Anyone running the BF3 Beta using a GTX260?

Thats what I have an Im hoping I can run it med-high with my current setup. Would really suck if I had to wait til I upgrade to play it with at least some eye candy. I cant really compare BF3 to any game so be running anything else doesnt really give me an answer. What do you say? I think its getting to the point where I have to upgrade a good bit eh? Also have a Q6600 at 3.2GHz and 4 GB of RAM. Lemme know. Thanks.

GTX 260 core 216? And yea, I'm in the same boat as you guys.

I have been playing the BF3 beta on my Dell XPS Laptop at medium settings with silky smooth frames. I have a Nvidia GT540M card, 6 GB RAM , i-7 2620 2.7 GHz CPU. Im sure you guys can handle it!

I ran the alpha at 2048x1152 when I still had a GTX 260. It ran really well even though it was low settings.

These are my specs:

Q6600 OCed @ 3.2GHz

4GB RAM

GTX 260 Core 216

Windows 7 64 Bit

On Operation Metro I got around 40 FPS. My settings were Medium-High. Medium Shadows and Terrain Quality (locked for some reason) and the rest High with no AA. On Caspian Border I got between 20-35 FPS. I have to say - after trying the game twice - the graphics arent as they should be. I can run BC2 on all high with 2xAA and get not less than 35 or 40 FPS.

I understand that BF3 is a next gen game but it truely doesnt look like that. The graphics are cheap and papery. I know you're going to flame me for saying it but it truely is. The fire and effects are trashy and there is too much going on on the screen. Explosions and particle effects are similarly sub par for me. I have all those settings on high and yet it looks that poor? I dont get it. The game confuses me more than anything else.

Im sad the game has to be like this. Its as if it will only look good if you're running it on Ultra. Models seem so sub par compared to BC2. Sure BC2 had its rough edges but at least it had a consistent and very solid feel to it compared to BF3. Its sad - first Dead Island, then Rage and RO2 and so many other games being released and sub par. Disappointing.

I have to say - after trying the game twice - the graphics arent as they should be. I can run BC2 on all high with 2xAA and get not less than 35 or 40 FPS.

I understand that BF3 is a next gen game but it truely doesnt look like that. The graphics are cheap and papery. I know you're going to flame me for saying it but it truely is. The fire and effects are trashy and there is too much going on on the screen. Explosions and particle effects are similarly sub par for me. I have all those settings on high and yet it looks that poor? I dont get it. The game confuses me more than anything else.

Im sad the game has to be like this. Its as if it will only look good if you're running it on Ultra. Models seem so sub par compared to BC2. Sure BC2 had its rough edges but at least it had a consistent and very solid feel to it compared to BF3. Its sad - first Dead Island, then Rage and RO2 and so many other games being released and sub par. Disappointing.

Gamesterpheonix

You do know the graphics aren't finished right? DICE already stated these are not final.

Also you can set it to ultra, but that doesn't matter. There's only medium-quality assets in the beta, so you won't see anything above that.

Rage and Dead Island are so not subpar!! :evil:

I don't have one myself, but a close buddy of mine does and he runs it just great. I'm using a GTX 460 and I haven't actually played it myself sadly since I don't want to explode my measly PSU until I can upgrade it.

Also, does anyone have a link with DICE stating the beta isn't the final build? I'm hearing everyone make fun of the beta and saying DICE is bsing us, but then when people say its not a final build we don't get a link of DICE saying that.

I don't understand how I can max out BC2 and run it buttery smooth, but for BF3 I gotta run it on low/medium on Caspian otherwise it's practically unplayable. That makes no sense. It's inexcusable when the performance impact doesn't match the graphical output considering the previous game did exactly that so much better. I knew it was gonna be more demanding but damn, I gotta make BF3 look like crap for it to be playable.

