Battlefield 3 announced

[suryad]

In Wolf: ET which is even more objective-driven than BF2, on some servers you would be voted off if you completed an objective. That plus a few other problems drove me away from the game.

Urgh!

But I have a feeling the release version will run better on dual core CPUs than the alpha. Dual core being 1/6 the speed of a quad doesn't make sense.

Isn't the Witcher 2 engine known for loving more cores? I would think that is just the current trend of these 'next gen' game engines.

The extra cores certainly make a difference to the Phenom 2. But then a quad Nehalem based i5 is already faster so a Sandybridge i5/i7 would blow it away. The big question though is will a 6 core Nehalem beat a 4 core Sandybridge (not that it would be worth the extra cost anyway unless you're rich!)

I think I have seen a few articles where the 990x that I am running right now came out on top in terms of performance compared to an overclocked Sandy Bridge. Somehow it feels like Intel has not really launched their secret weapon which I think will be Ivy Bridge and that is one of the reasons I stayed with the 990x. (that and that STONKING deal I got!) But yeah purely from a cost pov I think it's best go with Sandy Bridge especially if building a new PC from scratch, ie new motherboard, ram etc.

 

[fellix]

Russians:

 

[NRP]

Get a quad core Sandy Bridge.

Awesome. i7 it is.

 

[suryad]

I dont know why but that dude all the way on the left with the RPK I think?? His white and blue striped shirt reminds me of the Russian sailors in the Hunt for Red October.

 

[Richard]

NRP: I'm running an i7 2600K (at stock 3.4Ghz) and there's nothing that makes it sweat, for now.

The big question though is will a 6 core Nehalem beat a 4 core Sandybridge (not that it would be worth the extra cost anyway unless you're rich!)

For productivity software and video-encoding yes but not for most games. Check out the i7 2600K beating a 980X Extreme in many games here. On the other hand, the 980X Extreme wins most video encoding benches here. This review is from January.

 

[Aeoniss]

I find it interesting that (allegedly) it's the Spetsnaz (unknown which, probably MVD) against the US Marines in the multiplayer.

In real life, the Spetsnaz would absolutely obliterate the marines 9 times out of 10. It would be very bad.

And that's simply talking about their lower rung units. Their top guys like GRU... Well let's just say it would be over long before it started. I just don't get why it isn't Russian regular infantry vs the US Army or something..


So will there be any B3D groups\clans? I'd be very interested in joining one on the PC. I loved BFBC2 and its more 'strategic' gameplay oodles more than any COD title.. So far I think BF3 will outclass it by a mile, so now I just need some buds to play with!

 

[Richard]

I find it interesting that (allegedly) it's the Spetsnaz (unknown which, probably MVD) against the US Marines in the multiplayer. In real life, the Spetsnaz would absolutely obliterate the marines 9 times out of 10. It would be very bad.

Is it standard marines also? Or is it Recon, etc.?

So will there be any B3D groups\clans? I'd be very interested in joining one on the PC. I loved BFBC2 and its more 'strategic' gameplay oodles more than any COD title.. So far I think BF3 will outclass it by a mile, so now I just need some buds to play with!

My main MP title will be BF3 going forward. There's plenty of interest here. I don't know about a clan proper, but I'm game for tactical, objective-driven sessions.

 

[NRP]

The US Army gets no love it seems.

 

[nutball]

I find it interesting that (allegedly) it's the Spetsnaz (unknown which, probably MVD) against the US Marines in the multiplayer.

In real life, the Spetsnaz would absolutely obliterate the marines 9 times out of 10. It would be very bad.

So it's the usual Special Forces versus Special Needs, as seen before on TV?

 

[pjbliverpool]

For productivity software and video-encoding yes but not for most games. Check out the i7 2600K beating a 980X Extreme in many games here. On the other hand, the 980X Extreme wins most video encoding benches here. This review is from January.

True but looking at those benchmarks BF3 does seem to take advantage of 6 cores more than most games so things may be different in this case.

 

[Davros]

If you don't pipe down, I may plug in my wired 360 controller into my PC and own you.

