New
#1
PC Battlefield 3 Beta Performance With Dual Cores.
I am wanting to know if anyone has played Battlefield 3 Beta on PC with just a dual core and how the performance was.
I am wanting to know if anyone has played Battlefield 3 Beta on PC with just a dual core and how the performance was.
I played it on my Q9550 quad core and my CPU didn't even break a sweat. But I understand your concerns, I think min spec calls for a Dual core at 2.4Ghz.
Minimum Requirements
OS: Windows Vista Service Pack 2 32-bit
Processor: 2GHz dual-core (Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz or Athlon X2 2.7GHz)
Memory: 2GB RAM
Hard drive: 20GB
Graphics card AMD: DirectX 10.1 compatible with 512MB RAM (ATI Radeon HD 3000, 4000, 5000 or 6000 series, with ATI Radeon HD 3870 or higher performance)
Graphics card Nvidia: DirectX 10.0 compatible with 512MB RAM (Nvidia GeForce 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 or 500 series with Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT or higher performance)
Sound card: DirectX compatible
Keyboard and mouse
DVD-ROM drive
Recommended Specifications
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core CPU
Memory: 4GB RAM
Hard drive: 20GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11-compatible with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950)
Sound card: DirectX compatible
Keyboard and mouse
DVD-ROM drive
before building my newest pc, i waited for the specs to be released, and then added a little extra head room lol just in case.
seemed fitting to build this rig for bf3, as my first rig was build for bf2 lol
Looks like I'll have to go low if I were to play it on my PC (the nVidia site says best I'll get is just above 20FPS). I had CoD Black Ops on this machine, and even on low quality graphics performance was worse than an unpatched GTAIV!
I would really like to get myself an i7 rig, but without a job, by the time I have saved the money for an i7, the i9 and i11 might be out.
i don't know what frostbite 2 is like - but i noticed quite a big difference with BC2 going from dual-core E8400@4GHz to quad-core i5 2500K@4.2 GHz.
the cpu performance difference was much more noticeable than upgrading my gfx card from HD4890 to HD6950 a few months ago - frame-rates didn't improve very much at all.
with the new cpu, finally i can crank all gfx settings to the max and not be penalised with slowdowns at hectic moments.
Two reasons for the mickey,
1. BFBC2 and BF3 are both multi-threaded and perform better with more cores.
2. The audio (from BFBC2),
Battlefield BlogNaturally, doing all of the audio processing in software puts the CPU under some extra strain. Since Xbox360/PS3 has fixed hardware and both have multiple cores available to do many things in parallel, you could say this is only an issue for the PC SKU where we may end up having less cores than on console. In Bad Company, all audio processing is performed sequentially on a single hardware thread regardless of platform. For PC this means that a CPU with a higher frequency will help more than one with more cores. But of course, there are other areas of the game that execute in parallel, so having more than 2 cores will help the game in general. This is an area we're constantly looking to improve and the results of our efforts will show up in future titles.
Essentially means that having more than 2 cores allows one to be dedicated to just the audio processing, and I don't see BF3 being any different. This is/was pretty much the biggest gain in that game when moving from a dual core to a quad core.
As for the dual core CPU.. I'd say the GPU will be more of importance.. I don't think the OP's 9400GT will handle BF3 even on low. I had the 512MB 9800GTX+ and playing the BF3 Beta on low sucked! I upgraded to the MSi 2GB HD 6950