like to add I've had some bad things happen with large barracudas so I might just be a little biased for them dying after a couple of months...[/QUOTE]
I think I read somewhere that certain Seagates HDD's models in particular are more prone to failure with higher capacities as opposed to others (1TB and over), you might want to correct me on that though. I also don't really recommend the OP getting a 2TB F4 unless of course you use it as a secondary storage device, not a boot drive, mainly due to its 5400RPM speed. Setting 2 HDD's in RAID 0 is risky enough unless you go for a RAID 10 setup.
My two 2TB F4s (HD204UI) are actually faster than the two 400GB (HD403LJ) (7200RPM) drives in my computer by about double the MB/s. - At least according to Passmark PerformanceTest but it's the first time I have used this software so I can't really vouch for its accuracy. I wish I could compare it to the two Seagate 1TB ST31000528AS' I have but they are in a NAS and in a RAID array.
From actual usage though they don't seem sluggish at all and best of all, they run really... REALLY cool.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.