Review Index:

Battlefield 3 Beta Performance Testing and Image Quality Evaluation - Day 1

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: EA

Game Quality Settings Comparison

Even though we did all of our testing at the Ultra quality settings for our Day 1 results, we were curious to see how much of a difference in image quality we would see when switching between the various presets of Ultra, High, Medium and Low.  One note here: switching between the quality settings requires a restart of the game client, meaning you have to exit the server you are playing on and either re-join or find another one.  Also, if you want to change settings for some freaking reason you can only do it when you are "deployed", spawned and in the game.  You cannot do it while you are dead - which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Even worse, if you are in the settings and you die (which will happen as yoareu standing still looking like a jackass), you get pushed OUT of the settings menu and nothing you did is saved.  Pretty nice, huh?  Oh well, we fought through all the pain of that to take the following screenshots.

View Full Size

(NVIDIA) BF3: Operation Metro - 1920x1200 - Ultra Settings - Click to Enlarge

View Full Size

(NVIDIA) BF3: Operation Metro - 1920x1200 - High Settings - Click to Enlarge

View Full Size

(NVIDIA) BF3: Operation Metro - 1920x1200 - Medium Settings - Click to Enlarge

View Full Size

(NVIDIA) BF3: Operation Metro - 1920x1200 - Low Settings - Click to Enlarge

Again, I did my best to line up in the exact spot each time but since it was a new server and game instance each time, there are some minor differences.  The primary difference I see in all four of our images above is in the amount of antialiasing going on.  The Low present doesn't have much of it and you see very hard edges on the shadows on the ground.  After that, the differences appear to be in the shadow quality as well as detail anti-aliasing in the trees, the bench seats, etc. 

I did make some basic animated images below to try to give you a better way to view the differences.

The gun barrel doesn't appear to change much though texture quality is a bit better on the High-Ultra side of things. 

Again the Low quality setting is the one that really stands as being "bad" and even Medium makes a big jump over that. 

This shot tells us a bit more about the quality scaling from Low to Ultra as you can see the foliage in the background increase as the quality setting does as well.  Of course the shadows are the most obvious change.

The detail on the gazebo is definitely lost in the Low quality setting and we see a small but consistent increase in the distant object quality as we progress through Medium, High and Ultra.

Video News

September 28, 2011 | 02:39 PM - Posted by ZackJ (not verified)

Thanks Ryan for your day 1 review, I along with the community greatly appreciate this at the time. I can't wait to hop on BF3 come Thursday to test out my GTX460. I could get 45 - 70fps at 1680 x 1050 on Battlefield Bad Company 2 at max so looks like BF3 is going to be pretty rough on my card. Can't wait to see more test from you and your crew.

September 28, 2011 | 05:34 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Hopefully I'll be able toss in a GTX 460 today and post some updated results.

September 28, 2011 | 09:11 PM - Posted by 72VirginExpress (not verified)

I have the following specs:
AMD Phenom II 1100T Black Edition
EVGA GTX 460 1024 GDDR5
8.0 Ghz 2X4 Kingston DDR3 1600Mhz Barracuda 1-TB

Had absolutely no problems running all settings on high with no noticeable glitches...except for ability to bind mouse settings.

You can contact me if you are looking for more information.

Good bit of research you have done to date....keep it up. First time visit to your site, not last I should think.

September 28, 2011 | 03:52 PM - Posted by mark (not verified)

man the new metro benchy.....nice article

September 28, 2011 | 04:58 PM - Posted by AMDftw (not verified)

I used the 11.9 cat for my dual 5870. I didn't have any problems with mine. I was getting detween 45-70 fps@ 1920*1200. I didn't try my 3 monitor setup tho. I will later on tonight. My set up is. AMD 1090t@4.1 ghz 8gb gskill 2000 mhz flare. 2x120gb ocz ssd in raid. Ga-990fxa-ud7 mobo. 2xga5870 Gpu. 1200watt psu.

