New Video Card Recommendations for Battlefield 3

I just ordered a new 120 hz 27 inch monitor for BF3...I'm guessing I will be needing 2x580's to run the game at 120fps with all the eye candy turned up or 3x570's.

I'm really hoping "Kepler" mid range cards hit the shelves soon after the games released to drive down prices tho I got doubts the "690" will be available much before Xmas and most likely later than that.

Some guys on the OCAU forums are running quad 580's for BF3's release. Wish I could afford that lol.

The MSI cards do have a good rep tho. But imo the 560 as a single card solution will struggle with BF3 with maxed effects. Would be better to wait for benches imo but if you don't want all the eye candy then it will probably suffice.

Competetive players I have been told don't bother with "pretty" they want max fps and turn the effects down in order to acheive that.

smarteyeball said:

That card has a good rep (although known to be noisy under heavy load)

Most of my reading shows it stays quiet enough. If I'm under high load, i must be gaming and then I can take a bit more noise. I just want it quiet at idle. This seems to show that it's inline with all other cards around it's performance level.

MSI N560GTX Ti Twin Frozer II review

simmo said:

I just ordered a new 120 hz 27 inch monitor for BF3...I'm guessing I will be needing 2x580's to run the game at 120fps with all the eye candy turned up or 3x570's.

What is the point of running at 120FPS other than bragging? I understand that at less then 30, you get stuttering....but at 60 or so it's perfectly smooth. I cannot see spending $900 to get more FPS. If you are running multi-monitors and require an insane resolution...then yes...but for FPS?

simmo said:

Some guys on the OCAU forums are running quad 580's for BF3's release. Wish I could afford that lol.

Well, many gamers and computer enthusiasts are highly obsessive compulsive and other buy more than they need. I cannot imaging dropping $2k on video cards for a game. This helps remind me why I have been gaming on consoles in the past 7 years or so.

simmo said:

. But imo the 560 as a single card solution will struggle with BF3 with maxed effects. Would be better to wait for benches imo but if you don't want all the eye candy then it will probably suffice.

Well, I'm alright with not having everything to the absolute max in a game. In years past, I would drop down things to get better performance and I'm fine with that. I usually experiment with different settings and if I don't see a significantly noticeable change, I drop the setting and thus opt for more performance/less load For example, in BF2 with regards to Texture, I don't see any difference between these. .

with regards to texture mappings, I hardly see the difference between low and high in these;




I mean sure, if I study each picture very carefully I can note the slight differences. But when I am running around and completely in motion, i fail to see where these subtle changes could ever be noticeable.

I want the game to look good and I will keep the settings high enough to get there. But if I can drop some game settings to reduce load on my PC's and these changes don't lower the game experience significantly, that is what I will do.

I would not opt to spend $200 or $300 more for a nicer video card to get me from Medium to high in the above shots.

pparks1 said:

What is the point of running at 120FPS other than bragging?

3D.

Plus increased fluidity, responsiveness and overall smoothness.

Like the noticeable difference between 30 and 60fps,there is also a noticeable difference between 60 and 120fps.

It's far more than just bragging.

smarteyeball said:

Plus increased fluidity, responsiveness and overall smoothness.

It's funny how you see people who say anything more than 60FPS is really unnoticeable and others who will say that anything less than 120FPS is completely unplayable. I guess it's all based on your previous expectations. Since I've never run SLI or crossfire, nor had an absolutely killer video card...I've never experienced a super high frame rate..thus if I can clock in around 60-75 its' perfectly fine to be based on my experiences. For me, that is completely fluid and responsive.

But then again, there are those that would tell me there are worlds of difference in the above pictures that I posted...while I don't agree. There are minute, subtle, almost unnoticeable change to me.

It's that way with everything. Some say the stock coolers on the Intel Core 2 Quads are garbage and aren't suitable for standard clock speeds.....while I am happily running an albeit small-moderate overclock from 2.83Ghz to 3.40Ghz on that stock cooler and I never get over 60 celcius running Prime95 with my stock Intel Cooler. I idle between 28-34 Celcius. Everything is within specs and the machine never crashes...so all is good in my eyes.

I truly do appreciate all of the responses, and I don't want to sound argumentative....just having a discussing and figuring out what is right for me.

I think it really does depend on the monitor itself in regards to the Framerate.

As we are all aware, a 60Hz display is by far the most common.
And with one of of these 30-60 FPS is the sweet spot.
But redering beyond 60 is a waste with these, simply because they can not display more than that.


But ,if you have a 120hz monitor I can see 60-120FPS being ideal.
You shouldn't see any image tearing since its able to display them all.
We must also consider though that quite a few games will require a significant amount of GPU power to maintain a steady 120FPS too, 3D purposes aside.

But I also think, the majority who are going with 120hz monitors are not only interested in 3D but also most likely looking into at least a GTX580, 590, or 6990.


In regards to the next gen GPUs, you could always go with something like eVGAs -AR series. (Not sure if anyone else does something similar)
This will give you 90 days to trade it in on the next Gen, if they come out out before StepUp expires, as well as a lifetime warranty.
This likely will not happen, but it is a option, unless of course you simply do not like thier cards.


I went this route thinking Id upgrade to a nextgen or the 580.
Was hoping top get lucky and they come out by now but .. ended up keeping my 570SC. Didnt really feel the need to move to the 580 after using it a while.

It's got nothing to do with bragging...120hz is better for FPS games and the guys who are using them now say that if you go back to 60hz there is a noticeable difference. Also 3D requires 120hz and serious graphics grunt you will not get with a single card solution.
Secondly some people have the money and can afford hi end systems. If I could I wouldn't hesitate to run quad SLI and triple monitors but I don't have that money so I'm happy to settle for the best I can afford.

simmo said:

Also 3D requires 120hz and serious graphics grunt you will not get with a single card solution.

Lucky for me, I had a wandering eye as a kid and am left unable to see 3D.

simmo said:

Secondly some people have the money and can afford hi end systems. If I could I wouldn't hesitate to run quad SLI.

While i have sufficient money to make a purchase like this, I also have lots of other hobbies and interests..not to mention children, a mortgage, etc. Gotta prioritize.

pparks1 said:

It's funny how you see people who say anything more than 60FPS is really unnoticeable and others who will say that anything less than 120FPS is completely unplayable.

The former are usually those with 60HZ panels and the latter with 120hz. People like to justify their purchases.

120hz is nice but is still more of a enthusiast market atm. They currently only come in TN panels, which is a thumbs down if you are used to IPS. The range is somewhat limited by comparison.

The grunt needed to adequately push 120fps is more than most single GPU's can deliver. 60hz/60FPS is fine. I'm personally in no rush to go 120hz.

Electronic Arts and Dice have revealed the official system requirements now -

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

Battlefield 3 system requirements announced | bit-gamer.net

Bit higher specs that I first thought for the recommended settings.

Paul.