Can this desktop run Battlefield 3 at 1080P?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Geekgamer

Reputable
Nov 11, 2014
3
0
4,510
Hi!
I am going to build a gaming desktop for about 400 dollars. But I want to see if it can run Battlefield 3.
CPU-AMD Athlon X4 760K
Motherboard-MSI A58M-E35 Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard
RAM-Kingston Fury Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Storage-Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
GPU-MSI GeForce GTX 650 2GB Video Card GDDR5
Case-Rosewill Galaxy-02 ATX Mid Tower
PSU-Corsair 430W ATX12V

Pleas let me know if this can run Battlefield 3 or any other games compatible.
Thanks
 
Solution
jazzy663
The GTX 650 isn't a good card to use at 1080p because of its low memory bandwidth. A better resolution would be 1600x900.

But the card is capable of displaying to that resolution. If you want to play BF3 at 1080p on that card, you'll want to reduce some detail settings. I think low-mid should would be the right settings for playable FPS. I'm going to guess 40-50. This is a guess. I've never owned a GTX 650 so I don't know how it performs.

'Compatiblilty' isn't really an issue...aside from very old games that have trouble running on newer hardware, most games should be 'compatible'. Erm... except for Crysis. Good luck getting that to run.

On the bright side, the CPU is a good match for the GPU. There won't be any...
Sort by date Sort by votes
jazzy663

jazzy663

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
557
0
11,360
The GTX 650 isn't a good card to use at 1080p because of its low memory bandwidth. A better resolution would be 1600x900.

But the card is capable of displaying to that resolution. If you want to play BF3 at 1080p on that card, you'll want to reduce some detail settings. I think low-mid should would be the right settings for playable FPS. I'm going to guess 40-50. This is a guess. I've never owned a GTX 650 so I don't know how it performs.

'Compatiblilty' isn't really an issue...aside from very old games that have trouble running on newer hardware, most games should be 'compatible'. Erm... except for Crysis. Good luck getting that to run.

On the bright side, the CPU is a good match for the GPU. There won't be any bottleneck.

Hope I helped.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Math Geek

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
Oct 15, 2014
18,028
2,337
101,590
kids are playing battlefield 3 at 1080p on ultra with most of the extra on. it's an old dell xps running a q6600 quad core, 4 gb ram and a new r9-270 card if that gives you some perspective.

drop to 4 gb of ram and get a little more gpu power and you should be ok, especially at 1600 x 900 :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DonQuixoteMC

DonQuixoteMC

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2011
1,532
2
20,460
This is what I would buy if I needed to run Battlefield at 1080p for $400. From a gaming standpoint, every penny of the following build goes towards performance. Unfortunately, there are a lot of mail in rebates.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4150 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor ($97.27 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($50.38 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Elite 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($31.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($52.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270 2GB TurboDuo Video Card ($121.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Zalman Z5 ATX Mid Tower Case ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $404.49
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-09 19:58 EST-0500


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jazzy663

jazzy663

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
557
0
11,360
I'd have gone with an FX-6300 and an M5A78 for that build. Battlefield games are designed to take advantage of more cores, he'd have no problem maxing the game at 1080p. Also, the 6300 spits out a bit more raw power than the i3-4150.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DonQuixoteMC

DonQuixoteMC

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2011
1,532
2
20,460
I'm basing this off real world performance. I wouldn't be recommending it if it didn't beat even 8320s in BF4 multiplayer. Plus you can upgrade to i5s and i7s which are undoubtedly more powerful.

BF-4-1920-x-1080-Ultra-settings-GTX-770-vs-7970.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jazzy663

jazzy663

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
557
0
11,360
I have a hard time believing that, since BF4 and other Frostbite 3 games are optimized for AMD hardware. The upgrade angle is valid though, I'm not sure they're going to make anything more for AM3+.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jazzy663

jazzy663

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
557
0
11,360


403.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DonQuixoteMC

DonQuixoteMC

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2011
1,532
2
20,460
Two things.

1. Keep in mind, it's a multiplayer benchmark. You have to take some of it with a grain of salt.

2. Singlethreaded performance still is king. The primary difference between the 8320 and the 6300 is that the 8320 has an extra module (two more cores than the 6300). That means singlethreaded performance is largely unchanged. If the 6300s three modules could run at max frequency more consistently than the four of the 8320, then it stands to reason the 6300 would get higher FPS. This generally would only happen in a sub optimal thermal scenario, not the open test bed they undoubtedly used, but it's something to keep in mind.

By the way, BF4 only really scales to six cores. I don't have the article at hand anymore, but the performance difference beyond the 6300 performance was almost within a margin of error.

Sorry for the mess of a link I've been giving. This should work, it's the article itself.
http://www.hardwarepal.com/2013/11/04/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom