Battlefield 3 Low vs. Ultra Settings Comparison PC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- Subscribe and like for more videos!
So this is a very brief comparison video of Battlefield 3 running on lowest settings vs. it running on maximum settings. I know it's not the best comparison out there, but you can certainly see the difference.
Surprisingly, the game still looks pretty fantastic on lowest settings, which is apparently what the game looks like on consoles.
I normally run games at 2560 x 1440, and I get a steady 45 FPS with everything at Ultra, it occasionally drop to 30, but for the sake of recording I dropped it down to windowed 1080p, because FRAPS can hurt FPS. When recording in 1080p I get 30-45FPS in the heat of action, normally about 30 fps. Without FRAPS, running at 1080p usually gives me up to 60 fps.
My PC specs:
Single GTX 580 3gb
i7-2600k 3.4ghz Processor
8gb of RAM
Dell U2711
Almost no difference. Ultra have better textures quality and particles. But sometimes, the Ultra particles may disturb you.
That is because he did not lowered the resolution, of course low settings are gonna look cool if you are playing at 1080p
Honestly, the lowest settings still look beautiful :D
1:20 low and high are swaped
sea man Ikr
All the difference I can see is the textures.
"Texture settings changes need a RESTART of the level, so the best thing to be sure is just to restart the game.you won't see anything unless you restart the level"
"PC texture quality applies only after game restart. Can this be fixed so that restarting the game is not required to change texture quality?"
"*Critical Note: many of the Video settings -require- a complete game shutdown and restart to take effect"(That last one is from a HUGE BF3 tweak guide on EVGA's website).
I think the tank sequence has the headings reversed. Low actually looks better in this video.
When the video ended i'm still waiting for the bit where actual difference is.
One of the best first person action shooters of all time. My all time favourite - Battlefield 3
ARKHAM BOY nope
Shadows, ambient occlusion and textures are biggest differences.
At 1:04 when he looks at the ground you can see the better textures and more grass density.
At 1:56 you can see the shadow differences (ultra has soft shadows, and low is ray-traced.)
HBAO is hard to point out but you can see it in most part of the video, but its very subtle and it makes a difference to the visuals.
Anti-Aliasing is heaps better too.
best thing about battlefield/frostbite games is they look good on the lowest settings cant tell a difference beside ambient occlusion antialiasing and shadows
Since battlefield is based in very large maps render distance is also affected when turning down all the settings to lowest and that's going to be very noticable as well. But yes, lack of AO and AA are what makes lowest settings look unbearable.
Frog Stat true dat
I have the PS3 version, and my friend has it running on his PC at 1280x768 on low settings with x8 AA and I have to say it looks a hell of a lot better. The only real complaint with the console version is its lack of anti-aliasing. That makes a huge difference with visual quality.
Actually he's right. Textures and stuff don't change til you restart the game.
you would notice the difference while playing it. Things further away are more detailed.
I'm so glad I decided to build my own custom pc and switch to pc gamer
I see the difference, the ultra ones has more pixels which makes it more smoother if you pause you will see the differences that ultra looks more smooth.
if you are using a very powerful video card the difference from low to ultra minimal but it is remarkable, the difference will be significant when you play in BF3 intel onboard graphics on low and play in ultra BF3 in a hd6990.
yes and a huge frame difference thats what is great
It's funny cause it still looks pretty good at the lowest settings
thats not good , can i play it on lowest settings with no Geforce Nvidia ? whitout lagg
+Banaan
No I mean it still looks graphicly good
The Boss Stage1 oh okay so
Bf3 so fucking well optimized
Nice comparison :)
The best low-set graphics game I've ever seen..
put it on full screen and you will see the difference :D
I found it to be something to do with the resolution, with my pc at 1080p looks barely different between low and ultra, but when i ran it at 1360 by 768 the difference in detail was ridiculous.
Apart from a slight improvement in textures and better dynamic lighting, I honestly don't see too much of a difference. =P
OK lets get this together. The diffrence about low and ultra are almost unseen. Of course, the ultra settings have more bloom and details but I don't see so much diffrence. Only thing than you can see in the gameplay is that little squares at the object.
and you MUST do comparisons in 1080p
Most of lowest settings look great until you are looking for detail and texture pop in. Kudos to dice for helping people with more budget rigs play this game!
They look pretty much the same except for the texture on the floor
Good video men
Did someone see the difference, i can't find it
I see the difference only in textures sometimes and in AA
The lowest settings are really good. In compare with mw3's highest settings, the lowest bf3 settings really are the best!!!
It looks pretty amazing with lowest graphs too
Thanks for this :)
The textures are the only thing that change
Watch in HD to notice
i have a nVIDIA geforce gt 430 graphics card and i can't run it on max but now i have seen the lowest settings i will surely buy it it is amazing. an lowest it has better graphics than maxed out mw3 IT IS JUST AMAZING
i hate to admit it but low really is better than console. This game was made within the last year, well the graphics for it were rendered within the last year. PS3 and 360 have been out for a very long time now, and what was once awesome graphics, are becoming base level graphics. PC will always have the lead, I'm a former PC gamer, switched to console cause it's cheaper. For now
In lowest settings looks like very good O_O
when on the lowest looks better than on console
The low settings are a littlebit darker than the ultra settings
Can't really see much difference except for textures and aa, should look great on medium
Dat moment when Low looks better than high..xD
srry i was half asleep typing that
watch carefully, the difference is almost nothing but there is a difference
its same graphics lol or i cant see
this game looks better then call of duty on the lowest setting
The lowest settings is what consoles use. Hence why lowest settings look so good.
difference is at 59 seconds... ultra buffers more ground textures
like the valve music at the intro ;)
low still looks pretty damn good !!!!!
