Should my computer run BattleField 3?

[Rathji]

So I was thinking about BF3, looked up specs and everything and realized my computer actually meets the recommended specs, including the video card - I think.

I said I think. You see I really have no idea about them because my focus for computers is the more in the business/educational realm. As I previously mentioned in this thread, I had never even really considered overclocking.

This is the card I have:

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Product...27007(ME).aspx

"Back in the day" when I actually gamed, and didn't really know much about how computers worked, I simply wanted the most video memory. Now I realize there is so much more to consider, but don't really have the desire to spend the time to research and figure it out for myself, especially if the difference isnt going to be very large.

So my question is:

If you had $100 to spend upgrading a PC to play BF3. What would you spend it on?
(I have a Quad Q6600 (cant overclock), 4GB 5300 RAM, 7200rpm HDD, plus the GeForce 8400GS I linked earlier)


Upgrading 4GB 5300 RAM to 8GB 5400 RAM
Upgrading to a 60GB SSD for system drive
Upgrading Video Card to _________ ?? ______

I know the $100 limit is low, but that's what I have to spend unless I get some new side work in, it is flexible if there is a good justification.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So I was thinking about BF3, looked up specs and everything and realized my computer actually meets the recommended specs, including the video card - I think.

I said I think. You see I really have no idea about them because my focus for computers is the more in the business/educational realm. As I previously mentioned in this thread, I had never even really considered overclocking.

This is the card I have:

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Product...27007(ME).aspx

"Back in the day" when I actually gamed, and didn't really know much about how computers worked, I simply wanted the most video memory. Now I realize there is so much more to consider, but don't really have the desire to spend the time to research and figure it out for myself, especially if the difference isnt going to be very large.

So my question is:

If you had $100 to spend upgrading a PC to play BF3. What would you spend it on?
(I have a Quad Q6600 (cant overclock), 4GB 5300 RAM, 7200rpm HDD, plus the GeForce 8400GS I linked earlier)


Upgrading 4GB 5300 RAM to 8GB 5400 RAM
Upgrading to a 60GB SSD for system drive
Upgrading Video Card to _________ ?? ______

I know the $100 limit is low, but that's what I have to spend unless I get some new side work in, it is flexible if there is a good justification.

The GeForce 8400GS will be almost completely useless. You may meet recommended specs but the game will be ugly as dirt and you will be running in a blurry resolution. You won't have any view distance at all so you will be getting killed by enemies farther out than you can see because your videocard cannot render that far. You will barely manage to eek out enough framerates for a smooth enough experience to do well in the game.

4GB ram is perfectly fine and more than enough. The SSD will make your computing experience totally awesome (tm) but will have no impact on BF3 aside from quick loading times.

The videocard needs to be replaced with at least an AMD HD5770 or HD6770 for the $100 mark.

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...r&promoid=1365

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Product...34510(ME).aspx

I would honestly spend a little more and go for a 6790, 6850, GTX 550 Ti, or GTX 460 which will be under $150.

Why can't you overclock your Q6600? That thing has another 1 GHz in it waiting to come out! The Frostbite Engine of BF3 really benefits from an over 3GHz quad core CPU.

[Hack&Lube]

-edit wrong pricing information

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Why can't you overclock your Q6600? That thing has another 1 GHz in it waiting to come out! The Frostbite Engine of BF3 really benefits from an over 3GHz quad core CPU.

I tried to do it earlier (as per previous posts in this thread) and there are no option to change FSB speed in the BIOS. I Googled a bit and from the results I am assuming my motherboard just doesn't support overclocking.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I tried to do it earlier (as per previous posts in this thread) and there are no option to change FSB speed in the BIOS. I Googled a bit and from the results I am assuming my motherboard just doesn't support overclocking.

Do you know which motherboard you have?

[Rathji]

Asus Berkeley 1.xx is all cpu-z is giving me. American Megatrends v 5.08 bios.

[Hack&Lube]

Where did you buy it from? Wherever you bought it from should have a listing of the parts inside.

-edit I think it's an HP computer. Makes sense the motherboard does not give you much control at all. I would just buy a new board. It shouldn't be too hard to find a used S775 board somewhere for cheap. I got an ASUS P5K here on CP for a great deal.

[Rathji]

Yeah its a HP Pavilion I recently picked up as payment for some computer repairs I did. I hadn't owned a desktop computer in about 7 years prior to that, which is why i am so out of date on stuff like video cards.

And as far as picking up a new board, I could, but at that point I would rather just build a new machine at that point and repurpose this box as a server. Maybe once I am finished school.

