After a big gameplay reveal we’re here to let you know that the new Saints Row is every bit the classic Saints we know and adore. With added wingsuit.
5 Things About the New Saints Row that Make It Pure Saints
Our massive round-table interview with the team at Respawn, going behind the scenes on the latest Apex update and finding out how the team keeps delivering the goods.
Apex Legends: Saviors - We Chat to the Team at Respawn
Even after testing for several days, we didn’t need to plug this in for charging.
HyperX Cloud Alpha Wireless's Amazing 300-Hour Battery Life
Post by Eorl @ 09:36am 10/09/13 | 43 Comments
DICE has unveiled the final PC system requirements for their upcoming destruction FPS Battlefield 4, showing off the hefty specs in a fancy table image via their Twitter.

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.




battlefield 4system requirementswindows 8
Buy now from ozgameshop.com Only AUD$16.49!
(compare all prices)





Latest Comments
Lithium
Posted 09:56am 10/9/13
Windows 8 LOL. I reckon Microsoft is slipping EA something under the table for them to say that.

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.
DeadlyDav0
Posted 10:13am 10/9/13
Windows 8 LOL. I reckon Microsoft is slipping EA something under the table for them to say that.

Wouldnt be surprised.

Just wish they would f*** off that battle log.
Dan
Posted 10:22am 10/9/13
8800GT goddam, good luck with that.
arkter
Posted 10:25am 10/9/13
8800GT goddam, good luck with that.


Battlefield 4 - Slideshow Edition
ph33x
Posted 10:28am 10/9/13
Game must look and run like s*** with a 8800GT. "My game runs fast" is very subjective.

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.
copuis
Posted 10:36am 10/9/13
Wouldnt be surprised. Just wish they would f*** off that battle log.



this, so much is the main number one reason that a) i dont play bf3, b)origin is the balls
TiT
Posted 10:54am 10/9/13
i need a new pc :(
Keen
Posted 12:04pm 10/9/13
snap
badfunkstripe
Posted 01:03pm 10/9/13
So does this mean it'll run about on the same requirements as BF3?

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?
glynd
Posted 02:00pm 10/9/13
Windows 8 LOL. I reckon Microsoft is slipping EA something under the table for them to say that.


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 :|
AngusHades
Posted 03:07pm 10/9/13
@ph33x You buddy have no idea what your talking about, If you are still running a I7 920 you should be fine, the frost bite engine runs well with an even gutless 8 core AMD.

P.S you should read more informative websites such as Anandtech ,Toms Hardware and Guru 3D.
Audi
Posted 03:22pm 10/9/13
Hrmm, might need a 3rd Titan.
fpot
Posted 03:26pm 10/9/13
My computer is above recommended but like I'd ever play this s***** game lolz
Audi
Posted 03:37pm 10/9/13
I'd rather chop my penis off with a blunt razor blade than play an mmo.
Morgan
Posted 03:39pm 10/9/13
Here's a vid of BF3 running on a core2duo/4GB/8800GT @ 1024x768. It run's surprisingly well... Better than I expected anyway.
glynd
Posted 03:42pm 10/9/13
I'd rather chop my penis off with a blunt razor blade than play an mmo.


Even Planetside 2?
Spook
Posted 04:00pm 10/9/13
6 CORES!!!!11111!
Lewk
Posted 04:17pm 10/9/13
I really like windows 8. It's the best OS Microsoft have released yet, and 8.1 looks even better. I really don't understand the hate towards it at all.
copuis
Posted 04:42pm 10/9/13
I really like windows 8. It's the best OS Microsoft have released yet, and 8.1 looks even better. I really don't understand the hate towards it at all.



because while most of the tech world might be considered early adopters to new things, there is still alot of them that hate change
Everlong
Posted 05:59pm 10/9/13
I have start8 installed to bypass metro and it's just like using w7, except now have dx11.1, better task manager and better file transfer. I do have an issue where on boot win8 sometimes just doesn't load a driver (like network card or usb hub) which is odd, but a reboot usually fixes that. Otherwise its remarkably just like using any other version of windows.
Audi
Posted 06:21pm 10/9/13
Even Planetside 2?


Yeah, hate the free to play model.
ph33x
Posted 07:24pm 10/9/13
If you are still running a I7 920 you should be fine, the frost bite engine runs well with an even gutless 8 core AMD.P.S you should read more informative websites such as Anandtech ,Toms Hardware and Guru 3D.

