• 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Gamesradar Review confirms 1080p 60 FPS on PS4? I hope it's not just him getting it wrong, but if true, I'm over the moon. Christmas has come early! New gen is all that I want it to be for now. At least it's confirmed for PS4. Hell yeah!

Edit:

Digital Foundry write-up on the topic. PS4 runs at 900p. Xbox One version at 720p. Well - that's not what I hoped for. I guess it's good enough to fool the guy from GamesRadar.

Let's just hope technical art directors strive for 1080p in the future, once they know these boxes better, rather than falling back on 720p.

#2 Edited by owack6 (213 posts) -

Digital Foundry already confirmed it to be 900x1600 resolution on PS4, and mostly a solid 60 FPS in multiplayer and single player.

#3 Edited by TruthTellah (8535 posts) -

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

#4 Edited by squirrelnacho (329 posts) -

From someone else in the BF4 forum.

It's not running at a true 1080p but 900 thats been upscaled. Look at the aliasing on the console versions.

#5 Edited by SomeJerk (3143 posts) -

I wanted payback for all the depressingly shoddy multiplat PS3 ports but. Ouch.

In places the Xbone material on DF looks like it's been captured with a device that makes sharp reds bleed, like the HDPVR2. The blurring from the PS4 upscaler looks like it was made to provide free AA, but went too hard at it (no more upscaling games on the PS4 pls, yeesh).

All versions still look great for what they are.

#6 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

900p then? I guess that's close enough. For now. Let's hope technical art directors worldwide strive for 1080p in the future, rather than falling back to 720p.

#7 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

#8 Posted by TruthTellah (8535 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

#9 Posted by AlexGBRO (274 posts) -
#10 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

#11 Posted by Castiel (2528 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

But 720p+ would suggest a higher resolution than 720p. So I wouldn't really call it misinformation.

Online
#12 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@castiel said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

But 720p+ would suggest a higher resolution than 720p. So I wouldn't really call it misinformation.

Guess I failed to see the (+).

#13 Posted by Sanj (2352 posts) -

From someone else in the BF4 forum.

It's not running at a true 1080p but 900 thats been upscaled. Look at the aliasing on the console versions.

That single image pretty much sums it up.

#14 Posted by Humanity (8809 posts) -

From the still images I see a big difference but from the comparison video I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between the two console versions apart from black-levels.

#15 Posted by Nictel (2380 posts) -

@humanity: I just know that the youtube vids get compressed like crazy.

#16 Edited by TheLegendOfMart (239 posts) -

Xbone version is running 720p, PS4 900p, Xbone version dips into 30fps at points where the PS4 version runs at 50 at the same points, PS4 has more stable 60fps frame rate. PS4 has HBAO and AA, Xbone doesn't. Not sure if animated gifs work here, better off opening the image in a new window to see it full size, you can see all the aliasing on Xbone version.

#17 Posted by Heath (61 posts) -

honestly for multiplayer anti-aliasing is bad from a competitive standpoint you want it off because some times you have to ID a target in battlefield by just 2 or so pixels and AA messes that up OFTEN.

This comes from a 10 year BF vet on PC.

#18 Posted by TheLegendOfMart (239 posts) -

@heath: Yeah but 720p upscaled with all the aliasing you are going to have an even harder time trying to pick out a mess of pixels.

#19 Edited by Heath (61 posts) -

upscalling is ok because it doesn't take away information but AA simply does take away information and replace good pixel information such as a solider crouching behind a curved surface with abstract wrong edge information just to make that edge smooth to the eye and can hide the information from you that a solider is just popping out there by a fraction. Its super hardcore but in a game like battlefield this would effect you on a per match basis.

AA is really bad. I hope for example on the PS4 if your able to set your output resolution to 1600x900 rather than 1080p if that will effectively turn the AA off or stop you from seeing it as happens with a number of 360 games if you set the resolution to 1280x720 or some such native. I used a VGA cable to do this often with its expanded resolution support but if 720p is native then it should be easy to do (if they give you the option) with hdmi

#20 Posted by isomeri (1225 posts) -

Is anyone who's this concerned about resolution and anti-aliasing really going to buy this game on a console? I think that both console versions look pretty great, but if you want the best graphical experience then you clearly need to go with a powerful PC. Also I don't think that we need two or three threads for the same exact discussion.