September 28, 2011 | 05:34 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

At first I was very surprised by your results then I saw you were using TWO Radeon HD 5870s. That falls much more in line with my thinking.

September 28, 2011 | 06:02 PM - Posted by Paul (not verified)

I also am using 2 5870s with an i7 920 @3.2. I am using the 11.9 driver also and am getting 55-85 FPS on Ultra setting @1920*1200

Pretty happy and the 11.10 driver is supposed to be better with cf support for bf3.

September 28, 2011 | 04:59 PM - Posted by Adam (not verified)

AMD just released a new video driver for the BF3 beta today and nvidia just did the same a few days ago. i think you need to retest things with the updated drivers. Awesome review Ryan.

September 28, 2011 | 05:09 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If you read page one where Ryan tells us the specs of the PC being used he says and I quote ”We used the latest drivers from both NVIDIA and AMD that were released specifically yesterday for Battlefield 3: 285.38 for NVIDIA and 11.10 Preview for AMD.”

September 28, 2011 | 06:11 PM - Posted by rahul (not verified)

Hi Ryan, thanks for putting so much effort into testing BF3!
I was wondering, if you could do some CPU performance tests? Perhaps testing scaling with number of cores or frequency?

September 28, 2011 | 06:16 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I would like to do that and see how frequency and CPU cores helps. May not be until tomorrow sometime that I can sort of play with that.

September 28, 2011 | 06:32 PM - Posted by M3rc Nate (not verified)

I just wanted to say that i have a Q9550 (3.6ghz) and a 6950 2Gb Flashed to 6970 shaders (BF3 Beta Drivers installed). I am getting 50 average outdoors in the park (never dipping below 40) and indoors the average is about 80, sometimes as high as 90FPS.
I game settings are on auto, which has res at 1920x1080, Ultra, 16x AA, and everything on High and Ultra.
To be honest i was expecting much lower frame rates. BC2 and the Witcher 1 had worse frame rates than im getting in BF3. Im loving it though, and im buying a second 6950 to Crossfire.

Odd however is my friend whos using my GTS-250 (512mb) is unplayable in full screen with everything on as low as it can go (at 1920x1080) but he played BC2 on medium everything (same res) and it was smooth.

September 30, 2011 | 12:02 AM - Posted by TinkerToyTech

Hey, I have the exact same setup and I'd be interested in your clocks, timings and voltages as I've little experience with this CPU and OC'ing it. Your help would be most appreciated.

September 28, 2011 | 10:15 PM - Posted by durjoy184 (not verified)

Hi Ryan, i own a i5-2500k @ stock clocks 3.30Ghz...i am planning on overclocking it to 4.5ghz to take advantage of its "K" my question is...will that increase the fps ingame by much?
and in between...RAM, processor speed, GPU...which might you think will be a dominating factor and by how much?

On a different note Seeing as there isnt much difference between high and ultra except for a little smoothing of textures and the AA...would you kindly put up a performance chart of the cards running on high?

Because if there is a considerable increase in the fps, there might not be any reason to run the game at ultra at all... keeping in mind the comparitively high loss in performance.

any feedback is greatly appreciated :)
and thank you for all your hardwork, really is helping us make important decisions on our purchases.

Thank You :)

September 28, 2011 | 10:20 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"Overall I think the NVIDIA cards are currently offering just a bit better experience than the AMD cards due to my instability with the HD 6970 and the better multi-GPU scaling being reported with SLI than CrossFire."

How can you say SLI scaling is better than Crossfire scaling when you didn't even test Crossfire? If you're generalizing, that's some pretty bad "scientific" testing.

September 28, 2011 | 10:55 PM - Posted by Jesse (not verified)

I find this funny because the textures in the beta on ALL platforms are around half quality. They aren't even showing you the best graphics yet. Therefore, your benchmarks are a waste of time =P

September 28, 2011 | 11:06 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

This is incorrect - verified through both GPU vendors and their developer relations teams. That WAS the case in the alpha though.

