Could this Spec run Far Cry 3 and Battlefield 3 maxed out on 1280x1024

[brown hash]

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 660 2GB
8GB DDR3 1333
Intel Core i5-3570k 3.4GHz
500 standard watt
ASROCK H61M-HVS, uATX

I want to run Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, and Tera on max with good fps on 1280x1024 resolution. Can these specs handle it?

 

[Brett928S2]

Hi

I will run them but not maxed out...not a good enough graphics card for that...

All the best Brett

 

[Ramzzz2936]

brett on that resolution he can max out

 

[yummerzzz]

With that resolution definitely.

 

[voiidwulf]

Yeah, at 1280 x 1024 you should be able to max them.

 

[Brett928S2]

brett on that resolution he can max out

Hi

He can try , but BF3 and FC3 take a lot of card to max on Ultra with everything turned on.....

All the best Brett

 

[lostgamer_03]

Hi

He can try , but BF3 and FC3 take a lot of card to max on Ultra with everything turned on.....

All the best Brett

Brett, GTX 660 can max out BF3 on 1920x1080 with an average fps of about 50.

GTX 660 can run Far Cry at ultra settigns with MSAA left off and FXAA enabled on 1920x1080 with around 50 FPS in average, but it depends on the area playing in.

I myself own a very similar build and look at this video I made gaming Far Cry 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRnKfQaVVwM

That being said the GTX 660 will most likely run Far Cry 3 at ultra settings at that low resolution.

 

[Slayer593]

You should be fine without any anti aliasing on. There is a glitch where even the gtx 690 will get 20-28 frames with it on. Other then that you should easily be able to max it. And make sure your motherboards pci slot is pci 3.0 otherwise you won't get full bandwidth.

 

[lostgamer_03]

You should be fine without any anti aliasing on. There is a glitch where even the gtx 690 will get 20-28 frames with it on. Other then that you should easily be able to max it. And make sure your motherboards pci slot is pci 3.0 otherwise you won't get full bandwidth.

Not true. Almost no GPU can even take full advantage of pci-e 2.0, so the difference will be minimal.

 

[digitalmiget]

yeh i pretty much have the equivelant components except my cpu is just slightly not as good and i can run both those games on ultra with around 80+ fps on fc3 and about 60fps on bf3 multiplayer

 

[Slayer593]

Not true. Almost no GPU can even take full advantage of pci-e 2.0, so the difference will be minimal.

Well not really true. Pcie-1.0 has a bandwidth of 2.5 giggatransfers/per second were as pci 3.0 has a transfer rate of 8.0 giggatransfers/per second

 

[Sunius]

Well not really true. Pcie-1.0 has a bandwidth of 2.5 giggatransfers/per second were as pci 3.0 has a transfer rate of 8.0 giggatransfers/per second

So what? There is no performance loss on PCIe 2.0.

@OP: As others have said it, you will be able to max out those games.

 

[PredatorEriX]

Hi

I will run them but not maxed out...not a good enough graphics card for that...

All the best Brett

What's with this guy? He seems to think everyone has an extra couple hundred bucks laying around. With that card you could easily max out those guy at that resolution. (kinda low)
Why don't you give people some actualy advice and tell people to upgrade.

 

[sscultima]

So what? There is no performance loss on PCIe 2.0.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/images/perfrel.gif

@OP: As others have said it, you will be able to max out those games.

im backing up sunius, the performance and bandwidth from PCIe 2.0 to 3.0 will not gain anything with current video cards.

 

[michaelmk86]

at this rez even a toaster can maxed out almost everything

 

[jrizzz]

NVIDIA Geforce GTX 660 2GB
8GB DDR3 1333
Intel Core i5-3570k 3.4GHz
500 standard watt
ASROCK H61M-HVS, uATX

I want to run Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, and Tera on max with good fps on 1280x1024 resolution. Can these specs handle it?

why would you wanna play on such a low resolution with a 660? This is 2013!

 

[HEXiT]

because the rez is so low you would end up with a choked system. its not a bottleneck in the traditional sense but it will mean you wont see the potential of the system till you get a bigger screen.
the whole point of 2 gigs of ram isnt to give you greater fps but deeper draw distance and larger screen area. for most people its utterly pointless especially on screens that are below 1080p.
what would happen is your gpu would run at 50% resulting in fps bounce. where you get huge variance between the highest fps you can have and the lowest. normaly on 1080p screens you would get maybe 10-20 fps between highest and lowest. which means smooth ish gameplay. on such a small screen you would get moch more range resulting in stutters and pauses as your fps bounces from 10 to 100 and back down to 30 all in the space of 2 seconds. and do it constantly resulting in severe lag.

 

[freshtodeath]

Played BF3 with AMD 955 BE, 4 GB RAM and 560ti on 1920x1080 on HIGH and was getting perfect fps. You should be fine.

 

[HEXiT]

the more demanding the game the less fps bounce. but not every game is as demanding as bf3

 

[mycutefairy]

I don't think you can appreciate the Game's graphics at that resolution though. Just get a 1080p Monitor $180 would be pretty decent. Then I can guarantee you'd appreciate the graphics

 

[colddust]

Product model code K53E
CPU Family name Core i5
Clock speed 2300 MHz
Model number i5-2410M
Chipset Intel HM65 Express
Screen size 15.6″
Widescreen Yes
Screen LED backlight Yes
Native resolution 1366×768
Memory type
DDR3 1333 Yes

Can i play far cry 3 on this computer?