It's making me consider holding out on the game till someone confirms the performance is much better for it. I'd rather not buy a game that runs so inconsistent and choppy. If that's the case I'll just save my money.

inb4 "it's a beta"

I don't understand how I can max out BC2 and run it buttery smooth, but for BF3 I gotta run it on low/medium on Caspian otherwise it's practically unplayable. That makes no sense. It's inexcusable when the performance impact doesn't match the graphical output considering the previous game did exactly that so much better. I knew it was gonna be more demanding but damn, I gotta make BF3 look like crap for it to be playable.

It's making me consider holding out on the game till someone confirms the performance is much better for it. I'd rather not buy a game that runs so inconsistent and choppy. If that's the case I'll just save my money.

inb4 "it's a beta"

Mystic-G

It's a beta.

Also get a quad core :P

Getting a quad core won't change anything unless i get something serious. My E8400 can keep up and surpass similarly priced core 2 quads in bad company 2. So unless u pull up a cpu benchmark showin otherwise for BF3 then ill have to dish out like $280 for a core i3 build and reinstapl windows in the process. Again... this doesn't change the fact that the performance to graphical ratio is waay off. Bad company 2 on max looks better than low/med settings on bf3Mystic-G

Techspot has a small benchmark showing the advantages of a quad-core.

Also doesn't change the fact that graphics aren't final and will be better and more demanding when it finally launches. Stop saying it's disappointing or bad.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Getting a quad core won't change anything unless i get something serious. My E8400 can keep up and surpass similarly priced core 2 quads in bad company 2. So unless u pull up a cpu benchmark showin otherwise for BF3 then ill have to dish out like $280 for a core i3 build and reinstapl windows in the process. Again... this doesn't change the fact that the performance to graphical ratio is waay off. Bad company 2 on max looks better than low/med settings on bf3ChubbyGuy40

Techspot has a small benchmark showing the advantages of a quad-core.

Also doesn't change the fact that graphics aren't final and will be better and more demanding when it finally launches. Stop saying it's disappointing or bad.

These are my specs:

Q6600 OCed @ 3.2GHz

4GB RAM

GTX 260 Core 216

Windows 7 64 Bit

On Operation Metro I got around 40 FPS. My settings were Medium-High. Medium Shadows and Terrain Quality (locked for some reason) and the rest High with no AA. On Caspian Border I got between 20-35 FPS. I have to say - after trying the game twice - the graphics arent as they should be. I can run BC2 on all high with 2xAA and get not less than 35 or 40 FPS.

I understand that BF3 is a next gen game but it truely doesnt look like that. The graphics are cheap and papery. I know you're going to flame me for saying it but it truely is. The fire and effects are trashy and there is too much going on on the screen. Explosions and particle effects are similarly sub par for me. I have all those settings on high and yet it looks that poor? I dont get it. The game confuses me more than anything else.

Im sad the game has to be like this. Its as if it will only look good if you're running it on Ultra. Models seem so sub par compared to BC2. Sure BC2 had its rough edges but at least it had a consistent and very solid feel to it compared to BF3. Its sad - first Dead Island, then Rage and RO2 and so many other games being released and sub par. Disappointing.

Gamesterpheonix

It's disappointing when I can go into Bad Company 2 and make the game look and run better on my screen. If that's not bad or disappointing to someone then they're clearly blinded by the hype surrounding the game.

Mystic-G

Why are you completely ignoring the fact that the graphics are not final in the beta and will look much better, and be harder to render with the final release?

PS: Bad Company 2 is pretty ugly at times, especially if you turn off bloom so you can actually see in multiplayer maps.

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

It's disappointing when I can go into Bad Company 2 and make the game look and run better on my screen. If that's not bad or disappointing to someone then they're clearly blinded by the hype surrounding the game.

ChubbyGuy40

Why are you completely ignoring the fact that the graphics are not final in the beta and will look much better, and be harder to render with the final release?

PS: Bad Company 2 is pretty ugly at times, especially if you turn off bloom so you can actually see in multiplayer maps.

The effects/shaders definitely look better but it's canceled out by the crappy AA.

I don't understand how I can max out BC2 and run it buttery smooth, but for BF3 I gotta run it on low/medium on Caspian otherwise it's practically unplayable. That makes no sense. It's inexcusable when the performance impact doesn't match the graphical output considering the previous game did exactly that so much better. I knew it was gonna be more demanding but damn, I gotta make BF3 look like crap for it to be playable.