Oh I think I'm well enough equipped to deal with your 360 pad
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55159&highlight=wolfpad

 

[Aeoniss]

Is it standard marines also? Or is it Recon, etc.?



My main MP title will be BF3 going forward. There's plenty of interest here. I don't know about a clan proper, but I'm game for tactical, objective-driven sessions.

I have not heard any mention of it being Marine Force Recon, but they would stand a far better chance if that were the case. Having said that I don't know a whole ton about them, other than they're bad asses.

 

[homerdog]

Awesome. i7 it is.

Yeah, that would be that fastest possible option at this point, barring the six core 990X but that is on the X58 platform which will soon be replaced by the LGA2011 chipsets and Sandy Bridge E (and the 990X is not really any faster for gaming than an i5 2500k at this point anyway, and it's waaaaay more expensive and power hungry).

Do note the 2500k is actually an i5 series processor. The i7s are the 2600 and 2700s, which support Hyperthreading for 8 logical cores. But there isn't much sense in going for anything over i5-2500k for gaming.

 

[NRP]

But there isn't much sense in going for anything over i5-2500k for gaming.

Too much is never enough!

 

[homerdog]

Like lube.

 

[Dresden]

I can personally vouch for the ability of a 2600k. Running stock speeds, with no OC'ing, there isn't much it can't handle. Even if you decide to OC it, apparently it's very stable, in terms of heat with a stock fan. The hyperthreading is awesome, too. If I were to recommend a CPU, it would totally be one of the Sandy Bridge models.

I was reading repi's blog a few days ago, and forgot one of the keynote slideshows on it, which mentions multi-GPU support. The nice thing about DICE is they utilize the importance of running multiple GPU's, something which I don't see a lot of developers leaning towards. So, basically, that alone justifies my having bought two GTX 580's. Even with Bad Company 2, I noticed a significant frame rate boost, when enabling SLI, so I imagine complete multi-GPU support will be an obvious addition to BF3.

Russians:

One of the videos I saw, I think from E3, mentioned the emphasis DICE put into animation and player models. I've seen a few renders now, from both the US and Russian armies, and can't wait until they showcase the MEC.

 

[homerdog]

I was reading repi's blog a few days ago, and forgot one of the keynote slideshows on it, which mentions multi-GPU support. The nice thing about DICE is they utilize the importance of running multiple GPU's, something which I don't see a lot of developers leaning towards. So, basically, that alone justifies my having bought two GTX 580's. Even with Bad Company 2, I noticed a significant frame rate boost, when enabling SLI, so I imagine complete multi-GPU support will be an obvious addition to BF3.

To be fair, mGPU support isn't that important since only a very small % of players have >1 GPU. But it is nice that they are supporting it so well regardless. DICE takes enthusiasts seriously; that's one of the things I love about them.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Don't know if posted before, but the animations and thr transitions between them look so damn real ! Its so smooth !!!

 

[Dresden]

To be fair, mGPU support isn't that important since only a very small % of players have >1 GPU. But it is nice that they are supporting it so well regardless. DICE takes enthusiasts seriously; that's one of the things I love about them.

Honestly, it's better to take advantage of a certain configuration, even if the actual percentage of players utilizing it is minimal, than to have it completely ignored, which seems to be the trend with a lot of developers, nowadays. And for that, DICE gains my total respect. I have way too many games that are developed with archaic standards, and I'd like for once to actually benefit from having chosen my setup.

It all boils down to optimization, in the end. Take CD Projekt RED, for example. While The Witcher 2 provides plenty of eye candy, certain video options are notorious for crippling even the most powerful systems. DICE has already admitted that PC's are leading the production of BF3, with certain major perks for PC audiences.

TLDR version: DICE needs to shut up and take my money, already.

 

[homerdog]

Yeah, Witcher 2 looks great, but I'd expect it to run a lot better than it does on my GTX260 at 1440x900. Though perhaps it's my CPU (E6750 3.2GHz) that's limiting me more than anything.

Right now I'm trying to decide between a 6950 or a 560Ti for my new build. BF3 performance will be the deciding factor. Probly won't get a new monitor so I expect to be near 60FPS at mostly max settings.