Fc3 - 60Fps - @ Max Settings?

#1 Posted by EQShaman (604 posts) -

What do I need to run this game at 60 fps on max settings?

#2 Posted by FlankerDFMax (1777 posts) -

I'm running the GFX maxed on my late model gaming notebook (1920 x 180); getting 60-80 FPS most of the time.

Intel i7 Sandybridge 3820QM @ 2.7-3.7GHz

Not real sure about the chipset

16GB DDR31600

2 Nvidia GTX 680Ms in SLI (4 GBs DDR5/ea)

latest drivers.....blah, blah, blah

#3 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

Which model are you running? I used to have an Alienware M17x when I was doing my post grad and it was awesome for gaming. 

Gone back to the 'tower of power' now though.

#4 Posted by pooxtreme3 (544 posts) -

i have a gtx nvidia 580m...i7 2.4ghz...8gb ram..how would this setup do

#5 Posted by EQShaman (604 posts) -
so thats what it takes, 2 680s? ill start saving...
#6 Posted by Ernesto_basic (2123 posts) -

On my ASUS G75 (660GTXm), I play with nearly everything maxed out, with the exception of VSYNC and it runs about as well as it does on the 360. I'm not one of those guys that has to have 60+ FPS, so the mid 30's and 40's work well for me.

#7 Posted by FlankerDFMax (1777 posts) -

Which model are you running? I used to have an Alienware M17x when I was doing my post grad and it was awesome for gaming.

Gone back to the 'tower of power' now though.

alphatango1

Sorry about the late reply. It's a Sager 9370/Clevo P370; purchased through Xotic PC. I'd prefer a desk top (more power/capability for less money than any notebook), but due to my frequent employment over seas I need something I can pick up and fly with when the time comes. I'm very pleased with this notebook; it's the first of several DTRs I've owned that has components specifically built for note book use (as opposed to desktop components shoe horned into a large, thick, heavy, heat generating, and power consumptive beast). The 9370 is about 2/3 the weight of all the other high end 17" notebooks I've owned, rocks on late model games, and doesn't generate nearly the waste heat all the others did. I think Intel, Nvidia, and Clevo/Sager are onto something. :)

#8 Posted by crognalsen (71 posts) -

I have a gtx 660 ti and I have to lower the settings to medium to achieve 60 fps, but the game still looks good to me.

#9 Posted by flush_531 (22 posts) -

i got this game on two computers at home

comp 1:

amd phenom x4 @ 3.6

16 gig of ram

sli 560's at 50-60 FPS DX11 MSAA X2, SSAO settings between ultra and medium(shadows, foliage take a lot of fps)

or 80-90 FPS DX9 maxed

Comp 2:

G1 assassin 2 MB

intel 3930K @ 4.0ghz

32 gig of ram

GTX670 superoverclock 4gb

Completely MAXED(DX11,MSAAX4) =45FPS

MSAA X2 = 80 FPS.

Game looks stunning in 3D especially with the attatchments mod, no fast travel and mini map defs the way to play the game

#10 Posted by DrKill09 (6238 posts) -

 

 Pfft, Alienware...

What a waste of money.

 

 

 

 

#11 Posted by Skinon (86 posts) -

 

 Pfft, Alienware...

What a waste of money.

 

 

 

 

DrKill09

 

Aaaaaalways someone....

#13 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

That's always the response of people ignorant of the product.

#14 Posted by DrDobalina (47 posts) -

P9X79 Deluxe MB

Intel 3820 (Socket 2011) @ 4.2ghz (could overclock it a lot more, but no point to be honest)

32GB quad channel RAM @ 2400

4 x 120GB Vertex 4 SSDs in RAID0

2 x GTX690's in SLI (slightly factory overclocked, but I haven't OC'd them; again, no point)

1200W PSU

All watercooled, in NZXT case

3 x 1920x1200 monitors for gameplay, + 1 x 1920x1080 touchscreen mounted above

As expected, runs with everything maxed at 6014x1200 (using bezel adjustment). Haven't found a game yet that slows it down, so I'd be surprised if FC3 did it ;-))

One thing I will say though is that loading times are a bit annoying. This is the first game where I've had to wait more than a second or so for a level to load. With e.g. Skyrim, I don't get time so really see the graphic+text they use as a level loads. It's there, then it's gone! FC3 seems to need a good 8-10 seconds to start a level for some reason.