It's making me consider holding out on the game till someone confirms the performance is much better for it. I'd rather not buy a game that runs so inconsistent and choppy. If that's the case I'll just save my money.

inb4 "it's a beta"

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

I don't understand how I can max out BC2 and run it buttery smooth, but for BF3 I gotta run it on low/medium on Caspian otherwise it's practically unplayable. That makes no sense. It's inexcusable when the performance impact doesn't match the graphical output considering the previous game did exactly that so much better. I knew it was gonna be more demanding but damn, I gotta make BF3 look like crap for it to be playable.

It's making me consider holding out on the game till someone confirms the performance is much better for it. I'd rather not buy a game that runs so inconsistent and choppy. If that's the case I'll just save my money.

inb4 "it's a beta"

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

I don't understand how I can max out BC2 and run it buttery smooth, but for BF3 I gotta run it on low/medium on Caspian otherwise it's practically unplayable. That makes no sense. It's inexcusable when the performance impact doesn't match the graphical output considering the previous game did exactly that so much better. I knew it was gonna be more demanding but damn, I gotta make BF3 look like crap for it to be playable.

It's making me consider holding out on the game till someone confirms the performance is much better for it. I'd rather not buy a game that runs so inconsistent and choppy. If that's the case I'll just save my money.

inb4 "it's a beta"

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="mitu123"] What res are you playing at? If above 1440x900, good luck, BF3 beta ate up nearly all my VRAM even though I have 2 1GB 460s.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] I was playing at 1152 x 864. Hardly that demanding of a resolution. I can play BC2 maxed out at 1280x1024 with smooth gameplay. Also, even though you have two 1GB 460s, you still only have 1GB of VRAM available but I'm sure u already know that. Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Yes, I do know that about my VRAM and even at 1600x900 I've seen it used 1014(of 1024) before, I'm scared.D= And yeah, Caspian is cpu extensive while Metro runs much better, I know this because when my gpus get higher usage the FPS goes way up when it needs to, but I'm betting the beta isn't all optimized anyways, Ultra doesn't even work.

mitu123

I run at work an i3 with 6GB crappy RAM and a GTX260 stock. Its running on medium settings at present and Metro map is stable at 40-45fps but Caspian lacks definition which is ok if your having a sit back game but when in the thick of it its not pleasant.

Personally with the cost of GFX cards like the 460 being so cheap i would sell off the GTX260, still get £50 and purchase a newer one

[QUOTE="Gamesterpheonix"]

These are my specs:

Q6600 OCed @ 3.2GHz

4GB RAM

GTX 260 Core 216

Windows 7 64 Bit

On Operation Metro I got around 40 FPS. My settings were Medium-High. Medium Shadows and Terrain Quality (locked for some reason) and the rest High with no AA. On Caspian Border I got between 20-35 FPS. I have to say - after trying the game twice - the graphics arent as they should be. I can run BC2 on all high with 2xAA and get not less than 35 or 40 FPS.

I understand that BF3 is a next gen game but it truely doesnt look like that. The graphics are cheap and papery. I know you're going to flame me for saying it but it truely is. The fire and effects are trashy and there is too much going on on the screen. Explosions and particle effects are similarly sub par for me. I have all those settings on high and yet it looks that poor? I dont get it. The game confuses me more than anything else.

Im sad the game has to be like this. Its as if it will only look good if you're running it on Ultra. Models seem so sub par compared to BC2. Sure BC2 had its rough edges but at least it had a consistent and very solid feel to it compared to BF3. Its sad - first Dead Island, then Rage and RO2 and so many other games being released and sub par. Disappointing.

gunmaster55555

Someone shoulddo a BF2 and BF3 screenshot comparison. I do agree it would be complete BS if the BF3 turned out looking worse than BF2 at "high" (beta max) settings, yet require much more power to run. That just screams unoptimization. And the fact that its a beta doesn't make the situation any better, because it won't mean that it'll require less power to run in the final build.