Hey guys,

i just bought bf3 premium edition, and i checked allot of benchmarks if i could run the game on my laptop, and i could, even on high (it said).

but when i entered in a multiplayer match on Noshar Canals, it lagged like shit, it was automatic set to medium/high, but when i changed to low, it still got around 25 fps. 

so can you guys help me out here cause it really sucks, i just spent like 50 dollar and it doesn't work...

 

-Snippro12

which graphic card u use ?

oh yeah i forgot the specs,

 

Processor: AMD A8-4500M APU with radeon HD graphics

Graphics Card: Amd Radeon HD 7640G + 7670M Dual Graphics

Ram: 4 GB

 

it is a HP laptop.

 

-Snippro12 

 

 

try this http://www2.ati.com/drivers/other/AMD_Catalyst_Enduro_9.01.exe

 

The AMD Catalyst™ Mobility 7970M performance for AMD Enduro™ Technology supported platforms has been substantially improved for DirectX 9, DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 applications.

 

 

installed it, restarted my laptop.

then started bf3 on the same map, and still te same lagg problem :( it sucks so much.

do you got another solution?

Looks like your system just isn't strong enough buddy, Sorry.

ah goddamn it, oh well, when i get like 350 euro ( 420 dollar) i can buy myself a new system :P, a beast system.

i will save the game for then....

A laptop won't cut it, I had some problems running Battlefield 3 on my $2000 computer. 

ah goddamn it, oh well, when i get like 350 euro ( 420 dollar) i can buy myself a new system :P, a beast system.

i will save the game for then....

 

Not sure how beast of a system you can get with 420$... Unless you build it yourself. 

yeah i'm building it myself, i already got a graphics card in my old system, and i am going to buy a new processor( AMD FX-8350) with motherboard, a midium tower, Water coolers, 

so i hope that this will be good for it, and good for GTA IV with ENB and GTA V :P

but you know what the weirdest thing is, i run medal of honor warfighter on 30-40 frames, so yeah

They're different game engines. The Frostbite 2 engine is much more demanding.

They're different game engines. The Frostbite 2 engine is much more demanding.

 

MoH: Warfighter runs on Frostbite 2.

bwahahahahahahah BF3 on a Notebook, best joke I've heard in days.... Oh wait, you're serious. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not gonna work properly. Also, Noshahr Canals in not the biggest map in BF3, so on the others you're gonna get even more lag

MoH: Warfighter runs on Frostbite 2.

 

It's most likely outdated version of by the look of it it. I'd call it more like 1.5, honestly. MOH was developed by Danger Close. DICE just lent them the game engine to make a game faster so they don't have to code everything from the ground up. Happens all the time with Unreal Engine games. Games like Rainbow Six vegas get a crappy copy because Ubisoft pays less for it.

bwahahahahahahah BF3 on a Notebook, best joke I've heard in days.... Oh wait, you're serious. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not gonna work properly. Also, Noshahr Canals in not the biggest map in BF3, so on the others you're gonna get even more lag

I can run it on my laptop with a i7-3920M Extreme edition and a 680M + 32GB of ram. Last time I checked it was a notebook :P that's not my main system though :)

It's most likely outdated version of by the look of it it. I'd call it more like 1.5, honestly. MOH was developed by Danger Close. DICE just lent them the game engine to make a game faster so they don't have to code everything from the ground up. Happens all the time with Unreal Engine games. Games like Rainbow Six vegas get a crappy copy because Ubisoft pays less for it.

 

At least that's what Danger Close always claimed. I haven't played the game so I can't tell. But take Need for Speed: The Run for example, EA stated it ran on Frostbite 2, although it didn't look as good as Battlefield 3, so they may not have used it to its full potential.

Edited February 5, 201313 yr by Sgt. Jackson

It's funny how game developers work with their software and how they word it. A lot of games these days have a 'Havok Physics' engine built into them, but sometimes it's just a matter of having a few sections of Havok's code inserted into their own. Or they might be given a bare bones engine and they do what they like with it. I've found with every Need For Speed game, (and I mean EVERY, since I've been a huge fan since NFS III) the cars look amazing, the surrounding area looks 'okay'. Battlefield 3 is sort of the opposite. The character models are above 'okay', I think, the environments look amazing though. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of it though since you're constantly busing jumping over things trying to avoid catching bullets to the skull.

I've played Warfighter, it's not a bad game, But it could have been done better, even EA themselves admitted they missed the mark with it... again. They're temporarily retiring that franchise to get out of Battlefield's way. I think as IGN put it, regarding single player, the environment you walk around in feels kind of funneled, and the textures can sometimes be muddy. Lighting effects and sound is great though, an some of the action has that 'Call of Duty' feel to it. Though a lot of shooters play out that way these days. Even non-AAA titles.