• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[TT]Battlefield 4 PC system requirements aren't harsh at all

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
skipsneeky2 said:
Would be a cold day in hell if someone thinks i would swap my gtx770 for a 7970Ghz based on this apparent bs.

Honestly never thought to see so early a game push games at 1200p without AA to 2gb of vram usage,when i was in the market for a 4gb gtx760 originally with my budget plenty of people said 4gb was a waste for 1200p and i think i made that thread about 2 weeks ago lol then suddenly i buy the 2gb gtx770 and there goes that theory with these BF4 graphs huh?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Battlefield 4 will require more than 2GB. As has been mentioned, the extra VRAM will be used for caching textures and what not..

Before I upgraded to GTX 770 4GB SLI, I had overclocked GTX 580 SLI with 1.5GB of VRAM..

I was able to play Bioshock Infinite at max settings, and Crysis 3 at VHQ 2560x1440 on my overclocked 580s..

Bioshock Infinite will use 3GB of VRAM, and Crysis 3 will use over 2GB of VRAM on my GTX 770s..

However, it still played smooth for the most part on my GTX 580s with their 1.5GB of VRAM.

So basically what I'm saying is, that a lot of the extra VRAM games use is for cache, and not for rendering output.
 
FalseChristian said:
So is my i5 2500K at 4.635GHz and my DDR3-1333 at 1648 going to be a bottleneck for this game or what?
Click to expand...

In BF3, on 64 player maps, with a lot going on, the CPU is a bottle neck, just not a very large one. You will see CPU usage hit 90-95% at times. The Frostbite 2 engine can use up to 6 threads, the Frostbite 3 engine will use up to 8. Which is why an FX8350 out performs an i5 in BF3.
 
these minimum requirements never mean anything. has never meant anything for the past 8 years.

there is no industry standard for these min specs. its up to the dev to make a judgement based on market and the image they want to convey.
 
tygeezy said:
If that system bottlenecks this game ea/dice would be in a heep of trouble. Not sure why people with high end systems worry about this.
Click to expand...

I know i am not worried about my cpu at all and its a stock 3.3Ghz chip,sitting with this thing clear into Broadwell.

If a overclocked 4Ghz+ i7 4770 for some unknown reason pulls a 5+fps higher minimum and like a 15 fps increase in overall average frames or something over my i5 2500 with my gtx770 perhaps i will switch platforms sooner but this is a very unlikely scenario.
 
I'd be very interested to see some Win 7 vs 8 performance numbers when the game launches. I'm running windows 7 but if there are appreciable performance gains by going to 8, I'd probably upgrade. I have the licenses, I just don't particularly care for 8 much.
 
2is said:
I'd be very interested to see some Win 7 vs 8 performance numbers when the game launches. I'm running windows 7 but if there are appreciable performance gains by going to 8, I'd probably upgrade. I have the licenses, I just don't particularly care for 8 much.
Click to expand...

I will be waiting alongside you there,personally i think its a bunch of bogus but hell you just never know.

Toms hardware i think last year did a review with some games and there virtually was no difference but this is the game apparently pushing 11.1 and those so called cpu optimizations.

Here is the article dated October 25th 2012,the article has games like BF3 and other major games of 2012 tossed in for good measure.....http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html
 
Carfax83 said:
I seriously doubt Battlefield 4 will require more than 2GB. As has been mentioned, the extra VRAM will be used for caching textures and what not..
Click to expand...
You are partly right.
Battlefield uses virtual texturing for the ground, in which they create terrain texture with GPU into VRAM and use it from there. (virtual texture terrain splatting.)
They also have streaming for other assets as well.

Quality settings in potions affect the pool size for both texturing types, smaller pool can cause texture popping.
 
FX 6300 + 7870 here and I'm only interested in "High", with some medium mixed in. Fancy pants ultra xxx high meh. Good to see XP support dropped, should be mandatory 64-bit.
 