September 28, 2011 | 11:47 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You are of course aware that the majority of 'ultra' settings aren't functional yet, and don't do anything.. yes?

September 29, 2011 | 12:06 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Reference? I am hearing the exact opposite from both NVIDIA and AMD.

September 29, 2011 | 12:27 AM - Posted by Tim (not verified)

Great rundown PcPer. Just gotta wait for the 7900HD's now :(

Depends what the bottleneck is. What is your graphics card? I play Medal of Honor and had a Q6600@4GHz, with a 5850. when i changed to a 2500K, at stock, it doubled my frames. But still at 4.5GHz, it only added about about 5% more frames

September 29, 2011 | 06:12 AM - Posted by durjoy184 (not verified)

AMD HD6870 stock clocks...i know its a mid-level card...but its all the money i had :\

September 29, 2011 | 12:30 PM - Posted by fuzzynuts69 (not verified)

lol you will be fine!!!

September 29, 2011 | 10:18 PM - Posted by durjoy184 (not verified)

so your saying that i might get a considerable performance boost if i go from 3.3-4.5ghz? :O

and as for ur MOH situation...i think games like those that dont demand much of the cpu....just get overkilled after a stage and cant go any im playing C0D right now....and play it after 4.5ghz....there wouldnt be any difference at all....but on games like crysis, metro 2033...which are more may take effect

i just wanted to make sure of the same for battlefield 3 too before i did any overclocking. :)

September 29, 2011 | 03:00 AM - Posted by HM (not verified)

for the poor folks like me who are still stuck on dual core CPUs, could you disable 2 cores, I mean set affinity to 2 cores only during the game to see the difference (and HT off)?

September 29, 2011 | 05:59 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We might be able to fit that testing in over the next couple of days, sure.

October 2, 2011 | 06:20 AM - Posted by Pablo (not verified)

That would be cool. I'm not really sure if it's worth upgrading to a 6870 while rocking an i5 650.

October 3, 2011 | 05:15 AM - Posted by Irishgamer01

I think a visit to ebay might help.
Some serious bargins. Got my 990x there.
(Yip. Was nervous but it arrived and worked a treat.)
I did my brothers dell too. A Core 2 system. Just swapped out the chips,Dual to quad. Ebayed the dual and got some money back. Just need to check your chipset.

September 29, 2011 | 04:28 AM - Posted by Nilbog

Definitely one of the best articles I've ever read, thank you for such an in depth look.

September 29, 2011 | 04:39 AM - Posted by HalloweenJack (not verified)

wouldnt mind seeing the ultara low end results - minimum spec ones , like HD4xxx or 9800GT , or a minimum cpu/ram combo (amd and intel)

September 29, 2011 | 06:21 AM - Posted by scottwd (not verified)

I agree with HalloweenJack, I wouldnt mind seeing the ultara low end results. I play on a nice beefy PC at home and and barely functional one at lunchtimes at work.

September 29, 2011 | 09:28 AM - Posted by Colin (not verified)

Ryan, I am running a 6970 with the beta 11.10 preview and it works perfectly on both the indoor and outdoor sections. Please retest. I have everything at max and it performs wonderfully.

September 29, 2011 | 10:55 AM - Posted by Adam (not verified)

How much RAM and CPU resources does the game use? How many cores does the game utilize?

September 29, 2011 | 06:00 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

So far the game seems to be fairly well threaded. During my testing with a Core i7-965 processor (quad core with HT) it was using ~40% of the CPU power.

