Depends on your budget to some extent, but I would heavily recommend an i5-2500K CPU, your preferred brand Z68 socket 1155 board, and 8GB of RAM. The GPU is where you'll end up cutting back or splurging usually.
I've always bought the fastest video card for the money, regardless of brand, but lately ATI has been having issues (RAGE catastrophe and now they still won't have a final driver until 6 days after BF3 launches). I'm really recommending Nvidia.
If you can afford it, I think the GTX 570 is where it's at. I don't think the 580 offers enough additional performance for the cost. That's what I would buy if I could upgrade right now. If not, the GTX 560 Ti is still good.
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:19 am
by Tsakali
brisk wrote:Some screenshots I took (ultra detail, everything on full) click to enlarge
imgs
actually, I was trying to figure out why it looked odd, and it's the low polycount. Seriously, rage blows these environments away. sure, it might have hand painted surfaces but what also really helps with the realism is the higher polycount, and rage had to be pushing the upper limits on those consoles.
brisk wrote:
Probably the best looking (or at least, most realistic) game on the PC. Smooth as butter too.
I think rage wins overall...if you ignore the blurry textures up close, it's kind of hard to beat high polycount, and hand crafted textures.
As for the DX filtering and lighting surroundings superiority, it could possibly go either way.
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:25 am
by Big Kahuna Burger
caring about gfx
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:50 am
by andyman
odiums little brother
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 am
by brisk
Tsakail has finally lost it.
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:05 am
by Don Carlos
But the textures are so low res on the 360
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:10 am
by Eraser
No they're not. At least, not if you install the high res pack to HDD, which shouldn't be a problem for anyone.
I doubt that anyone who cares about the texture res is still using an XBox without HDD.
Also enough people bitched about having to change settings in Rage so why is there no malice toward a game that has worse textures on a console unless you install? You didn't need to install BF2 to the 360 and it was better looking that BF3 without the install? Makes no sense...
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:09 pm
by Eraser
The comparison video? I did, and it shows that if you don't install the 2nd DVD to harddisk your game will have low res textures.
I don't really see what the problem is. If you don't install Rage's 2 DVD's to HDD then you're allegedly getting terrible texture pop-in
Also, for your second point, there's quite a difference between PC gamers having no control options to tweak the game and console gamers having to install the game. They're two different crowds to begin with.
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:15 pm
by Don Carlos
It is a console; you shouldnt need to install stuff. I dont have 2 Rage DVD's installed and the pop up is not bad at all?
All I am saying is that there was a song and dance about Rage but nothing about BF3.
Re: Battlefield 3
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:28 pm
by Eraser
Oh yeah, but that's because it's id Software and it's cool to hate id.
Funnily enough my bro and me were playing Portal 2 coop last weekend and there are quite a few textures in there that are extremely blurry, yet no one was actively looking for those. And of course it wasn't cool to hate on Portal 2 while it is cool to hate on anything done by id Software, so there you go.