Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will ATI Raedon HD 4850 supports ultra settings in Battle Field 3.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 23, 2012 5:14:28 AM

Is ATI Raedon HD 4850 able to support Battle Field 3 and NFS Run in ultra settings?
Which one you recommend?
I have a PC with AMD Athlon X2 5200+ processor(2.71 GHz) and 4GB RAM.
Waiting for your reply...........
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 5:35:25 AM

Maybe single player itll do low settings. But multiplayer itll be a slideshow.
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 6:15:19 AM

No way!
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2012 6:22:51 AM

In single player with low resolution like 1280x1024, 4850 will support ultra setting. But fps will be around 30 or below.
September 23, 2012 7:19:24 PM

If you can go for a gt430
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 12:49:41 AM

NO WAY For Battlefield 3

my XFX HD 4870 1GB overclocked at 770/1000 was only able to do HIGH on 1280x720 and only got 35-50 FPS on Multiplayer
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 4:36:42 AM

gamerkila57 said:
NO WAY For Battlefield 3

my XFX HD 4870 1GB overclocked at 770/1000 was only able to do HIGH on 1280x720 and only got 35-50 FPS on Multiplayer


I played BF3 with ultra setting @ 1366x768 on HD6770. 4850/4870/6770 are all in same class.
a c 109 U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 4:45:36 AM

alec3601 said:
If you can go for a gt430

No. :pfff: 
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 4:50:17 AM

mubin said:
I played BF3 with ultra setting @ 1366x768 on HD6770. 4850/4870/6770 are all in same class.


At 30 fps? :lol:  That doesn't count as playing, more like watching a slideshow.
September 24, 2012 6:25:57 AM

I have a slightly nicer system. Athlon II x2 250(3.0ghz) and an Radeon 4870. Your cpu WILL bottleneck the game on multiplayer more than the GPU(although neither is great). I play on @1680x1050 resolution on low settings and I'd get dips into the 20's in areas of high traffic(especially on Karkand maps). I've overclocked the cpu to 3.4ghz which helped some but the core count is still a large factor.

Upgrade to a quad core cpu and I'm betting you'll be able to play on medium, maybe high.
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 6:26:37 AM

alec3601 said:
If you can go for a gt430


What? No.

The 4850 (which should be faster than the GT430 for sure) will probably play on medium to low.
a b U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 6:40:00 AM

Sunius said:
At 30 fps? :lol:  That doesn't count as playing, more like watching a slideshow.


Then what do you expect from a 3years old(almost) 6770/5770 card? 30x2 = 60fps? :lol: 

Actually it gives less then 30 at an average. like 27fps. But its not like slideshow as you think. Its playable and smooth. Its still great for that old card in single player.

Movie or music video is like 23fps. Dose it look like slide show to you? Check youtube video for 6770 with ultra setting.
a c 291 U Graphics card
September 24, 2012 9:31:54 AM

You don't control the movie. If you controlled the camera, it would not feel smooth at all. And no, 30 fps is not playable at all. You can't even properly aim at that FPS. Sure, it will launch the game on ultra settings, but no way it will be an enjoyable (playable) experience.

Look here: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Look at the ball that's moving at 30 fps. It's all blurry and hard to see. If a ball is that hard to see, how can I see an enemy that's going to shoot me and shoot him before that at 30 fps?

Lastly, who the hell would buy Battlefield 3 to play single player?
!