October 1, 2011 | 01:45 AM - Posted by Tim (not verified)

It uses 75%~ on my 2500K@4.2GHz and win7 64bit used 4.8GB ram all up

September 29, 2011 | 11:26 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I would like to see the HD4870(512mb) getting tested in DX10.1(saying this because I have seen other sites testing DX10.1 cards in DX10 only to keep the comparison "fair")

I think it also would be interesting to test the 512MB model and 1GB model of an otherwise identical card, to see how much this game benefits from the extra VRAM

September 29, 2011 | 12:01 PM - Posted by AMDScooter

Even with the 11.10 previews I'm getting bad texture artifacts outdoors. The recently released 11.9 and CAP 11.8/4 are a hair better on my unlocked 6950/xfire setup. Frames are nice and steady with all the bells and whistles maxed out.

September 29, 2011 | 12:28 PM - Posted by fuzzynuts69 (not verified)

well i know i have been play the last 3 days! i have 2 evga 465gtx in sli and got 58fps with everything maxed out. i will say the servers are far to laggy in any setting though. im not sure what to think about this game, i dont know if it is that i have been waiting for ever to play it and had to high of expectations for the game but it is not what i thought it would be:( lol. and im all about battlefield till the end!!!

September 29, 2011 | 12:54 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'd love to see FPS levels at different settings with these GPU's and maybe even a different CPU with the same tests.

September 29, 2011 | 01:35 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

260GTX Core 216 or the 48701gig, they're both the same thing.

Would definitely like to knew where those stands at middle settings with things like SSAO turned off. I'll be heartbroken if the game isn't playable with this card, the 260 isn't bad at all (especially the 216 revision). :(

September 29, 2011 | 02:09 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Nice benchmarks. I am running with I7 920 @ 3.8 and 580 SLI and am getting 70-90 fps. I imagine once released and you can up the anti aliasing options alot of cards may start showing their limits.

September 29, 2011 | 03:15 PM - Posted by sorenk (not verified)

i need a better graphic card, this game is slaughtering my old GTX260 core 216. at medium settings fps is 20-30.

September 29, 2011 | 03:43 PM - Posted by bf_lover (not verified)

I am currently using Q9550, it runs well with bfbc2, but the CPU usage remain 85-95% in the game.
i would like to see how these old C2Q CPUs perform in BF3, compare to new i3\i5.

my spec:
23" 1920x1080\Q9550\8GB DDR2\HD 6850

September 29, 2011 | 05:52 PM - Posted by Kusanagi (not verified)

i just did a run in test. my video card isn't that great, but it's giving me some pretty decent results

system set up:
AMD Phenom 2 X6 1045T @ 2.70Ghz
8GB DDR3 1333
AMD Radeon HD 5570 1GB

30 @ 1920x 1080P

custom game settings:
Texture Q: High
Shadows: Medium
effects: medium
Mesh: medium
Terrain: medium
AA Defered: Off
AA Post: Low
Motion Blur: off
AF : 4X
Ambient Occlusion: SSAO

September 29, 2011 | 06:01 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Those are actually really good results for a 5570. What was your CPU utilization like?

September 29, 2011 | 11:36 PM - Posted by Kusanagi (not verified)

i actually haven't tested that out, yet Ryan. i'll most likely get a chance to tomorrow and post it up

September 29, 2011 | 11:49 PM - Posted by Kusanagi (not verified)

it stays at 45%, max it'll hit is 49&

September 29, 2011 | 06:50 PM - Posted by Mark (not verified)

Athlon 64 x2 6400+, slow memory and a 560ti, low setting is the best playable, memory is really the bottleneck for me.

September 29, 2011 | 10:29 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Honestly, I'd bet your processor is the bottleneck.

September 29, 2011 | 08:09 PM - Posted by AParsh335i (not verified)

I really want to see 6950 2gb and 6970 2gb on eyefinity results :).

September 30, 2011 | 12:03 AM - Posted by TinkerToyTech

What's the PCPER IRC Chatroom info?

September 30, 2011 | 05:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous89 (not verified)

Overclocking Sandy Bridges (i5/i7 2500/2600) gives 1-3 additional FPS. Overclocking your GPU by 10% might give alot more.

