Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Battlefield 3 fail :/

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 23, 2012 2:23:38 AM

Downloaded it but its LAGGING LIKE CRAZY even on low settings, I'm guessing its my CPU

Athlon X2 II 3.0 Ghz
6 gigs of ram
radeon HD 6670 graphics card

if I upgrade to an athlon X3 would that fix the problem with battlefield?

I run Rift, WoW, Rage, and Diablo 3 perfectly fine on high/ultra settings

More about : battlefield fail

May 23, 2012 4:04:53 AM

Try putting all settings on low. The requirements for this is a quad core and a ati 6970 or a gtx 560. If you upgrade your cpu you should play on Medium/ high
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:10:33 AM

Yeah I'm planning on bumping up to a Athlon X3 processor it'll bump me up a pretty decent amount it's gotta be the CPU
Score
0
Related resources
May 23, 2012 6:23:52 AM

battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it
Score
0
May 23, 2012 6:38:46 AM

it is your CPU as well, but mostly it is your GPU... it is way too anemic for such a game even on low...
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:05:16 AM

coolbir said:
battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it


6 vs 6 team deathmatch on tiny maps is much better /s
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:11:47 AM

6670 ain't great either.

lower resolution + lower settings.

skip the x3, can you get an x4?
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:13:16 AM

coolbir said:
battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it


because a looks like every MW game, and is built for kids with consoles
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:34:53 AM

coolbir said:
battlefield sucks go for modern warfare 3.u can run it



That's the most funniest thing I've ever read. Only children and people with anger issues play MW3. Battlefield is better on so many levels.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:52:43 AM

Dont get the X3 the increase you would see over the x2 would be minimal. Both your CPU and GPU are holding you back.

Whats your budget?

A quad core Phenom II would set you back about $120 would be ALOT better than any Athlon.

A better GPU more than that.

I play on a 550ti which is not alot better than your card and run medium with some high at decent FPS. I suspect if you turn settings to low with some medium and kill the AA and other fancy effects you will do better.

The quad CPU would show you a good difference in larger playercount maps

Here's some benchmarks that actually test multiplayer shows the game uses the cores

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanaly...
Score
0
May 23, 2012 12:22:14 PM

If you want an idea as far as CPU: Prive/Value then you can check out this link:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#cpuvalue

That said, BF3 is a beast so if you plan on playing at enthousiast settings then you'll need an enthousiast rig. You'd have to also bump your GPU to a high 6000x series or 7000x series.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 12:30:21 PM

Make sure you have the latest drivers, AMD released new drivers just after BF3 was released to improve BF3.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 2:11:58 PM

geekintel said:
That's the most funniest thing I've ever read. Only children and people with anger issues play MW3. Battlefield is better on so many levels.


I don't personally play MW3, but this isn't a fair indictment of their community. Different strokes for different folks. I've seen plenty of breakdowns in BF3, usually resulting from being on the wrong end of a 50-3 ratio.

@OP, your computer isn't up to snuff to play BF3. Processor's an issue to some extent, GPU's an issue to an even larger extent. In this case, unless you want to drop a fair amount of cash in modernizing your computer it might be a reasonable recommendation to point you to MW3 instead if you're a fan of those kinds of games. My other recommendations would be Team Fortress 2 if its cartoony art style doesn't bother you (in fact it has a very talented community who are some of the best fps players anywhere, and is free to play on Steam) or even trying Counterstrike Source which is a tried and true FPS game on the source engine. Both TF2 and CS: Source are competitive games with competitive communities, and Counterstrike has an upcoming sequel on the source engine as well called CS:GO.

Anyway, aside from BF3 I'd definitely recommend those 3 as they all have lower system requirements.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 3:36:11 PM

It's def not my GPU because on the requirements my GPU is almost at max for the requirements needed, my processor is at the minimal requirements though so it has to be that. The video card isn't the best but it's def not bad so I know it's not that. Gonna upgrade to the X3 it'll improve my performance about 150 percent from my stock CPU benchmark. already researched it and talked to people who had the difference, thanks
Score
0
May 23, 2012 3:47:00 PM

Ok, from all of the people that have and are using BF3, a 6670 is not very good.

I have a GTX470 (2nd best in the 400 series), vs 8th best in the 6000 series. And I can hit 40fps at high, I have to drop it to low to get to 60fps.

http://www.enterbf3.com/information/538-minimum-require...

