Comments (30)
M-M   967d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(3)
PCGamerHub  +   967d ago
can PS do BF ?? any teamplay??

not for me, thx

cleft5  +   967d ago
I wouldn't spend $500 to play Bf3, but thats just me.
Fishy Fingers  +   967d ago
True, but the rumour on the street is a PC can also do a few other bits and bobs you may find useful.
cleft5  +   966d ago
We are only talking about building a PC for BF3. I am not into the series enough to build a PC for it.
Marcello  +   967d ago
This is actually very expensive, for your 500 you will be able to up some eye candy but you will stuck at 30fps if want to play smooth or you leave it on the same settings as xbox360/PS3 & play @60fps but is 500 then worth it for just double the fps ?? especially when you can get a console nowadays for 150.
PCGamerHub  +   967d ago
best game so far, but yes, tastes are different :)
Ryder49  +   967d ago
I personally enjoy Bad Company 2 more than Battlefield 3. But it's all just a matter of opinion.
urwifeminder  +   967d ago
I spent $2.500 very happy pc is amazing.
PCGamerHub  +   967d ago
the sky is the limit ;)
puamdefokejpn  +   967d ago
'gaming PC' ,.. lololololo ,..

And I'd like to see how that would look like running BF3 at at least 720p,..Logo and menues don't count,.. It would look like utter crap and run at 30,..

@ down ,.. maybe they fixed it,.. so I am just judging by the beta,.. I still think you are full of crap..
#6 (Edited 967d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
awi5951  +   967d ago
No that pc has a better gpu than mine and i run at 40 fps at 1080P on ultra. All the parts are fine. You must be a nividia/Intel fanboy.
cayleee  +   967d ago
7850 is easily capable of playing BF3 at 1080p at 60fps. Maybe not maxed out, but very close to maxing out. Still way ahead of any console.
JsonHenry  +   967d ago
This PC can easily play BF3. My older PC could play BF3 just fine on high settings and it wasn't quite as good as the one in this article. My new PC however can run it in stereoscopic 3D with all settings on Ultra @1080p however. But my video card cost as much as this whole PC, so... yeah.
awi5951  +   966d ago
I Just sold a XFX 6870 2GB yesterday and its not top of the line. Ultra settings in multiplayer paired with a amd 1100T cpu plays at 45 fps locked at 1080P.
hennessey86  +   967d ago
I spent £550
And while I can't play new games on the highest settings, I can still play on high setting and get 60fps and they still look far better than the console versions of the game. I got a

FX 8120 overclocked to 3.8 ghz
Power color 7850 2gb
8gb 1600mhz ram
Asus ma57 r2.0 mother board
Corsair 550 watt psu
arjman  +   967d ago
Nice rig man, have you OC'ed that 8120 yet?
anubusgold  +   966d ago
Dude you can play new games on highest settings with that card its your cpu thats bottlenecking. That cpu was so bad for gaming i yelled at the people that sold it to me and sent it back. First off you have to go to microsoft and download a special patch to make windows recognize it as a 4 core cpu which it is. Because amd messed those cpu's up and split the cores so badly that each one is very weak for gaming.

When i sent it back and got a amd 6core phenom it got rid of my bottleneck and my pc ran great in games then. Man you need to get rid of that and get a 8350 or 8320 any Vishera core cpu. Those bulldozer cpus are bad for gaming send it back or sell it. Because that card is awesome and that cpu is killing it.
Mikeyy  +   967d ago
Your not doing any gaming on that PC. There is no OS!

Try the 700$ build.
grahf  +   966d ago
Try $850, you need a monitor to display those 1080p graphcis!
What about speakers? $900
Keyboard & mouse? $925
Cords & CAT5? $950

These budget PC articles crack me up.
Coach_McGuirk  +   966d ago
if that's the case then you have to include the cost of a HDTV and receiver/speakers into the total cost of console gaming.

Your argument will then be that people already have a TV, and don't need to purchase a new one. My argument would be that people already have a computer monitor, and don't need to purchase a new one. Or, they could simply game on the TV that they already own, like they would with a console.
Bladesfist  +   966d ago
who plays $25 for cords. Only fools pay more than £3 for a cable.
Mikeyy  +   964d ago
All accessory arguments aside, I do not see how having the OS is "optional" or not.

it must be factored into the cost of the build.
gazgriff2k12  +   967d ago
BF4 will be out soon ??????????
WUTCHUGUNNADO  +   966d ago
Article won't load... but $500. I could only imagine the laughable list they've concocted. $1000 then your cooking with fire. If your on a budget build you should recycle older parts like the HD/CD/DVD and possibly the case to an older computer, buy the best MB and processor you can afford at the time and some decent ram because you don't have to upgrade those as often and either stick with the onboard graphics if it's intel or buy a cheap GPU then upgrade it to the best you can afford when you get more funds.

BF3 isn't the game to build for right now anyways. So much of the console limitations stick out that it's appalling that they hinted at the PC being the lead platform... Don't believe me play Single player on ultra (there's a reason for the 7% completion rate). Multiplayer is where PC has it's advantages but even then there's all the butt hurt admins that ban you if you get a shot off before them and the aimbotters but the latter is apparent it almost all PC FPS's... 64 players isn't even that great either, the maps really start to seem small when that much is going on.
#10 (Edited 966d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
LAWSON72  +   966d ago
I got to buy bf3 i want to have 64 player because console version sucks
anubusgold  +   965d ago
Just wait for 4 so many hackers you will just rage quit.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login