Do you guys think that I could run Battlefield 3 at highest settings at 1680 x 1050 resolution with the following specs?
CPU/Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.4GHz
GPU/Graphics Card: XFX Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 (G92)
RAM/ Memory: 4GB DDR 400MHz
Motherboard: Asus P5KR
The game isn't even out yet and I can already tell you, no way. You wouldn't even be able to max out BC2 with those specs.
Okay, reversing that... not trying to make enemies... Yes, you will be able to play it, just not on the best quality. Actually, probably on the lower end.
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card.
Graphics card memory: 512 MB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
I nearly can... lol..
Yes but your'll be pushing your system to its limit and chances are, if you run the game for too long, you'll probably start to burn out things, unless you have some nice cooling in your case.
You could run the game, but you would have to lower some of the settings. You should think about saving up for an i7 2600K with 8GB of ram and the best video card you can get at around $300 or more.
It'll run it fine at low settings. What resolution are you running at? If it's 1680x1050 or lower, you'll be just fine.
Also, i7 2600k is a waste of 100bucks as far as gaming is concerned, its more geared toward applications with the hyper-hreading (which few to no games support). The i5-2500k is MORE than enough for any gaming (even it's overkill IMO), it's basically the i7-2600k without hyper-threading and 2mb less cache, which you wont notice at all. So unless you plan on doing CPU intensive tasks like rendering, go with the i5-2500k (even the slightly cheaper i5-2xxx versions would be just fine!).
Personally, I'm waiting until BF3 releases to personally see how it runs on my system before I pull the trigger on any components. If it can play it well enough, I'm just going to wait for the AMD 7xxx series graphics card to arrive and pick one of those up :)
Hard to say if that $100 is really a waste. You do get 4 extra core threads that can be used for things other than just the game. Like maybe better sound card settings, streaming or recording apps or other apps like Skype ect that you might run in the background. For me it's just better to pony up a $100 now and have the future support power than to not have it at all. Same goes for memory, if you can pay a little more and get twice as much, might as well get it now then have to pay more later down the road. But I know everyone has different needs, so put the money into the place you think you might need them. For me a faster CPU will just give you that much extra power to focus more on other parts later such as video card upgrades.
Tivon, remember that when you get into hyperthreading cores, to create the "extra threading cores" you can't have the core occupied by a non-hyperthreading process. It will occupy the entire core and will block sharing.
Non-hyperthreading process means one core = one virtual core
Hyperthreading process means one core = two virtual cores
Kind of a downside of Intel's design, if the program isn't made to meet this standard, it kills the feature.
Oh, 2Mb cache difference between the i7-2600K and the i5-2500K? Yeah, 2Mb of high-speed cache makes a BIG difference in terms of repetitive calculation, and figure that physics, AI, and other processes are running on very repetitive scripts, and this 2Mb will make a decent improvement.
Copyright 2013 © Godem Online Inc. | Web and server solutions by NewTech Solutions.