Battlefield 3 fail :/

[michaelxps]

Downloaded it but its LAGGING LIKE CRAZY even on low settings, I'm guessing its my CPU

Athlon X2 II 3.0 Ghz
6 gigs of ram
radeon HD 6670 graphics card

if I upgrade to an athlon X3 would that fix the problem with battlefield?

I run Rift, WoW, Rage, and Diablo 3 perfectly fine on high/ultra settings

 

[dia_naji]

Try putting all settings on low. The requirements for this is a quad core and a ati 6970 or a gtx 560. If you upgrade your cpu you should play on Medium/ high

 

[michaelxps]

Yeah I'm planning on bumping up to a Athlon X3 processor it'll bump me up a pretty decent amount it's gotta be the CPU

 

[coolbir]

battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it

 

[Stupido]

it is your CPU as well, but mostly it is your GPU... it is way too anemic for such a game even on low...

 

[bumnut53]

battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it

6 vs 6 team deathmatch on tiny maps is much better /s

 

[13thmonkey]

6670 ain't great either.

lower resolution + lower settings.

skip the x3, can you get an x4?

 

[13thmonkey]

battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it

because a looks like every MW game, and is built for kids with consoles

 

[geekintel]

battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it

That's the most funniest thing I've ever read. Only children and people with anger issues play MW3. Battlefield is better on so many levels.

 

[wr6133]

Dont get the X3 the increase you would see over the x2 would be minimal. Both your CPU and GPU are holding you back.

Whats your budget?

A quad core Phenom II would set you back about $120 would be ALOT better than any Athlon.

A better GPU more than that.

I play on a 550ti which is not alot better than your card and run medium with some high at decent FPS. I suspect if you turn settings to low with some medium and kill the AA and other fancy effects you will do better.

The quad CPU would show you a good difference in larger playercount maps

Here's some benchmarks that actually test multiplayer shows the game uses the cores

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

If you want an idea as far as CPU: Prive/Value then you can check out this link:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#cpuvalue

That said, BF3 is a beast so if you plan on playing at enthousiast settings then you'll need an enthousiast rig. You'd have to also bump your GPU to a high 6000x series or 7000x series.

 

[tobensg]

Make sure you have the latest drivers, AMD released new drivers just after BF3 was released to improve BF3.

 

[casualcolors]

That's the most funniest thing I've ever read. Only children and people with anger issues play MW3. Battlefield is better on so many levels.

I don't personally play MW3, but this isn't a fair indictment of their community. Different strokes for different folks. I've seen plenty of breakdowns in BF3, usually resulting from being on the wrong end of a 50-3 ratio.

@OP, your computer isn't up to snuff to play BF3. Processor's an issue to some extent, GPU's an issue to an even larger extent. In this case, unless you want to drop a fair amount of cash in modernizing your computer it might be a reasonable recommendation to point you to MW3 instead if you're a fan of those kinds of games. My other recommendations would be Team Fortress 2 if its cartoony art style doesn't bother you (in fact it has a very talented community who are some of the best fps players anywhere, and is free to play on Steam) or even trying Counterstrike Source which is a tried and true FPS game on the source engine. Both TF2 and CS: Source are competitive games with competitive communities, and Counterstrike has an upcoming sequel on the source engine as well called CS:GO.

Anyway, aside from BF3 I'd definitely recommend those 3 as they all have lower system requirements.

 

[michaelxps]

It's def not my GPU because on the requirements my GPU is almost at max for the requirements needed, my processor is at the minimal requirements though so it has to be that. The video card isn't the best but it's def not bad so I know it's not that. Gonna upgrade to the X3 it'll improve my performance about 150 percent from my stock CPU benchmark. already researched it and talked to people who had the difference, thanks

 

[13thmonkey]

Ok, from all of the people that have and are using BF3, a 6670 is not very good.