The recommended is a 6950, the minimum is something from the 6000 series equivelent to a 3870 (top end from the 3000 series). Looking at :
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-graphics-card-revi...
the 3870 and the 6670 are about the same, therefore you just meet minimum specs. So what you are seeing is both CPU and GPU

Score
0
May 23, 2012 3:56:11 PM

@ 13themoney, def. gotta throw a big LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at your response. First off the 6670 def. is no where compared to the 3870 my embedded graphics card is a 4200 and when i put the 6670 it took the games i play from low/medium to high/ultra so your information is not correct

second correction would be this http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=1164&ga...

it SPECIFICALLY says that the max requirements needed is a 6950 and the medium is a 4770 which means my GPU is a little below the best requirements needed. So therefore my CPU is the only thing that meets minimum requirements
Score
0
May 23, 2012 3:58:44 PM

And the middle requirements for this game is in fact, the Athlon X3... Sorry I asked in here should of have done better research to get correct info.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:03:28 PM

You need to understand card naming conventions.

The 6670 is not 'between the 4770 and a 6950' the 6670 is almost the lowest of the 6000 series. The 4770 was almost the highest of the 4000 series.

Good luck, I hope you don't waste too much on the magic beans.

If you read my second link it compares card to card for you.

The 4200 is the lowest of the 4000 series the 3870 is the highest of the 3000 series. The first number is nearly irrelevant as incrementing the first number does not make all of that series better than the previous series.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:11:30 PM

michaelxps said:
It's def not my GPU because on the requirements my GPU is almost at max for the requirements needed, my processor is at the minimal requirements though so it has to be that. The video card isn't the best but it's def not bad so I know it's not that. Gonna upgrade to the X3 it'll improve my performance about 150 percent from my stock CPU benchmark. already researched it and talked to people who had the difference, thanks


Best of luck. I think in the end you'll find that the problem is, as everyone here has stated, both your cpu and gpu are very weak for BF3 in particular. If you'd like some clarification on what those "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements often actually translate to, minimum is what would be required to turn the game on. Not to play it at any sufficient level of competence, but just to turn the game on without your system crashing or the game's launch failing outright. The "recommended" requirements are what you need to maintain at least 30 fps on a mixture of low and medium settings which is what is deemed playable to the most minimally definable extent.

And then, if you go up several tiers of hardware, those are the "user recommended" system requirements as in to play the game at 60 fps on medium or better settings, with most basic elements of the game's graphics potential (AO, DoF, Bloom, those sorts of settings) enabled to at least some modest extent.

If you'd prefer anecdotal evidence instead, I beta tested BF3 specifically on an ati 5770, which while not being a great GPU, is about twice the GPU that the 6670 is when it comes to gaming applications (I also had it overclocked to 1ghz on the coreclock which was absurdly fast for that card). With that card I managed 40 fps tops on a mixture of primarily medium settings, with constant dips to sub 30 fps. Given how dependent BF3 is on the graphics card specifically, your 6670 is the primary cause of any "graphics lag" by which you actually mean to say poor fps. Your CPU only adds to this problem and there is certainly no sense upgrading your GPU without also upgrading your CPU, but I think you'll find that an Athlon X3 will still be a bottleneck to any GPU capable of actually running BF3 competently (which if you are curious, pretty much constitutes a 6870 at the bear minimum).

That's about all the advice I can offer you. Hopefully you eventually find some of it to be useful.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:14:02 PM

I'm not saying any more on this one, he doesn't want to believe that a 6670 roughly is equivalent to a 3870. I think the last three letters of his name says it all.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:15:11 PM

13thmonkey said:
I'm not saying any more on this one, he doesn't want to believe that a 6670 roughly is equivalent to a 3870. I think the last three letters of his name says it all.


Probably. Eh whatever. Give him the best info you can and then wash your hands of it. Whatever he wants to do with it is his business.

Although, I do think you should change your name to 13themoney in retrospect. lol
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:21:10 PM

i can play bf3 on a 6670 gddr3 and a Athlon ii x4 645 at 720p and get OK fps, although i have overclocked them both.

but i have just ordered a i5 3570k, a ASUS GeForce GTX 670 Direct CU II TOP overclocked at 1058 MHz and a AsRock Z77 Extreme4 Motherboard.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:26:31 PM

Lol keep talkin crap when I stated the graphics card, basically someone with monkey in there screen name says it allllllllllll ;) 
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:39:05 PM

michaelxps said:
Lol keep talkin crap when I stated the graphics card, basically someone with monkey in there screen name says it allllllllllll ;) 


You should know 13thmonkey is a renowned rainforest and wildlife conservationist and a huge Bruce Willis fan. I share his views on all things but the rainforest, which I think we should torch wholesale.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:52:23 PM

Ask me if I care
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:54:50 PM

no we should turn half of it in to matchsticks which we then use to torch the other half
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:56:27 PM

michaelxps said:
Ask me if I care


I'll be sure to ask you in BF3. If you ever get it running suitably that is.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 4:57:40 PM

casualcolors said:
I'll be sure to ask you in BF3. If you ever get it running suitably that is.



Hell yes please leave us your soldier name i fancy getting a melee medal in 1 round
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:00:08 PM

Ohhhhh gooood one, nerd jokes.... So funny, you must be a hit with all the ladies




Totally kidding about the ladies part
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:02:55 PM

Don't you know thats why I overclock my Proccesor it gets the b!tches hot!

