What graphics card do I need for BF3

[THIS_RANDOM_GUY]

I am wondering what graphics card I should get for my first gaming PC I am building. I picked the Sapphire Radeon 7950 but it was $500. Is there any other graphics card that is cheaper that can play BF3 on ultra with 50+ fps? I have a Samsung LCD 1920x1080 monitor 23". These are the parts I picked:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226095
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128498
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115071
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148697
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106289
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139005

 

[graemevermeulen]

If you're spending that much on your system don't skimp on the GPU. Why don't you just get the GTX 680?

 

[graemevermeulen]

If you're spending that much on your system don't skimp on the GPU. Why don't you just get the GTX 680?

 

[graemevermeulen]

Sorry for double post. Refreshed my page

 

[catatafish]

Check my build in my sig. I'm running BF3 at 60 fps with vsynch on with a 1080 rez monitor on Ultra. The 560Ti is about $180 now after a rebate. I'd say the 560Ti is the minimum needed for Ultra on BF3 and I wouldn't even been getting that if I didn't bump up it up to 925-950 using MSI Afterburner. You can OC it in about 20 seconds. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

 

[swifty_morgan]

the first thing I would do is find some 2133XMP certified memory and dump the 1333. BIOS on that board should help here.

the card/ any card above a 6950 2gig will run that game flawlessly with the rest of your hardware. You don't have to buy the newest thing out there........... which made me look at this thread. I knew right away the 680 would be the first thing inexperienced builders would have suggested.

better say it.... DON'T buy a card with less that 2gigs of ram.

 

[graemevermeulen]

the first thing I would do is find some 2133XMP certified memory and dump the 1333. BIOS on that board should help here.

the card/ any card above a 6950 2gig will run that game flawlessly with the rest of your hardware. You don't have to buy the newest thing out there........... which made me look at this thread. I knew right away the 680 would be the first thing inexperienced builders would have suggested.

better say it.... DON'T buy a card with less that 2gigs of ram.

"Inexperienced builders" ?

 

[graemevermeulen]

This is ignorant. At 1920x(1080 // 1200), there's barely any performance hit in anything with even 1 gig of vram, let alone 2. At higher resolution the 680 may run into problems, but not at 1080p. If you're gonna claim otherwise, you gotta show some proof, because every benchmark has the stock 680 doing better than the stock 3 GB 7970 at that resolution.

What he's saying is that we're both inexperienced builders and that a 1.5GB GTX 580 wouldn't run BF 3 at Ultra settings at those resolutions. Actually, my GTX 580 ran it perfectly fine at Ultra settings.

He wanted to spend $500 on a 7950, why would he not want to spend about $500 on a GTX 680?

You're right that you don't have to buy the latest hardware out there, but if you had have taken the time to see the high end components he wants to put into his machine it makes absolute sense to put a high end GPU in as well. I've been building machines for 10 years and I've never owned a card less than or equal to the performance of the top end cards available. I've been troubleshooting for just as long, and although I'm young I've been a certified Microsoft Professional for 5 years.

Yes, I'm offended.

If this forum had a block button Swifty_Morgan you would be blocked.

 

[jaguarskx]

I recommend that you save a little money by dropping the Core i7-2600 in favor of the Core i5-2500k. Core i7 CPUs have Hyper Threading (HT) which is great if the programs you use can take advantage of it. Games do not use HT. The Core i5-2500k has an unlocked multiplier which means it can be overclocked rather easily as long as you buy a good heatsink to cool the CPU. Intel's stock heatsink is not meant for overclocking. Many people have successfully overclocked the Core i5-2500k to 4.5GHz.

Core i5-2500k
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072&Tpk=i5-2500k

COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 EVO heatsink
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099
.

 

[jaguarskx]

If you are not interested in overclocking your CPU, then I recommend you drop the Core i7-2600 in favor of the Core i5-2500. Which is $10 cheaper than the i5-2500k.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115073

 

[swifty_morgan]

I don't card what charts say. If you're running above 1600 resolution there are times when 1gig won't be enough unless you run at low game settings. Crank things up and you might have well spent your money on a 512 card.... useless also. Then you have to consider "new" build. Only a dumb ass would buy a card with 1gig of memory if he didn't have to. As far as performance....... if you are one of these people who thinks performance ONLY has to do with FPS......... stick your head back in the sand.