I have a GTX470 (2nd best in the 400 series), vs 8th best in the 6000 series. And I can hit 40fps at high, I have to drop it to low to get to 60fps.

http://www.enterbf3.com/information/538-minimum-requirements/

The recommended is a 6950, the minimum is something from the 6000 series equivelent to a 3870 (top end from the 3000 series). Looking at :
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-graphics-card-review,review-32442-7.html
the 3870 and the 6670 are about the same, therefore you just meet minimum specs. So what you are seeing is both CPU and GPU

 

[michaelxps]

@ 13themoney, def. gotta throw a big LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at your response. First off the 6670 def. is no where compared to the 3870 my embedded graphics card is a 4200 and when i put the 6670 it took the games i play from low/medium to high/ultra so your information is not correct

second correction would be this http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=1164&game=battlefield%203

it SPECIFICALLY says that the max requirements needed is a 6950 and the medium is a 4770 which means my GPU is a little below the best requirements needed. So therefore my CPU is the only thing that meets minimum requirements

 

[michaelxps]

And the middle requirements for this game is in fact, the Athlon X3... Sorry I asked in here should of have done better research to get correct info.

 

[13thmonkey]

You need to understand card naming conventions.

The 6670 is not 'between the 4770 and a 6950' the 6670 is almost the lowest of the 6000 series. The 4770 was almost the highest of the 4000 series.

Good luck, I hope you don't waste too much on the magic beans.

If you read my second link it compares card to card for you.

The 4200 is the lowest of the 4000 series the 3870 is the highest of the 3000 series. The first number is nearly irrelevant as incrementing the first number does not make all of that series better than the previous series.

 

[casualcolors]

It's def not my GPU because on the requirements my GPU is almost at max for the requirements needed, my processor is at the minimal requirements though so it has to be that. The video card isn't the best but it's def not bad so I know it's not that. Gonna upgrade to the X3 it'll improve my performance about 150 percent from my stock CPU benchmark. already researched it and talked to people who had the difference, thanks

Best of luck. I think in the end you'll find that the problem is, as everyone here has stated, both your cpu and gpu are very weak for BF3 in particular. If you'd like some clarification on what those "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements often actually translate to, minimum is what would be required to turn the game on. Not to play it at any sufficient level of competence, but just to turn the game on without your system crashing or the game's launch failing outright. The "recommended" requirements are what you need to maintain at least 30 fps on a mixture of low and medium settings which is what is deemed playable to the most minimally definable extent.

And then, if you go up several tiers of hardware, those are the "user recommended" system requirements as in to play the game at 60 fps on medium or better settings, with most basic elements of the game's graphics potential (AO, DoF, Bloom, those sorts of settings) enabled to at least some modest extent.

If you'd prefer anecdotal evidence instead, I beta tested BF3 specifically on an ati 5770, which while not being a great GPU, is about twice the GPU that the 6670 is when it comes to gaming applications (I also had it overclocked to 1ghz on the coreclock which was absurdly fast for that card). With that card I managed 40 fps tops on a mixture of primarily medium settings, with constant dips to sub 30 fps. Given how dependent BF3 is on the graphics card specifically, your 6670 is the primary cause of any "graphics lag" by which you actually mean to say poor fps. Your CPU only adds to this problem and there is certainly no sense upgrading your GPU without also upgrading your CPU, but I think you'll find that an Athlon X3 will still be a bottleneck to any GPU capable of actually running BF3 competently (which if you are curious, pretty much constitutes a 6870 at the bear minimum).

That's about all the advice I can offer you. Hopefully you eventually find some of it to be useful.

 

[13thmonkey]

I'm not saying any more on this one, he doesn't want to believe that a 6670 roughly is equivalent to a 3870. I think the last three letters of his name says it all.

 

[casualcolors]

I'm not saying any more on this one, he doesn't want to believe that a 6670 roughly is equivalent to a 3870. I think the last three letters of his name says it all.

Probably. Eh whatever. Give him the best info you can and then wash your hands of it. Whatever he wants to do with it is his business.

Although, I do think you should change your name to 13themoney in retrospect. lol

 

[mercer95]

i can play bf3 on a 6670 gddr3 and a Athlon ii x4 645 at 720p and get OK fps, although i have overclocked them both.

but i have just ordered a i5 3570k, a ASUS GeForce GTX 670 Direct CU II TOP overclocked at 1058 MHz and a AsRock Z77 Extreme4 Motherboard.

 

[michaelxps]

Lol keep talkin crap when I stated the graphics card, basically someone with monkey in there screen name says it allllllllllll

 

[casualcolors]

Lol keep talkin crap when I stated the graphics card, basically someone with monkey in there screen name says it allllllllllll

You should know 13thmonkey is a renowned rainforest and wildlife conservationist and a huge Bruce Willis fan. I share his views on all things but the rainforest, which I think we should torch wholesale.

 

[michaelxps]

Ask me if I care