ENGTX570 @ 900/2050 65-120 FPS @ Ultra

September 30, 2011 | 08:25 AM - Posted by Billy (not verified)

Since we know that a typical i5/i7 + 570/6970 setup can easily run this game with no issue

Perhaps u could try test something like this.

1. minimum CPU/GPU combo to run @ min 24-30fps @ 1680x1050/1280x1024/1024x768 on LOW setting, WITHOUT AA/Anisotropic. Yes cut everything u can. I still see u run 2x aniso @ 9800GT. Why we need to on these when we need to cut every detail out for fps right?

2. minimum CPU/GPU combo @ 1920x1080/1680x1050 @ medium setting WITHOUT AA that is not too far image quality drop from Ultra max setting.

again to be honest I cant really tell the huge diff between with AA and without on a 1080p, even my primary rig is 2500K +570 now, I barely use >2x AA.

September 30, 2011 | 10:23 AM - Posted by jose nava (not verified)

So I downloaded battlefield 3 beta even know that nvidia says that I couldn't run this game,however I knew that my card could handle this game easy. I run crysis 2 on it without any lags at 1920X 1200.I got an amd athlon X 11 quad core 3.0. 6gb ram 1tb and 460gtx pc runs battlefield 3 beta at 1980x1020. No problems just download the new driver!!

September 30, 2011 | 10:28 AM - Posted by jose nava (not verified)

Sorry 1920X1200

September 30, 2011 | 10:30 AM - Posted by jose nava (not verified)

Sorry !! 1920x 1080

September 30, 2011 | 10:37 AM - Posted by Shawn (not verified)

I just saw a 9500gt ddr 2 512mb pull 29 avg. fps with fraps at 1024*768 at all low settings. graphics arent candy as in ultra but its pretty playable.

September 30, 2011 | 12:16 PM - Posted by simplicity311

You're testing the very two cards that I have in my work and home PC's! I do have a few concerns though with performance on my home PC and would like some insight. Please see below...

Home PC Specs:
-Win 7 64 Pro
-Radeon HD 5850 1GB x1
-Intel Quad Core Q9400@2.66GHz (not overclocked)

*Currently seeing avg 18-20 FPS on low settings at 1920x1200

Work PC Specs:
-Win 7 64 Pro
-Nvidia GeForce 460 GTX 1GB x1
-Intel Core i7 930@2.80GHz (not overclocked)
-8GB Ram

*Currently seeing avg 30-60 FPS on low settings at 1680x1050

As you can see from the drastic FPS difference, I'm beginning to wonder how CPU dependent BF3 really is...thoughts anyone?

September 30, 2011 | 12:30 PM - Posted by simplicity311

You're testing the very two cards that I have in my work and home PC's! I do have a few concerns though with performance on my home PC and would like some insight. Please see below...

Home PC Specs:
-Win 7 64 Pro
-Radeon HD 5850 1GB x1
-Intel Quad Core Q9400@2.66GHz (not overclocked)

*Currently seeing avg 18-20 FPS on low settings at 1920x1200

Work PC Specs:
-Win 7 64 Pro
-Nvidia GeForce 460 GTX 1GB x1
-Intel Core i7 930@2.80GHz (not overclocked)
-8GB Ram

*Currently seeing avg 30-60 FPS on low settings at 1680x1050

As you can see from the drastic FPS difference, I'm beginning to wonder how CPU dependent BF3 really is...thoughts anyone?

September 30, 2011 | 01:10 PM - Posted by FastRedPonyCar (not verified)

I tested it at ultra settings / 1920X1200 yesterday on my system

SLI GTX470's w/mild overclock
i7 920 clocked @ 3.6 ghz
6 gigs DDR3

seemed to get constant 50~ish fps outdoors and stays pegged at 60fps (vsync) indoors. I'm really pleased with the performance. If they did indeed withhold some graphical goodies, even better!