I guess the "inexperienced" builder thing hit a nerve. GOOD. What kind "experienced" builder would jump on the newest card just because it's the newest and have somebody spend $500 when it isn't needed ?

 

[graemevermeulen]

BF3 multiplayer is well threaded... doesn't it take advantage of the HT? I've heard that from a lot of people but never seen it benchmarked since MP is so hard to benchmark.

I do know that it uses all 6 cores on my Phenom.

Since Battlefield: Bad Company 2 it's been a rule of thumb not to run it only anything less than a tri-core processor.

With PC being Battlefield's primary platform you've got to love it 😀

 

[catatafish]

That link says my card isn't hitting the settings either......but it is. MSI Afterburner is pegged at 60fps with a very very rare dip down for very brief seconds.

Maybe I'm not jacking up my AA enough. I don't know, I went in to the settings and clicked "Ultra" and saved. I feel like I'm in actual battle with no jagged lines. So whatever that setting is .

Swifty has me torn...lol....on the one hand I agree with his point about the "new card hysteria" and those that need to tell their buddy on the bus ride to school that they have the best card made. On the other hand the 2 gb comment pretty much discredits anything else said. Now I'm not video card expert/arguer, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the memory issue on GPUs comes in to play more when running multiple high rez monitors, amirite?

 

[jaguarskx]

As for the graphics card... if you want 50+ FPS, then you need to buy one of the high end cards.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/9.html


The above chart shows the maximum FPS so a GTX 580 and Radeon HD 7950 is capable of giving that level of performance. However, if you are looking for a minimum of 50+ FPS, then you should probably buy the GeForce GTX 680 or the other two cards after that.

 

[graemevermeulen]

I don't card what charts say. If you're running above 1600 resolution there are times when 1gig won't be enough unless you run at low game settings. Crank things up and you might have well spent your money on a 512 card.... useless also. Then you have to consider "new" build. Only a dumb ass would buy a card with 1gig of memory if he didn't have to. As far as performance....... if you are one of these people who thinks performance ONLY has to do with FPS......... stick your head back in the sand.

I guess the "inexperienced" builder thing hit a nerve. GOOD. What kind "experienced" builder would jump on the newest card just because it's the newest and have somebody spend $500 when it isn't needed ?

"I don't care what the charts say"

I rest my case. Dude, the charts are what we go by.

"If you are one of these people who thinks performance ONLY has to do with FPS stick your head back in the sand" :lol:

What do you measure performance with? A tape measure?

Frames per second is what we measure performance with in games. He's specifically referring to BF3.

And no, you didn't hit a nerve at all. You're just making yourself look a bit silly, mate.

 

[catatafish]

As for the graphics card... if you want 50+ FPS, then you need to buy one of the high end cards.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/bf3_1920_1200.gif

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/9.html


The above chart shows the maximum FPS so a GTX 580 and Radeon HD 7950 is capable of giving that level of performance. However, if you are looking for a minimum of 50+ FPS, then you should probably buy the GeForce GTX 680 or the other two cards after that.

OP is running a 1080 not a 1200. So he can get away with a lot less.

@ Swifty.....By the way, a person can be an extremely experienced builder and still want the latest and greatest, just because it exists. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm the same way with bikes.

Conversely, you can have an attitude like me, which is buy the minimum you need to meet your current mission, and be an inexperienced builder. So don't confuse the two and there's no need to get in to ad hominem arguements to make your point.

Not everyone has to have the same mission in their hobby, and there is no "right" way to do it.

 

[graemevermeulen]

According to Swifty_Morgan, gamers who spend unnecessarily on hardware are "inexperienced builders".

