Post by Eorl @ 09:36am 10/09/13 | 43 Comments
Those looking to get the best experience in Battlefield 4 will be looking at either a AMD six-core CPU or Intel quad-core CPU, 8GB of DDR3 RAM, GTX 660 or HD 7870 with at least 3GB of GDDR5 and HDD space of 30GB. Interestingly DICE also recommend WIndows 8 64-bit for your operating system though those not eager enough to upgrade will be perfectly fine utilising Windows Vista or Windows 7.
For anyone looking to be a bit more lenient on the wallet but suffer a drawback in the graphical performance will find the minimum specs more than enough to cater to your FPS needs. Either an AMD Athlon X2 or Intel Core 2 Duo CPU will be suited for your needs, with the minimum graphics card being the still powerful 8800GT.
You can find the table image below, and let us know in the comments on what kind of build you will be going for Battlefield 4.
Buy now from ozgameshop.com Only AUD$16.49!
Latest Comments
43 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 09:56am 10/9/13
Still got my 2500k and gtx560ti which was bought with the imminent release of BF3 in mind. This time I think I'll splurge on a 780 so we can get the most out of this 120hz monitor.
Posted 10:13am 10/9/13
Wouldnt be surprised.
Just wish they would f*** off that battle log.
Posted 10:22am 10/9/13
Posted 10:25am 10/9/13
Battlefield 4 - Slideshow Edition
Posted 10:28am 10/9/13
A mates system with a 4670K (stock clocks) + GTX 770 SC runs BF3 at 70-100fps in most situations, and the 4670 is the second best haswell. All the cores sit about 90-95% so that's about all the CPU has to give.
Now I'm not sure where the 2500/2600 fares into this, performance wise - but I bet it's about to show it's age with BF4.
Posted 10:36am 10/9/13
this, so much is the main number one reason that a) i dont play bf3, b)origin is the balls
Posted 10:54am 10/9/13
Posted 12:04pm 10/9/13
Posted 01:03pm 10/9/13
I've got a gtx670 and run it on ultra around 60fps.
i7-3770 3.4ghz
16gig ram
gtx670
dedicated graphics memory is 2gb. But it says 4gb avaliable.
What does that mean really?
At most just have textures on high rather than ultra and have smooth sailing?
Posted 02:00pm 10/9/13
Doesn't BF4 support DirectX 11.1? So wouldn't the Recommendation be have the OS that fully supports it?
I still don't understand this Windows 8 hate :|
Posted 03:07pm 10/9/13
P.S you should read more informative websites such as Anandtech ,Toms Hardware and Guru 3D.
Posted 03:22pm 10/9/13
Posted 03:26pm 10/9/13
Posted 03:37pm 10/9/13
Posted 03:39pm 10/9/13
Posted 03:42pm 10/9/13
Even Planetside 2?
Posted 04:00pm 10/9/13
Posted 04:17pm 10/9/13
Posted 04:42pm 10/9/13
because while most of the tech world might be considered early adopters to new things, there is still alot of them that hate change
Posted 05:59pm 10/9/13
Posted 06:21pm 10/9/13
Yeah, hate the free to play model.
Posted 07:24pm 10/9/13
The 'gutless 8 core AMD' is about 25-30% faster than a 2500k on multithreaded apps, such as BF3.
I don't need to refer to websites when I'm already building the hardware. Fact is a 4670K, 920, and 2500K will all max out on BF3. Your frame rate becomes limited by the CPU instead of the GPU, and this makes GPU Panda very sad. Sure, your max fps might be like my mates 100fps, but you're still better off keeping your GPU as the bottleneck for a smoother experience across the board. My system hovers around the 60% mark on all cores in BF3, giving plenty of headroom and allowing the GPU's to stay maxed.
P.S. I upgraded from a 920 4.2Ghz, I guess your idea of high framerates must differ to mine.