Pottuvoi said:
You are partly right.
Battlefield uses virtual texturing for the ground, in which they create terrain texture with GPU into VRAM and use it from there. (virtual texture terrain splatting.)
They also have streaming for other assets as well.

Quality settings in potions affect the pool size for both texturing types, smaller pool can cause texture popping.
Click to expand...

So if you set it to a higer setting and you card doesn't have enought ram there will be texture popping?
 
ShintaiDK said:
What features would that be? 11.2 is also hitting the next month or so. 8.1 RTM is out. But people seems so focused on these microscopic semi useless updates. I guess people will soon update OSes every year too in hopes of...something. The business case for MS clearly worked out.

I think the minimum requirement of Vista says what it really is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but isn't it the same with hardware?! Your own i5 4670 isn't significantly "more practical" the previous model it replaced. Nobody is forcing people to upgrade, but people like to find their own reasons to do so 😉

I still run Windows XP on some of my computers and planning so, until MS has ceased updates for it, circa in 2014. Of course, none of this related to the topic, so please excuse me for this off-topic.
 
Last edited:
escrow4 said:
FX 6300 + 7870 here and I'm only interested in "High", with some medium mixed in. Fancy pants ultra xxx high meh. Good to see XP support dropped, should be mandatory 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Ultra itself in BF3 is almost a gimmic,my eyes randomly would spot different shadow textures with it enabled but hell enable high without telling me and personally i wouldn't even have known it was high till i checked my settings lol but i think most serious gamers looking for a advantage on the battlefield won't enable ultra.

Most gamers can pull off a experiment of having a wife or friend randomly adjusting between all high and all ultra settings in a 1 hour gaming session,and then you could call out what is enabled with 10 adjustments,5 minute runs and see just how many times you spot the difference and i sure bet no one is going 10 for 10.
 
Skurge said:
So if you set it to a higer setting and you card doesn't have enought ram there will be texture popping?
Click to expand...
No.
If you do not have enough ram it will most likely be quite slow.

If texture pool is too small it might result more texture popping. (Most likely maximum allowed texture resolution and pool size is linked so this happens rarely anyway.)

Best way to see ground texture generation is to spawn into different outdoor spawn location. (it's quite visible sometimes.)
 
I love the upgrade anxiety and so does every GPU manufacturer out there. Especially the VRAM freakouts.

OMFG NOES... my OC'd 2500k w/ 8 GB of RAM and bleeding edge GTX 760 won't be able to play this game, even though it's in the top tier of all systems that will actually be running the game at launch. Do people really fall for this marketing crap? Though they want to be future leaning, do you really think Dice/EA is stupid enough to launch a game that is unplayable on at least 2/3rds of the PCs out there? Do you really want to hamstring a product launch like that?

Same thing happened in BF3. I ran the release product fine on a 560Ti w/ 1GB VRAM, despite months of handwringing from the gaming populace about "OMG VRAMsss"; and just as importantly, kinda crap framerates in the alpha due to non-optimized drivers.

Most of this is about high end users trying to run multi monitor rigs and other high res setups.

It's so dumb. My IPS is older, but it games just fine at 1680x1050 on high detail settings (what I mean is the picture looks great - fantastic actually, and @ just inches from my face is plenty big).

So that means I don't have to spend $500 every GPU product cycle, or spend time stressing about freaking VRAM. Makes me never wanna bother upgrading it.

I know everyone here is a hobbyist/enthusiast, but damn. Seriously?
 
Last edited:
@TheAdvocate
I think you're right. I can play BF3 at 1920x1200 on ultra without any AA on 1GB 5850 at roughly 40FPS, so unless you are after high resolution, current high end cards should be perfectly enough.
 
LOL - I have to admit I liked that answer moonbogg.

Just realize that these freakouts do not apply to 99% of the people who will play this game. It's just, quite frankly, butthurt from a very few people who spent a small fortune on (just shy of optimal) hardware so they could stare at bezels splitting their field of view, all for the glory of the mighty epeen.

To each their own. Land of the free and all that rot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top