CROSS EYED READY
On the Thunder Run comparison I think you swapped the footage. I saw jagged edges on ultra and smooth edges on lowest.
The ultra settings wil give you a smooth shadow lowest a sharp one
Don't get me wrong its fantastic on Xbox, but I really need a PC to enjoy 100% of it. Visually and gameplay wise.
Funny because it doesn't. EVEN if it did, could you blame a 2004 - 2005 hardware? Honestly now. Everyone seems to skip that thought.
Lowest PC setting is still better than consoles. Honest truth.
great video,better then all the other idiotic comparisons
Yeah, I'm only buying a computer that can run Battlefield 3 on Ultra. Doesn't mean I'll be playing on Ultra (Medium min. High max.)
Im just stating a fact, no need to argue...
As long as it is 60 fps and 1080p, I'm okay with the lowest settings. It's still gorgeous, so ultra settings is just extracting the soul out of your GPU.
Well first of all there's no mayor difference because this is a RUclips video with cut down quality and such. Second it's things like anti-aliasing that make it look nicer and that's what you need a powerful PC for to run at 60fps, just the details in the textures don't have that much of a hit on the performance.
1:48 ultra is blurry and low is sharper
@RiderCore I know, I know. I had everything recorded in 1080p but something got fucked up in the video editing software for whatever reason.
on the lowest settings everything seems more crisp and a bit less flowing together (the textures on the trees for example) and the shadowquality is nearly no difference between them at all.
so for a pretty easy setup for fps in multiplayer on a cheap gaming pc like mine textures medium rest low @ 1920x1080 :3
triplecore athlon II 445 3.1 ghz @ unlocked core and 3.6 ghz hd 6870 8 gb ram
should be a cheap setup that will last for quite a bit ^^
at 1:47 it's low to ultra isnt it? the shadows look alot better where it says low, and worse in ultra at the top right corner
lowest + a little bit of AA (even post-AA) ≈ ultra
lowest is a bit more pixel at the edges of any model but other than that i cant really say.
1:21 it's inverted
I think the settings just apply to the ground
Yeah, unfortunately that's just not realistic for a higher-than-mid-tier PC. I spent $400 on my video card alone (GTX 670). Add a good processor to that (i5 3570), and your budget is shot...I was just at a point where I just needed a new PC, not just for gaming, so I bit the bullet and dropped $1800 on a new rig. Worth it so far.
@Xxx0zkrxxX Yeah I realized after publishing it that the left is actually ultra and the right is lowest.
dude i dunno what to do..my pc is really fast good and playing every single game full graphics and no lagg...but in case of bf3 i can even play from that lagg.. :(
Τζέησον Μπρόντι u must to.. oh 6 years later, fuck.
i think you will better notice the difference if you are really playing......i played on a laptop on low settings.....but since a few weeks i play on ultra with a 800€ pc and i have to say...THE DIFFERENCE IS HUGE
I can't really distinguish the difference....and low looks better in some cases to me, lol but my monitor isn't 1080p though.
say that to the horrible shadow in low settings...
low is better than the consoles because its in full hd
its the same . low turn the game more fast :D
there are no ugly settings on this game
not that of a big differense, only outside of textures looks like staircase and shadows are a bit more blurry or somthing
Frostbite 2 is awesome engine :D
Oh btw mate you got the tank battle videos the wrong way round.
Dude, after changing settings you need to restart the game! Low settings are still ULTRA if you don't restart!
I want to build a pc but it's way to expensive, i want to spend say €500 (the cost of the ps4) and I want it to last at least 5 years
@Minime637 you can use the annotations :)
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see much difference.
Lowest settings on PC still looks better than console
realy ?
i still dont see the diffrance exept the shadows
My laptop runs minecraft at all low settings with tiny draw distance with 15 frames a second :( good thing im building a pc with a watercooled gtx 580
BF3 Low = BO2 Ultra
Right. What are you 10? And no not wrong at all actually. It's the same with almost all games. Go play battlefield 3, change the textures, and compare. Change nothing else. Nothing will change. The textures all have to be reloaded which is why some games do a refresh when you change the graphics options. But battlefield doesn't.
the only thing that stands out to me is aliasing
All is better then consoles :D
Caspian border- the lowest settings looks better than ultra!
Maybe a mistake??!!??!!??!!??!!??
(just my opinion)
1:30 left side is ultra and right side is lowest :P
This isn't 2005 son,u are living in 2012.
Dat moment when the lowest settings on battlefield still looks 100x better than on console.
1:37 the ultra is on the left side lol
@Minime637 chuck testa :) but lol visible chnges are only at last 5 shots
lol so when i get this i may as well just run everything on low so that i get high FPS cause the difference is so minuscule it won't even matter to me when i play online :P
różnice widać tylko na teksturach ziemi ;D a tak to prawie identyczne
The largest differcence is antyaliasing.