Only if you keep using that terrible Surround mode. I've been using my panels in 'All screens' mode and it's very versatile for wow + eve. :)
Posted 07:27pm 10/9/13
Posted 08:49pm 10/9/13
Posted 09:00pm 10/9/13
Posted 03:49am 11/9/13
got the same as you, and my plan is pretty simple, wait for the games to be made without xbox 306/playstation 3 support, and upgrade then, cause it will be another year away at best, and there isn't much that is going to tax the 570 while still looking good
Posted 06:19am 11/9/13
8Gb ram
GTX 590
Guessing this is still going to be okay for max BF4?
Posted 12:18pm 11/9/13
Posted 01:38pm 11/9/13
That's what I was thinking, however he may get away with 2xAA or 0xAA @ 1080.
Posted 03:20pm 11/9/13
Posted 03:33pm 11/9/13
Posted 03:39pm 11/9/13
or the one that gives their car regular dealer services, more likely to cross the finish line
either way, the 590 will handle it, and it will look so much better that anything any of the current consoles can do, so in effect it will be highly playable
Posted 05:34pm 11/9/13
I find it hard to believe BF4 is going to be that much more intensive? I realise it wont have some of the later tesselation/directx type support
Posted 06:08pm 11/9/13
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/4 AVG=82 sp
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page3.html AVG=73 mp
Posted 02:11pm 12/9/13
I had a 580 with a 920 and the game ran like crap unless you made it look like crap.. Upgrading from a single 580 to 3x680's hardly made a difference (was air testing the cards before blocking them up) but flicking over to the 3930k made the game silky smooth. Silky smooth with 60% utilisation compared to chunky gameplay on the 920 at 100% usage.
I mean really, you have to be a pretty illogical person to miss the point there. Go back to reading your websites champ, while the few lucky people who build lots of systems can see it for themselves. Before the 4670K system I built for him, my friend had an old Athlon CPU with a 295GTX and he thought it was the bees knees (running BF3 at 30-40fps on all low). -- Now he knows better with his 100fps average while running all Ultra system.
Posted 03:07pm 12/9/13
Posted 03:23pm 12/9/13
I see many, many threads throughout many more demanding games where people say their FPS is low and looking for help, with most replies being to upgrade their video card. On closure inspection, many of these system have a weak CPU, where the CPU is holding things back for the most part.
Unfortunately the CPU bottlneck only becomes apparent when it is required to do lots of work, so a benchmark scene with little CPU action wont show a problem. Same with playing a game on a low population server, again the CPU has less to do so the bottle neck is the GPU. People will upgrade their GPU, see this section of the game show better FPS and conclude their GPU upgrade worked. Then they play the game, get into an intense CPU area (generally lots of players in a small area) and the game crawls again.
So they blame the game for being badly programmed because their $800 video card isn't giving them constant 100fps, or that their card must be faulty.
Many improvements to graphics engines of late seems to be more features based on CPU calculations, which is great as it was an underused area for a while.
Posted 03:25pm 12/9/13
Tools like that are invaluable for gamers looking to upgrade their system and wanting to know where and how to best spend their $'s.
Posted 03:56pm 12/9/13
Totally correct!
i have old quad core duo, and upgarded to 670GTX last year it was great improvement on games. But in the last couple of month i can see my CPU is the bottleneck. Especially playing Rome Total War II my poor old Quadcore was running 100% on all 4 :(. I just dont have spare $1000 to buy cpu, ram, psu and case. As already got SSD card and 670GTX
Posted 05:42pm 12/9/13
Posted 05:54pm 12/9/13
While not as advanced, BF3 does come with the 'Render.PerfOverlayEnable 1' which instead of showing you framerates, it will show you the internal latencies between the software and the CPU+GPU, measured in milliseconds.
Watch the bars grow when you reach a demanding area.
Posted 06:13pm 12/9/13
Posted 06:27pm 12/9/13
Got ya iPad ready? Good thing the driving model sucks or there'd be no room left on the desk for all the peripherals.