#21 Posted by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@thelegendofmart: The XBO version apparently can't even render the awesome camo on that guys jacket since it's a completely different pattern. Shit!

#22 Posted by TruthTellah (8535 posts) -

@seppli said:

@castiel said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

But 720p+ would suggest a higher resolution than 720p. So I wouldn't really call it misinformation.

Guess I failed to see the (+).

I figured that's what happened, @seppli. Though, I wish you would eventually apologize for acting rude while being mistaken. I clearly marked it each time, but you just had to snip at me as though you knew better.

#23 Edited by ArtelinaRose (1838 posts) -

Xbone version is running 720p, PS4 900p, Xbone version dips into 30fps at points where the PS4 version runs at 50 at the same points, PS4 has more stable 60fps frame rate. PS4 has HBAO and AA, Xbone doesn't. Not sure if animated gifs work here, better off opening the image in a new window to see it full size, you can see all the aliasing on Xbone version.

Yikes.

#24 Edited by believer258 (11634 posts) -

@heath said:

honestly for multiplayer anti-aliasing is bad from a competitive standpoint you want it off because some times you have to ID a target in battlefield by just 2 or so pixels and AA messes that up OFTEN.

This comes from a 10 year BF vet on PC.

Where on Earth did you hear that anti-aliasing messes up your aiming ability?

@seppli Hey, we got 60 frames or close to on consoles. I'd call that a small victory - it will be a big victory if we can stick with it.

#25 Posted by JoeyRavn (4948 posts) -

@thelegendofmart said:

Xbone version is running 720p, PS4 900p, Xbone version dips into 30fps at points where the PS4 version runs at 50 at the same points, PS4 has more stable 60fps frame rate. PS4 has HBAO and AA, Xbone doesn't. Not sure if animated gifs work here, better off opening the image in a new window to see it full size, you can see all the aliasing on Xbone version.

Yikes.

Who cares about performance? Look at that changing camo texture. That's the real issue here.

#26 Posted by Philantrophy (354 posts) -

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

#27 Edited by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

Its a weird topic to be on. But it does give an early indicator that, yes. The ps4 is slightly ahead in terms of performance. The question I wonder, and the reviews aren't helping. What is the ps4 upscaler like. The ps3 didn't have a fully functional upscaler like the 360 did. People keep telling me to this day, *that it'll be unlocked fully eventually*. There are plenty of ps3 games that can ONLY be ran in 720p. Some can be upscaled to 1080p.

The BF4 faceoff on eurogamer says "But the differences we saw don't just stop at resolution. Both versions are treated to post-processing anti-aliasing too, seemingly equivalent to the refined, high setting on PC. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. As you may notice in our screengrabs, the actual results on PS4 lack the corresponding level of crystal clarity we'd expect of such a significant resolution boost. This should surely be a home run for Sony's console, but what is likely to be a software-based upscale to 1080p delivers less-than-stellar returns, and for better or worse leaves the Xbox One with an often crisper looking, albeit much more aliased image.".

So that scares me a little. Where the 360 had more power than the ps3, the reason why most games just simply looked sharper on the 360 was because of its full time always on upscaler. EVERYTHING would be displayed in the resolution you sat it at. Whereas the ps3, if a developer didn't code with the scaler in mind, the system itself does not scale. Ended up being more software based scaling like the ps4 seems to be using. Then comes the question, does ps4 actually support pc resolutions this time? The ps3 was just simply 1080p/1080i/720p/480p-i. Because if the ps4 could actually display the 1600x900 resolution onto a pc monitor, it'd be the clear winner right now. I just hope the system programmers were much more smart this time than they were with the ps3. If the ps4 doesn't have a dedicated upscaler this time either, thats a huge problem for 40+" hdtv owners. Even more so on people with older hdtvs that have no built in scaler in them.

Oh well. I'll be waiting until MGS 5 comes out to buy a console anyways. My amd x4 965 black edition oc'ed at 4ghz and radeon 7950 maxes out every game I have played, and gets rock solid results at 1080p. Entire system was less than a xbox one too. But then RAM prices went up again lately. *Which, do you think Crysis 3 would run maxed out on a ps4/xbone at 1080p and 60fps? Even without MSAA, I believe it'd run less than 30fps. One of the least significant console leaps I've seen*

#28 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@seppli said:

@castiel said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

But 720p+ would suggest a higher resolution than 720p. So I wouldn't really call it misinformation.