#15 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

If you listen carefully you can hear a subtle sound growing progressively louder.

Your alarm clock.......

#16 Posted by DrDobalina (47 posts) -

Are you referring to my post? I can assure you I do have that setup. Did you think it's impossible for someone to have something you do not? That PC is used exclusively for gaming - I could have listed all the other peripherals, but I stuck mostly with the parts related to gaming performance.

I work mostly from home, and my work PC is almost as powerful (24GB RAM, 2 x AMD 7870's running 6 monitors, 2 x 512GB SSDs + 3 3TB data drives on a raid controller card - and more emphasis has been placed on keeping it quieter as it's used all day long, mostly for video editing and rendering work ).

#17 Posted by Skinon (86 posts) -
Im interested in getting a ruthless gaming setup like this, what sorta money would you be looking at to build something like this? $5-8000? NZD of course...
#18 Posted by judge__judy (2125 posts) -
Im interested in getting a ruthless gaming setup like this, what sorta money would you be looking at to build something like this? $5-8000? NZD of course...Skinon
Search all of the parts on pricespy.co.nz if you want to find out. I'm guessing around 7k NZD
#19 Posted by 2bitSmOkEy (2713 posts) -

i5 2500k OC to 4.5 ghz.

 

8 gigs of ram

 

1 EVGA 670 FTW

 

Everything is maxed at 1920 x 1200 resolution but I have msaa AA off.

#20 Posted by DrDobalina (47 posts) -

Think I've spent a total of around £5000 (ukp) on my gaming rig including monitors and peripherals - hard to tell exactly as it's been a gradual process. The pair of 690's alone were around £2000 though. To be honest you really don't need this for any current game, even running across 3 displays. A single 680 can do it, although you won't run max settings on BF3 at 6000+ x 1200 on a single 680.

I would say stay WELL away from AMD though - their CPUs are nowhere near Intel's for performance, and I consider their gfx cards to be total crap for gaming. I tried a 7970 when they came out and it was nothing but problems - crashes, disappearing cursor etc. Never had those problems with NVidia. The 7970 is now in my headless server (needed a gfx card in it to boot, as it's based on an old X58 motherboard with no onboard VGA), it runs 80x25 text mode under linux now - that's about all it's good for ;-))

I do have a pair of AMD gfx cards in my work PC, but I don't play any games on that, and rarely use anything that needs 3D, so they manage ok for basic Windows office work.

#21 Posted by skipper847 (3337 posts) -

Well i have a 670 GTX and find turning of Anisotropic filtering off in the controll panel improves frame rates hell of a lot and makes no difference to textures and also cam have msaaX4 on instead.

#23 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

Are you referring to my post? I can assure you I do have that setup. Did you think it's impossible for someone to have something you do not? That PC is used exclusively for gaming - I could have listed all the other peripherals, but I stuck mostly with the parts related to gaming performance.

I work mostly from home, and my work PC is almost as powerful (24GB RAM, 2 x AMD 7870's running 6 monitors, 2 x 512GB SSDs + 3 3TB data drives on a raid controller card - and more emphasis has been placed on keeping it quieter as it's used all day long, mostly for video editing and rendering work ).

DrDobalina

Only teasing. I thought my rig  was extravagent.

I dont see what value you would get from SLIing 2 690's as they are essentially SLI'd in the first place. Having four g cards would add little to no performance increase over the standard 2. But in terms of pimp my rig, why not.

Picture pls.