Skyrim is the one game this year that I think could seriously challenge my setup aside from witcher 2 at max settings.

September 30, 2011 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Natsumex (not verified)

How long is the beta going to be available :o

September 30, 2011 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Natsumex (not verified)

How long is the beta going to be available :o

October 1, 2011 | 01:15 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

It runs through Oct 10th.

September 30, 2011 | 05:57 PM - Posted by Cody Templeton (not verified)

Ultra w/anti-aliasing in this game is pretty pointless IMO. It does so much post-processing there aren't many hard edges to soften... my AMD 955 w/stock 5850 gets well above 30fps outdoors, all ultra settings except for AA (which is turned off), and approaches 60 in the subway tunnels.

Performance on the big outdoor 64 player map is better than you would think, very comparable to outdoors on the Metro map, although it seems a lot buggier. I noticed many more problems with the destroyable buildings on that map, more stability issues, and occasional frame rate tanks with little rhyme or reason.

September 30, 2011 | 06:56 PM - Posted by Tomas K. (not verified)

Good article, nice testing.

Do you think i get normal frames on my system or is it a bit too low(outside)?:

i5 2500k @4.0ghz
corsair 2x2gb 1600
MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr II/OC @750/1000

Min fps:34

Everything is set to max - Ultra, 4xAA etc. Resolution 1920x1080

October 1, 2011 | 12:00 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I used a dual geforce gt 540m with an Intel Core i7 2720QM (2.2GHz, turbo boost up to 3.1) and a 8Gb RAM and it passed 60 FPS

October 1, 2011 | 12:01 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I used a dual geforce gt 540m with an Intel Core i7 2720QM (2.2GHz, turbo boost up to 3.1) and a 8Gb RAM and it passed 60 FPS on ultra (1920 x 1080)

October 1, 2011 | 01:10 AM - Posted by Devil 2 U

I am currently running a system with an E6600 Core 2 and 2X EVGA GTX460s SC 1GB in SLI, overclocked. All set on the graphics front. However, I have been waiting for Bulldozer to build a new system. With the desktop part release pushing further into the future, it may take longer than planned to build a new rig. Therefore, I very well may be using this CPU and sys at the release of BF3.
I am also curious what other Core 2 CPU users, who have good GPUs, are finding in terms of performance. I am downloading the beta now (along with the NVidia beta driver), so I will report results tomorrow.

October 1, 2011 | 01:16 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Great, looking forward to hearing your results!

October 2, 2011 | 04:02 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

When I was using that CPU for my Unreal Tournament 3 mods, I know it was bottlenecking my GTX 260 in that game. I believe I jumped from ~50FPS to ~90 in my level when going to a Core i7 920.

Not sure what type of luck you will have with it.

October 1, 2011 | 04:20 AM - Posted by MDMonster (not verified)

I get between 25-45fps on my GTS 450 at 1920x1080, and between 29-53fps in 1280x720fps. The rest of my computer consist of an AMD Athlon II x2 260 @3.2GHz, 8GB DDR3 1333MHz

October 1, 2011 | 04:21 AM - Posted by MDMonster (not verified)

ALso forgot to mention, I have it maxed with these frames.

October 1, 2011 | 03:29 PM - Posted by pc master (not verified)

hmmm very interesting indeed running an skv 9800 slrdram with dual cooled cores at 9.7699 ghz ultra high mood i have noticed that after shooting an enemy to approximately 20% health... there seem to be pop stains on the characters pants around the buttox area...a detail that would have gone unoticed if ur not running maximus titan 7.29 mercess shader buffer.

October 1, 2011 | 03:31 PM - Posted by pc master (not verified)

i meant to say poop stains.

October 2, 2011 | 01:12 AM - Posted by cstinson4 (not verified)

I have a late 2010 MBP running Windows 7 x64, i7 processor, 2.66GHz, and 4GB RAM, and have the NVIDIA GT M330 graphics card. I've put my computer on performance mode, downloaded the 285.38 drivers, and turned all the graphics settings on low in the beta, but I'm still getting pretty choppy gameplay. Does anyone know a fix to this because I've heard of people getting smooth gameplay with the same system as me. Thanks!