Unfortunately your substandard GPU is going to act like a giant can of sprayable female repelent
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:03:08 PM

michaelxps said:
Ohhhhh gooood one, nerd jokes.... So funny, you must be a hit with all the ladies




Totally kidding about the ladies part


Would you like to hear another good joke?




































BF3 on a 6670.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:05:30 PM

a better one is the belief that a 4200 is better than 3870
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:07:45 PM

casual, you on US or Europe servers? PM me soldier name if Europe, not much point if US I suppose.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:09:34 PM

Ah, I'm on US servers guy. Sorry =(
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:20:03 PM

Why ask for advice, ignore it, then insult the people giving you advice?!?!?

Im confused, It was a funny thread to read though!
Score
0
May 23, 2012 5:54:36 PM

casualcolors said:
Would you like to hear another good joke?




































BF3 on a 6670.



LMAO!
Score
0
May 23, 2012 6:12:22 PM

I think the OP confused the reference to a Radeon HD 3870 with an A8-3870 APU's integrated graphics, hence the comment about upgrading from his 4200 integrated graphics. Or maybe he's just retarded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

the 6670 is the equivalent of the bare minimum required to run the game.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 6:16:10 PM

in case he comes back and sees sense can someone else please confirm that what I and others said was correct.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 6:41:43 PM

Quote:
in case he comes back and sees sense can someone else please confirm that what I and others said was correct.


Not much point in that I guess seeing as he's gone off the deep end.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 7:33:07 PM

Ok, in all seriousness. Michael, what these guys are trying to say is that your GPU isn't meant for gaming. It's meant for handleling multimedia. When both Nvidia and AMD release a new generation of videocards (yours being 6000 series) they make them for all purposes (from general workstation purposes to enthousiastic gaming). The range is generally followed in the following order:

HD Radeon 64xx, 65xx, 66xx: are generally for multimedia purposes and they're also the cheapest (in price, not quality). So John Doe who only uses his computer for watching movies/online videos can pay cheaper and get a smooth experience.

HD Radeon 67xx is considered mid range gpu allowing you to play certain games (such as the titles you've mentioned that don't require a lot of GPU power but use a fair amount of GPU Rendering (more than the previous range can handle). This range would cost a little more than the sub range but will give you more power allowing you to play certain games.

HD Radeon 68xx: is meant for gaming. They're a lot more expensive but will give you pretty all the power you need to run almost every game out there at pretty high settings (and 1080p).

HD Radeon 69xx: is usually a 2GPU card (built for gaming enthusiast to like to spend loads of money). These are extremely expensive and i look at them as "Bragging rights" cards as oppose to good value cards.

Ironically, from one generation to the next, you'll see (for example) a 5870 get twice the FPS of a 6670 (Proof in these benchmarks: http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6670-review/5


So you see, your GPU wasn't meant for rendering DX10 or DX11 battle simulation (BF3). It was meant to watch porn on the internets. Sorry to disappoint.

As I said in my first response (post way above), BF3 is a beast, if you plan on playing BF3 at 40FPS at high or above settings, you'll need to consider upgrading your CPU to a QUAD and upgrading your GPU to at least a 67xx or 68xx range.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 7:34:33 PM

Alex, but he has a website that says it is. Don't you understand.

PM's
Score
0
May 23, 2012 7:39:13 PM

I've got an AGP radeon 9000, why can't I max out BF3. And don't tell me it's not good enough you stupid fags 9000 is way higher than 3870!!!!!!1111!!!ONE!!!!
Score
0
May 23, 2012 7:41:58 PM

6900's mostly single gpu cards barring the 6990 but your point still stands. 6950 and 6970 were high end mainstream cards. It's also the beginning range for playing BF3 on high settings with 60 fps in most circumstances. 6870 specifically is the first card in ati's line to start approaching these in terms of performance without nearly the same price premium though.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 7:57:58 PM

Michaelxps, you ask a question and then insult all the people who have honestly tried to help you. You did create an entertaining thread though, I won't take that away from you. What with your lame jokes, stunning ignorance and playground mentality. But most of the laughs are at your expense I'm afraid.

Anyway, back on topic... The 6670 is not a good gaming GPU. It is one generation old and was considered a low end gaming part even then. It is inferior to the 5870, 4870 and probably also the 3870. It is probably ok to play on low and whether that's enough is a matter for you.

Your CPU is also weak but you're right in one sense. If you have a low end GPU like yours, you can usually reduce the settings to the point where it's playable. However, if it's the CPU you're pretty much stuck. Therefore, if both are weak (as in your case) you might just achieve minimal playability by upgrading the CPU. But if I were you, I'd consider upgrading both.
Score
0
May 23, 2012 8:21:20 PM

This topic has been closed by Rubix_1011
Score
0
!