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.


Hrmm, might need a 3rd Titan.


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. :)
Audi
Posted 07:27pm 10/9/13
Love nVidia surround.
BladeRunner
Posted 08:49pm 10/9/13
My GTX570 should do alright for the time being. I might look at an upgrade next year sometime, maybe a newer cheap GFX card.
TiT
Posted 09:00pm 10/9/13
i think my old school quad core duo will die :(
copuis
Posted 03:49am 11/9/13
My GTX570 should do alright for the time being. I might look at an upgrade next year sometime, maybe a newer cheap GFX card.


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
Mephz
Posted 06:19am 11/9/13
i7 2600 (3.4Ghz)
8Gb ram
GTX 590

Guessing this is still going to be okay for max BF4?
Audi
Posted 12:18pm 11/9/13
No chance you'll max it with a 590 due to 1.5gb of VRAM bottleneck.
ph33x
Posted 01:38pm 11/9/13
No chance you'll max it with a 590 due to 1.5gb of VRAM bottleneck.

That's what I was thinking, however he may get away with 2xAA or 0xAA @ 1080.
AngusHades
Posted 03:20pm 11/9/13
@Ph33x look you are wrong on so many levels buddy ok , first off I don't think you really know what multithreading is , second is that the 8 core was not 20 to 30% faster alright and thirdly BF3 isn’t really what you call a big hard-core multithreaded application. Windows has a big deal in how it handles programs too ya know. Just because you see you cpu go nuts all over the place doesn’t mean it’s using them properly. Your right to a degree about keeping you cpu fast but it makes little to no difference in gaming. Comes down to cpu architecture and for the record you will always have a GPU bottleneck. No a 590GTX will no max it out due to texture size , you will next a 1.5Gb card to generally max out the textures. BF3 and most likely BF4 which is pretty much the same damm engine, just modified, will keep using your texture memory but for caching.
Audi
Posted 03:33pm 11/9/13
You two should race your ricers to settle this.
copuis
Posted 03:39pm 11/9/13
which one has the rotary, my moneys on that one!

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
Mephz
Posted 05:34pm 11/9/13
My Rig did BF3 maxxed at ~100fps.
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
Audi
Posted 06:08pm 11/9/13
ph33x
Posted 02:11pm 12/9/13
I can't even read the post without my eyes falling into my face, but he'd be eating my 10.5AFR fumes after the 9,000RPM AWD launch while my grandma hangs her left arm out of the window, flippin' birds.

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.
TiT
Posted 03:07pm 12/9/13
anyone would like to donate some money to me i need $500 :(
Tollaz0r!
Posted 03:23pm 12/9/13
There was a period in PC gaming where CPU was largely a non-factor for FPS due to the CPU's at the time being more than acceptable for the task. I feel that this period has led to a complacency among current gen builders to focus too much on the GPU.

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.



Tollaz0r!
Posted 03:25pm 12/9/13
Unreal Engine games for instance, tend to be more CPU demanding. There are tools available if the developers left them in, 'stat unitgraph' for instance which shows rendering time for different threads, game thread, graphics and so on. It can be concluded from that where the game is bottlenecking.

Tools like that are invaluable for gamers looking to upgrade their system and wanting to know where and how to best spend their $'s.
TiT
Posted 03:56pm 12/9/13
There was a period in PC gaming where CPU was largely a non-factor for FPS due to the CPU's at the time being more than acceptable for the task. I feel that this period has led to a complacency among current gen builders to focus too much on the GPU.


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
Audi
Posted 05:42pm 12/9/13
It's pretty clear AngusHades is just trolling, lets move on.
ph33x
Posted 05:54pm 12/9/13
Unreal Engine games for instance, tend to be more CPU demanding. There are tools available if the developers left them in, 'stat unitgraph' for instance which shows rendering time for different threads, game thread, graphics and so on. It can be concluded from that where the game is bottlenecking.

Tools like that are invaluable for gamers looking to upgrade their system and wanting to know where and how to best spend their $'s.

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.
Audi
Posted 06:13pm 12/9/13
I'll bar up in a couple weeks when I play bf4.
ph33x
Posted 06:27pm 12/9/13
Will ya?

Got ya iPad ready? Good thing the driving model sucks or there'd be no room left on the desk for all the peripherals.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
43 Comments
Show