October 2, 2011 | 06:48 AM - Posted by Scott (not verified)

Hey, right now i have an old intel core 2 duo overclocked to 2.56 ghz and an nvidia gtx 260m. I can run that on low-medium with a decent frame rate. I will be getting a new computer before the year ends and was wondering how this would do. Intel Core i5 2500k @3.3ghz---nVidia gtx 560 2gb

October 3, 2011 | 07:00 PM - Posted by durjoy184 (not verified)

if ur planning to get a 560ti...then ull find its test results on this site

and i too have almost the same config as u ..except i got a 6870 which is a lil lower than the 560ti...

ive oc'd my 2500k to 4.7ghz..and i get 50-60 fps out @ ultra and 4xAA and i have a 4GB ram @ 1600mhz long as ur planning to overclock..ull be fine :)

October 3, 2011 | 03:55 AM - Posted by Deafty (not verified)

Any results from overclocked e8400's with 4890 VGA
I'm @4.2Ghz and debating crossfire or Gtx 570,..
CPU upgrade to follow next year with IVY Bridge.

October 4, 2011 | 06:07 AM - Posted by Anas (not verified)

Great review you made Ryan thank you.
just to mention, I have XFX HD 6970 and I did not face the issue you mentioned regard the crash outside in metro! yes I face this on first day of releasing public beta but then everything went smooth. I play on 1080p. if you want some result regard this card on outside you are welcome. but keep in mind the max resolution is 1080p.

October 5, 2011 | 09:25 AM - Posted by Troy (not verified)

I've been running the BF3 beta on a GTX 460 1GB MSI Hawk, slightly OC'ed to 850/1700/2000, a I5 2600k @ 4.3, and 8gb ddr 1600, and I get a average of 50-65 inside, and 40-50 outside. On 1920.. That's of course with only light AA on, but still..

October 8, 2011 | 01:05 PM - Posted by Yuri (not verified)

Hello, exelent review, but i have a question, i have the EVGA 460 2win card, do you think that i will be able to play this monster game in ultra setings with good frame rates, mi CPUits I7 920 OC to 3.4, 6 gbram 1726mhrz.

October 8, 2011 | 01:06 PM - Posted by Yuri (not verified)

Hello, exelent review, but i have a question, i have the EVGA 460 2win card, do you think that i will be able to play this monster game in ultra setings with good frame rates, mi CPUits I7 920 OC to 3.4, 6 gbram 1726mhrz.

October 22, 2011 | 05:34 PM - Posted by Edu (not verified)

Great review!
Detail: I think the last screen about nvidia and ati quality images are exchanged.
I'm assuming this because the ATI images are better.

October 25, 2011 | 01:51 PM - Posted by Danny (not verified)

I have a geforce 460 and battlefield 3 runs very smooth. however, doesnt quite look like the textures are as good as BC2. I have a quad-core phenom II 965 OC up a hair to 3.7Ghz, 8GB RAM, and running at 1920X1080. Im sure it must be my graphics card that is limiting my texture and detail. any detailed advice on getting the quality better in settings would be greatly appreciated.just a temporary fix til I upgrade in a couple months. Thanks.


November 2, 2011 | 03:19 AM - Posted by Jono (not verified)


Proccesor - Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM
• 2 GHz

Chipset - intel HM65

Memory Standard - 8GB 1333 MHz DDR3 (2 X 4 GB)

Graphics (worried!!) - ATI Radeon HD 6630 (1GB GDDR3)


June 26, 2012 | 03:57 PM - Posted by Anony (not verified)

amd looks much better and realistic to me

June 26, 2012 | 04:01 PM - Posted by Anony (not verified)

and amd much more detail defenatly

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.