[SebC]

So I'm thinking it's time for me to do something about my rig. Currently have:

Antec P182
Corsair HX-620
Asus Striker II Formula (nVidia chipset, SLI-capable but one of the slots is right at the bottom of the case)
Intel Q6600
XFX GeForce 9800 GTX Black Edition (65nm card that's got a faster clock than the 9800 GTX+)
2 x Seagate 7200.11 750 Gb
4 x 2 Gb OCZ Reaper PC-8500 RAM

Definitely want to upgrade the GPU and add storage.

Things I'm thinking about:
- I have a ton of games on Steam. Completely filled up a 750 GB drive just with programs. Is an SSD worth it if won't hold the vast majority of my programs? I'm not going to be shuffling games around just for faster load times. How would I make this work if I were to get one?
- GPU: probably want something a GTX 560 Ti or GTX 570. Has to be nVidia. Most taxing resolution will be 1920x1080 but with 3D Vision. How much frame buffer do I want? (There's a two GB version of the 560, but it has less power than the 570.) Any good deals out there?
- CPU/mobo/RAM: worth upgrading?

Thanks!

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Things I'm thinking about:
- I have a ton of games on Steam. Completely filled up a 750 GB drive just with programs. Is an SSD worth it if won't hold the vast majority of my programs? I'm not going to be shuffling games around just for faster load times. How would I make this work if I were to get one?
- GPU: probably want something a GTX 560 Ti or GTX 570. Has to be nVidia. Most taxing resolution will be 1920x1080 but with 3D Vision. How much frame buffer do I want? (There's a two GB version of the 560, but it has less power than the 570.) Any good deals out there?
- CPU/mobo/RAM: worth upgrading?

Thanks!

Q6600 if you overclock will be decent. Get it to 3.4GHz or 3.6GHz and it will handle anything for now.

As for all the games from Steam. You have no choice but to shuffle them around unless you are loaded. Keep the ones you play most on the SSD. Keep the rest on mechanical drive. There are many things you can do to get Steam to work across multiple harddrives, like symbolic links.

For 1920x1080, 1.25GB should be enough. 3D doesn't double the amount of textures, it just duplicates them so it's no problem. You would want more ram for higher resolutions and more antialiasing. Get the 570.

SSD is night and day though, compared to the dark ages of using a mechanical drive.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Q6600 if you overclock will be decent. Get it to 3.4GHz or 3.6GHz and it will handle anything for now.

As for all the games from Steam. You have no choice but to shuffle them around unless you are loaded. Keep the ones you play most on the SSD. Keep the rest on mechanical drive. There are many things you can do to get Steam to work across multiple harddrives, like symbolic links.

For 1920x1080, 1.25GB should be enough. 3D doesn't double the amount of textures, it just duplicates them so it's no problem. You would want more ram for higher resolutions and more antialiasing. Get the 570.

Well when I put Borderlands into 3D framerate drops from about 60 to about 12. Is that a fillrate issue? How do you tell what aspect of your GPU is getting maxed out?

Also, is there anything in the pipeline that I should hold out for (i.e. is this a good time to buy?), and do you think the 570 worth the price difference?

I don't see how "I have no choice" but to shuffle programs around onto an SSD... games seem to work just fine from a regular mechanical hard-drive. I honestly just don't see how and SSD would make that much of a difference, except maybe if I were using it for video recording and photo editting, but then I'd be totally thrashing the drive. Why do games need SSD? How much loading is there these days?

Thanks H&L.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well when I put Borderlands into 3D framerate drops from about 60 to about 12. Is that a fillrate issue? How do you tell what aspect of your GPU is getting maxed out?

Also, is there anything in the pipeline that I should hold out for (i.e. is this a good time to buy?), and do you think the 570 worth the price difference?

I don't see how "I have no choice" but to shuffle programs around onto an SSD... games seem to work just fine from a regular mechanical hard-drive. I honestly just don't see how and SSD would make that much of a difference, except maybe if I were using it for video recording and photo editting, but then I'd be totally thrashing the drive. Why do games need SSD? How much loading is there these days?

Thanks H&L.

I don't know about you but I can't go back to mechanical after SSD but that's just me. It just makes loading so instant that you don't ever dread starting a game or quitting it...or even turning off your computer because everything comes back so fast or instantly. An SSD has changed the way I use computers.

I meant that with an SSD, you have no choice but to shuffle things around because you are limited by capacity. I only have 5 games installed in my Steam on my 128GB SSD. These are the most load intensive games, the ones that are annoying when you start them up or take a long time to load resources. Mostly source games and Dragon Age (when loaded with 20GB of mods), etc. Everything else is symlinked from a mechanical drive.