Guess I failed to see the (+).

I figured that's what happened, @seppli. Though, I wish you would eventually apologize for acting rude while being mistaken. I clearly marked it each time, but you just had to snip at me as though you knew better.

I'm sorry. *snip*

#29 Edited by TruthTellah (8535 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@castiel said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli: The developer already confirmed months ago that BF4 would be 720p+ upscaled to 1080p for the sake of a solid 60FPS.

Obviously misinformation, that was never official - seeing how it's actually 900p on PS4.

It wasn't "obviously misinformation". The creative director of BF4 said that the game was running 720p+(aka. 900p) and 60FPS in the dev environment, and it would all be upscaled to a 1080p output. This is exactly what happened.

Actually, there was never any official confirmation on anything. There've been lots of conflicting reports from lots of DICE and EA employees over the months, people just chose to believe one over another. It's turned out to be neither 720p nor 1080p, but 900p in the end. 900p is referring to 900 vertical pixels in each vertical line. It's not also known as 720p. There's a huge difference.

But 720p+ would suggest a higher resolution than 720p. So I wouldn't really call it misinformation.

Guess I failed to see the (+).

I figured that's what happened, @seppli. Though, I wish you would eventually apologize for acting rude while being mistaken. I clearly marked it each time, but you just had to snip at me as though you knew better.

I'm sorry. *snip*

heh. Apology accepted, Seppli.

#30 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

A decent enough GPU alone would be about as expensive as a PS4. You'll easily pay 1000$ more than you pay for a PS4 to build a PC that runs BF4 at a steady 60 FPS with Ultra settings - so if you build an all new PC for it, with quality components throughout, it'll cost you 1,5k.

For me, I'd have to upgrade my graphics card and my CPU at the very least, which would be about double what I'll put down for the PS4. So really, it's great deal, if you're on a budget.

#31 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

Way too much. BF4 especially is a hardware monster.

#32 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

While I was hoping for 1080p, 900 is fine. 720p would've been unacceptable.

#33 Edited by TruthTellah (8535 posts) -

Since those screenshots were posted and Digital Foundry's analysis was linked, I think it's worth noting that a Digital Foundry employee has admitted to a mistake in how they captured the Xbox One footage, and other results from more representative hardware suggest much less of a contrast issue than is seen in the comparison video and screens. The resolution is the same, but the color and contrast is actually much closer to PS4 and PC than their initial comparison suggested.

http://n4g.com/news/1382809/digital-foundry-admits-to-botching-battlefield-4-ps4-xb1-video-capature#selcomment

DICE has also stated on twitter that a day 1 patch will be fixing the lacking ambient occlusion in the Xbox One version to be the same as the PS4 version. Now, how that effects performance and really pans out remains to be seen, but a practical comparison of versions may not be absolute until after day 1 when both retail versions are out.

#34 Posted by Tobyus (100 posts) -

Is everyone for the PS4 version of that huge gif?? It seems like it !!!

#35 Posted by TheHBK (5463 posts) -

@thechronodarkness: Yeah, something I thought might happen and might make the graphics comparisons even closer in the long run, unless they are gonna run the game at 1080p, the scaler issue will take away a lot of the PS4s power advantage and that just sounds like a clear screw up by Sony because they also make TVs and blu ray players that have to upscale! And the Xbox Ones issue in this game is just the resolution it sounds like.

#36 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

It's pretty sad that a good amount of video reviews out there are joining in on the misleading of labeling the PS4's version as 1080p when it's only just an upconverted resolution from 1600x900.

#37 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

#38 Posted by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

One might even say they're basically giving away these computers that can run demanding games on high end settings for free these days!

#39 Edited by Korwin (2828 posts) -

@humanity said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

One might even say they're basically giving away these computers that can run demanding games on high end settings for free these days!

PENNIES I TELLS YA!

#40 Posted by Church069 (250 posts) -

I feel like everyone is forgetting the most important number when it comes to the PS4 and X1 versions of this game. 64 players! Much better than 24 on PS3 and 360.

