Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Honestly only the first level in the campaign looked great. The rest were pretty mah~
To my knowledge Metro 2033 is pretty much ahead of the pack with heavy use of dynamic lighting, advanced shaders, soft shadows and DX11 tessellation.
BF3 is pretty mild from what I've seen, it's not bringing systems to their knees like Metro 2033 is.
Well just because a game brings a system to its knees doesn't always mean that its the most advanced. Sometimes non-optimized code can play part in it. Don't get me wrong, Metro 2033 is fantastic looking too, but the game mostly takes place in the dark, it remains to be seen if they could have done the same as what BF3, Crysis 2 or The Wticher has done in the daylight outdoors.
Well just because a game brings a system to its knees doesn't always mean that its the most advanced. Sometimes non-optimized code can play part in it. Don't get me wrong, Metro 2033 is fantastic looking too, but the game mostly takes place in the dark, it remains to be seen if they could have done the same as what BF3, Crysis 2 or The Wticher has done in the daylight outdoors.
Graphics wise, I have a 1090T with a 6850 graphics card + 16GB DDR3, I can run at 1920x1080 with everything pretty much at max and still get 50+ FPS, which is totally acceptable. The game looks fantastic and I see literally no slow down on MP games.
Well just because a game brings a system to its knees doesn't always mean that its the most advanced. Sometimes non-optimized code can play part in it. Don't get me wrong, Metro 2033 is fantastic looking too, but the game mostly takes place in the dark, it remains to be seen if they could have done the same as what BF3, Crysis 2 or The Wticher has done in the daylight outdoors.
Define "maxed" because a single HD 6850 can't play BF3 at 1920x1080 at Ultra Settings w/ AA/AF at 50+ FPS.
cpu usage wise its leading the pack.
got to love seeing 90%+ utilization makes my jump from a 955BE to an 8120 so worth it.
That's been the case for a while, man. Video cards that cheap are primarily HTPC cards, nothing more. This is a next-gen game, if you want to play it, <$100 cards aren't really going to cut it.
Honestly only the first level in the campaign looked great. The rest were pretty mah~
Totally agreed. Wish all of the campaign were like that, not some villa house crap.
cough Crysis cough
I think BF3 may be pushing the boundaries simply given its scope - none of the other games mentioned ever ran with 64 players in multiplayer on such huge maps. So while some people may say that Crysis and Crysis 2 look better (in many cases I agree), it's a different ballgame when you're rendering an area so massive.
Having said that developers aren't given access to program directly on the metal for the PC, so the software layer in between will always be a massive drag on performance. There's always more to give, and I'm sure if BF3 were PC exclusive it would have looked even more impressive.
Regardless, it's not even the visuals (however impressive they are) that get me the most, it's the audio. I've never ever heard such incredible audio from a game.
I'de have to disagree. In my opinion the first level was one of the least impressive. The level inside the mothership for example was jaw droppingly amazing (in terms of graphics).
The low end scaling of frostbite 2 is terrible. An 8800GT/9800GT is forced to run the game at 1280 x 720 on low settings just to hit 30fps average with a GTS 250/450 running a bit faster at 40-45 fps, the low settings feel more like medium settings and still look very good, which makes me wonder why they don't have a "very low settings" option for low end hardware. The difference in both image quality and performance between the low/medium/high settings is surprisingly low, the engine looks decent at high/ultra settings but doesn't scale very well at all. Even if you go out and buy a brand new $80 video card you're screwed no matter how low you set your resolution and settings.
I'm just curious Is the PC capable of putting out better graphics or is BF3 the best it can do with the latest hardware?
For balance reasons obviously. They can't just turn off shadows/ vegetation or truncate it abruptly at a distance otherwise it will be quite unfair to players who run it with all the eye candy on. Mesh and terrain quality doesnt do much to the performance as well cos the main bottleneck in this game is not geometry processing.
When Crysis came out, it was just head and shoulders better looking than anything out on the market at the time. But that also meant that there wasnt anything out there that could play it. The $500 GTX295 could barely. Thats a little too much.
GPU maybe...because it's really not that CPU-intensive as a lot of benchmarks and testing have shown.
On-topic, probably the best looking game out there right now considering all that it does gameplay-wise.
I swear there are some PC gamers that can't grasp the concept of not running a game at max settings. They just upgrade there hardware whenever they can no longer run all there games at max settings, and since they couldn't do that with crysis they got angry and made fun of it for having high requirements when it didn't.
The PC is definitely capable of pushing better looking graphics but if you're talking about utilizing what we have now, I'd say DICE did it fantastically. Battlefield 3 alone drove thousands of dollars in PC builds and upgrades by itself. No other title since Crysis had such an anticipatory impact on PC hardware sales.
The low end scaling of frostbite 2 is terrible. An 8800GT/9800GT is forced to run the game at 1280 x 720 on low settings just to hit 30fps average with a GTS 250/450 running a bit faster at 40-45 fps, the low settings feel more like medium settings and still look very good, which makes me wonder why they don't have a "very low settings" option for low end hardware.
FB2 is less efficient when you look at what it's doing and how much GPU throughput it needs to do it. It's a decent engine but it's not on par with metro 2033 or cryengine. Like I said before it looks decent at max settings but doesn't scale very well.
FB2 is less efficient when you look at what it's doing and how much GPU throughput it needs to do it. It's a decent engine but it's not on par with metro 2033 or cryengine. Like I said before it looks decent at max settings but doesn't scale very well.
GPU maybe...because it's really not that CPU-intensive as a lot of benchmarks and testing have shown.
On-topic, probably the best looking game out there right now considering all that it does gameplay-wise.