Hang on for a few months. AMD's 7000 series will be out before the end of this year, maybe even this fall. That will push Nvidia to push out their lineup as well or get caught behind again.

When you run in 3D, your framerates will drop by more than half because it has to render the entire scene twice from two different perspectives and then rasterize it into 2D. This is purely a processing power problem depending on core clock and number of shaders and not dependant on VRAM unless you are running 3D Surround. Also, it really depends on the individual game what it will needs. When you are running a game, try a 3rd party app that will show your texture memory usage in the top corner. I can't remember which one it was for Nvidia. That will show you if you are going over your current amount of VRAM or not.

A 9800 GTX is a bit long in tooth. I can't believe you are running 3D Vision on that. When I sent my XFX 8800GT back into them for RMA, I got a 9800 GTX back and I ended up putting it into my friend's girlfriend's computer to play The Sims with There will be new cards by the end of this year and early next year. Wait a bit if you can.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

A 9800 GTX is a bit long in tooth. I can't believe you are running 3D Vision on that. When I sent my XFX 8800GT back into them for RMA, I got a 9800 GTX back and I ended up putting it into my friend's girlfriend's computer to play The Sims with There will be new cards by the end of this year and early next year. Wait a bit if you can.

Haha, well when 3D Vision came out it was the second best single-GPU card in existance. And it does work adequately for the most part (3D at min settings is better than 2D at max for a lot of games IMO). I've had a lot of fun playing Batman, Just Cause 2 and COD4 (even with the one minor glitch) in 3D with this card. Also use it for photos and videos, which are a piece of cake for it. Even though nVidia tells people they need something newer for 3D Blu-Ray, my card can play the stream files with third-party software.

[Ashasx]

I apologize for bringing up my own question, but I thought this would be the best place to ask without any ridicule.

I realize it's speculation for the most part, but will my computer run BF3 on max settings?

I have an

Intel I7 960 3.2 GHz, 8 MB

Dual 2gb Radeon HD 6950

12 gigs of RAM

1.5TB - SATA, 3Gb/s, 7,200 RPM

I am not quite tech savvy, so I apologize if this is a dumb question.

Am I bottlenecking anywhere obvious?

[Hack&Lube]

^ sounds more like grandstanding to me :P

With that setup you can run BF3 in 1080p in Eyefinity with triple monitors. Your only bottleneck is the harddrive is slow compared to the rest of the rig but that doesn't matter in gameplay. It will be the lowest score in your Windows Experience Index though. An SSD will load you into BF games much faster.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

^ sounds more like grandstanding to me :P

With that setup you can run BF3 in 1080p in Eyefinity with triple monitors. Your only bottleneck is the harddrive is slow compared to the rest of the rig but that doesn't matter in gameplay. It will be the lowest score in your Windows Experience Index though. An SSD will load you into BF games much faster.

Thanks. Didn't mean to sound boastful. It's my first new rig in about 4 years, so I just want to make sure I'm getting full value on it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Thanks. Didn't mean to sound boastful. It's my first new rig in about 4 years, so I just want to make sure I'm getting full value on it.

I was just kidding but yes, it is very powerful system. "Value" depends on how much you paid for it.

It's pretty powerful despite the 6950s not quite being top of the line but they should be near the same performance in Crossfire as a single 6990 which costs $800.

The one reason why I would recommend an SSD for BF3 is that the game has no in-game server browser so you need to use the web application to find a server and then start the game. To goto another server, you need to quit and go back out to your desktop and choose another server and start the game again (unless you can alt-tab, I'm not sure about this).

[Burninator]

How would a 8800 Ultra handle this game?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How would a 8800 Ultra handle this game?

Depends on your resolution.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...ny-2,2464.html

8800 Ultra would be the same as a 9800 GTX+ on this list. It will perform a little worse in BF3 than Bad Company 2 despite the same engine because of larger maps.

So about 25 FPS at 1680x1050 I'd say. At 1080p, probably 18-20 FPS. Turn off antialiasing completely and you would be fine in the 30s.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

...

The videocard needs to be replaced with at least an AMD HD5770 or HD6770 for the $100 mark.

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...r&promoid=1365

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Product...34510(ME).aspx

I would honestly spend a little more and go for a 6790, 6850, GTX 550 Ti, or GTX 460 which will be under $150.

Why can't you overclock your Q6600? That thing has another 1 GHz in it waiting to come out! The Frostbite Engine of BF3 really benefits from an over 3GHz quad core CPU.

So I was looking into these cards more (specifically the GTX 460) and noticed they look HUGE. I have a HP Pavillion a6030 (pictured below), and I dont think there is room. Is there anywhere I can get actual measurements of these cards?