Tell that to Maxishine and please check out some of his videos on Youtube.

http://www.maxishine.com.au/

 

[braincruser]

Amount of ram in the gpu is directly dependent on the resolution the poster wants to run things, 1080p runs perfectly fine on 1GB, 2GB and up is only needed for higher resolutions/AA levels.

there is a form to fill out when asking what gpu to buy and its there for a reason.

 

[KNO3]

A 1080 monitor isn't necessary. None of the cards in this thread are necessary. having a computer at all isn't necessary. None of us got into this hobby because it was necessary, stop acting like anything more powerful than what you recommend is unnecessary swift.

Calling anybody that disagrees with you an "inexperienced building" was an ad ad hominem attack.

 

[graemevermeulen]

A 1080 monitor isn't necessary. None of the cards in this thread are necessary. having a computer at all isn't necessary. None of us got into this hobby because it was necessary, stop acting like anything more powerful than what you recommend is unnecessary swift.

Calling anybody that disagrees with you an "inexperienced building" was an ad ad hominem attack.

+1

 

[jaguarskx]

OP is running a 1080 not a 1200. So he can get away with a lot less.

The difference in total number of pixels is only about 11%. However, that does not mean there will be a performance improvement of 11% with a 1080p vs 1200p monitor. It will be less that that, probably around 6%, since performance is not linear resolution.

For example, here's the chart for 1680x1050 resolution.

There is about a 30% difference in the total of number of pixels between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. But the difference in FPS performance is 85.4 FPS vs. 70.7 FPS which translates into about a 20% improvement.

Therefore, with an approximate 6% performance improvement of 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200, my recommendation for the GeForce GTX 680 still stands if the OP want a minimum of 50+ FPS.

 

[graemevermeulen]

The difference in total number of pixels is only about 11%. However, that does not mean there will be a performance improvement of 11% with a 1080p vs 1200p monitor. It will be less that that, probably around 6%, since performance is not linear resolution.

For example, here's the chart for 1680x1050 resolution.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/bf3_1680_1050.gif

There is about a 30% difference in the total of number of pixels between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. But the difference in FPS performance is 85.4 FPS vs. 70.7 FPS which translates into about a 20% improvement.

Therefore, with an approximate 6% performance improvement of 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200, my recommendation for the GeForce GTX 680 still stands if the OP want a minimum of 50+ FPS.

Agreed and amongst all the disagreements this answers the OP's question.

 

[catatafish]

I guess I still don't get it. So no one was getting 60fps before 3 days ago? I'm not trying to be snarky at all. My build has a 1080 monitor. I have much less than a 680. I'm getting 60fps (more actually, I just have vsynch on).

The OP says he doesn't want a $500 card. He's asking what he can do that's cheaper. I'm saying what he needs at minimum and provided a link that categories all the equivalencies of the cards. Why does he need a 680? Or are just just saying a 680 will work? If so agree. But I disagree that he needs a $500 video card to play BF3 at "ultra" settings on a 1080 monitor with 50fps. (let alone 60).

 

[trogdor796]

I think what they are saying is that if he wants to MAINTAIN a minimum fps of 60 at 1080p, a GTX 680 is the way to go. Other cards, such as a 580, 570, 560ti, can probably handle it at ultra and 1080p, but I HIGHLY DOUBT they are always at 50-60fps. I'm sure there are some times when it dips into the 40's, maybe even 30's. With a 680, you are much more likely to never drop below 50-60fps.

 

[catatafish]

Yes, I've already stated I'm not sure what the AA is set at. When I set up the game, I clicked the Ultra button and let it determine all the subsequent fields under it. The game looks amazing and all the lines are as smooth as my eyes can detect.. Looking around at different reviews though I'm seeing 1) an OC 560Ti can perform like a stock non-OC 570. 2) A stock 570 is hitting 56/57 fps (average) on BF3 Ultra, with low amount of some kind of AA 3) thus, ...........


So anyhoo....notwithstanding all that nonesense, the OP is asking "what can I buy for NOT $500 that I can play BF3 on". Besides "OMG buy a 680!!!" what are his other options? THAT is what I'm trying to convey to him.