#41 Edited by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@korwin said:

@humanity said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

One might even say they're basically giving away these computers that can run demanding games on high end settings for free these days!

PENNIES I TELLS YA!

Why, all you need to do is place a few of these classified ads ..

#42 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

#43 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

#44 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

Oh I was talking about a whole PC since BF4 also is very ram and CPU heavy as well. Yeah if you only need a card you can get away maybe with 300$^^

#45 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

Oh I was talking about a whole PC since BF4 also is very ram and CPU heavy as well. Yeah if you only need a card you can get away maybe with 300$^^

Pretty much, anyone who spent some cash in the last 3 years to build something reasonable will be fine with a new GPU (maybe some more memory but that shits cheap). Completely new could be done for under $1000, which really in the grand scheme of things isn't a whole lot (if $1000 dollars over a few years is a massive expense... perhaps you should have other priorities aside from video games).

#46 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

Oh I was talking about a whole PC since BF4 also is very ram and CPU heavy as well. Yeah if you only need a card you can get away maybe with 300$^^

Pretty much, anyone who spent some cash in the last 3 years to build something reasonable will be fine with a new GPU (maybe some more memory but that shits cheap). Completely new could be done for under $1000, which really in the grand scheme of things isn't a whole lot (if $1000 dollars over a few years is a massive expense... perhaps you should have other priorities aside from video games).

But the difference of 100$ or 400$ is a huge factor for many people. I love my PC and sadly its outdated now and I will buy a new one in some time but the price of the Ps4 for what it can do is really really great

#47 Edited by GaspoweR (2803 posts) -

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

I could actually imagine a machine to be able to hit ultra and probably maintain 60 fps at 1920x1080 but possibly have to tone down anti-aliasing for under a $1000. It's possible to make one between $700-$900 depending on whether or not you can time it with deals and sales from online retailers. That's when PCPartPicker really comes in handy.

Also @darji which part do you need to upgrade? Why don't you just buy a new video card? Hehe!

AMD and Nvidia have been coming out with cards that are really great for around the price of the new consoles ($400-$500) though the ones at the $200-$300 range are really good too.

#48 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

I could actually imagine a machine to be able to hit ultra and probably maintain 60 fps at 1920x1080 but possibly have to tone down anti-aliasing for under a $1000. It's possible to make one between $700-$900 depending on whether or not you can time it with deals and sales from online retailers. That's when PCPartPicker really comes in handy.

on ultra with 60 FPS in 1080P you need at least one titan better 2 or the new ATI card.

#49 Posted by Rick_Fingers (524 posts) -

I'll be plugging a new video card into my PC around Christmas and that'll be enough for my 2.5 year old PC to run at ultra.

Glad to see the console versions are decent though, but a shame to not hit proper 1080p

#50 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

@darji said:

@gaspower said:

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@philantrophy said:

How much would I have to pay to get a PC that runs Battlefield 4 with ultra settings 60+ FPS? I am wondering because if it is a fair comparison based on price.

At 1600x900? Not a huge amount. I doubt either of these machines are running the equivalent of Ultra settings as well.

easily 1000$ BF4 is a hardware monster and even in this resolution on ultra with 60 fps constantly you need a hell of a machine.

At 1600x900 you could probably get the same frame rate with equivalent settings out of a GTX 760, those are about $250. We're only talking post AA here not MSAA. You could probably do something for under $1000, I'm not saying it's as cheap as a Playstation but it's not going to be eye swivelingly expensive. A lot of people probably already meet the CPU requirements on an existing PC anyway. Anything released from Sandybridge/Bulldozer forward has full instruction set parity with the PS4 and a lot more grunt.

I could actually imagine a machine to be able to hit ultra and probably maintain 60 fps at 1920x1080 but possibly have to tone down anti-aliasing for under a $1000. It's possible to make one between $700-$900 depending on whether or not you can time it with deals and sales from online retailers. That's when PCPartPicker really comes in handy.

on ultra with 60 FPS in 1080P you need at least one titan better 2 or the new ATI card.

I think you're a little off the mark on what the requirements are here ;)

2 Titan's is a colossal amount of power and money and the game isn't even close to needing that much for 1920x1080. A single 770 (preferably 4GB) or 280x will play the game just fine at that resolution.