oh.

People talking more about COD than battlefield in the battlefield thread.

Cool.

Seriously get that **** out of this thread. No more posts about COD.

+2 it's a joke

Btw anyone going to gamescom this year, was thinking of going, dunno though.

Who switched the focus to COD?

anyone wanna play some COD?

Switched the focus? I dismissed the series as ****, now stop posting about it in this thread. In case you flunked out of grade school and can't read, this is the BF3 thread. You have your own cage thread for your deathmatch trash game, now go back to it.

What's a cage thread?

Yea trolls gonna troll but its the people who feed them and argue with them who are equally (if not more to blame)

Who cares if someone thinks (the other game) sucks? I never understood why people have to justify it. That argument should be in a different thread.

Normally, who cares cause thats what the internet is for, but for someone like me who comes in here to see what the latest bf3 stuff is and to see what people are saying about it and all I see is drawn out, incredibly boring conversations on a game that doesnt need to be discussed in here.

So I'm thinking of getting this game and havent played a pc fps in a long time. What do I need and what should I do to get up to speed? I've bought bad company 2.

If you can play Bad Company 2, you're almost certainly going to be able to play Battlefield 3.

Well I should say I just bought it yesterday

yeah, just play it then

Loved BF1942 and BF2, never played 2142. Looking forward to BF3 though, looks like it's time to build myself a new computer (probably go with a Sandy Bridge i3)

I wonder if it would be worth it to buy this game for xbox. Most of my friends are probably going to be buying it for the 360, so I might be forced into playing this on the xbox. FFFUUUU

BF3 on a Console? Kiddie games down the street boys....




If you want to play some hockey or football or crappy wrestling/ufc fighting game, get yourself a console. But for FPS or RTS nothing beats PC

Yeah, the COD talk is really getting in the way of all the sick BF discussion going on itt

I strongly suggest you go with this cpu:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115072

Wouldn't I be better off putting the extra $95 difference into a GPU instead?

A dual core isn't going to cut it in bf3, I mean dual cores were fine previously but that day is past.
I see what your thinking, lets say we have 440, you figure I'll spend 115 on cpu and 330 on graphics card and get better fps, but actually if you spend 220 on a quad core and 220 on a graphics card you will get better fps.
The 2500k can be over clocked up to 5ghz and offers the best price/performance, however you can pick up the quad core 2300 for $185 if you want the cheapest option and aren't going to over clock:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115076

I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here ( as I have a 2500K too ) but you are assuming BF3 is optimized for quad core; the problem is, we don't know that.

Yeah, I'm not planning to overclock, components are cheap and powerful enough nowadays I don't feel the need.

Do you have any evidence to support a quad core setup with an inferior graphics processor trouncing a dual core with a superior gpu?

I think most people are going to have their BF3 game performance be bottlenecked by their graphics card rather than their CPU. If you have a high-end graphics card and are hitting the CPU bottleneck, you are probably not posting in this thread seeking advice on the issue.

It is actually optimized for quad core, it's recommended to have a quad core, the devs say that constantly when they are asked.

I played in the alpha and people with dual core cpus had vastly lower fps compared to quad core sandybridge cpus when graphics cards were the same.
Look I'm not saying it won't run on dual cores, it certainly will, just no where near as good as a sandybridge quad core, the sound, physics and destruction will all be end up being handled by the cpu and is definitely optimised for a quad core, probably haven't gotten around to optimizing it properly for a dual core, either way it still won't be comparable to a sandybridge quad core.
We've had quad cores now for 5 years, it was only a matter of time before they became part of the recommended specs for a major game.

Right, but when I spend the price difference on a better GPU....

Dual core with better gpu

vs

quad core with lesser gpu


Then who wins?

Probably dual core with better gpu. If you would benefit from quad core with lesser gpu, you already have invested a heap of money in your GPU and thus have previously researched the issue and thus are not asking this question in this thread.

If you can give your current GPU and your current CPU people will be able to advise on the balance of probabilities which would probably lead to better performance.