BF4 in 900p 60FPS on PS4

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@korwin said:

@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.

I can only say anything about the Beta but the beta was not even smooth on Ultra in 1080P with 2 titans according to totalbiscuit that is. Of course they have optimized it a bit more but still BF4 is very hardwarehungry

#52 Posted by Korwin (2813 posts) -

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@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.

I can only say anything about the Beta but the beta was not even smooth on Ultra in 1080P with 2 titans according to totalbiscuit that is. Of course they have optimized it a bit more but still BF4 is very hardwarehungry

There were a few people with some issues out there, TB was probably one of them. I ran the Beta at 60 with everything cranked and 2xMSAA at 2560x1440 using SLI GTX 680's (lowly 2GB ones no less). One of my mates was holding a solid 60 with a GTX 770 using Post AA at 1920x1200, I wouldn't be worried.

#53 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

@korwin: What were the other settings? I'm about to play soon after it's done downloading on my own 770

#54 Posted by GaspoweR (2739 posts) -

@korwin said:

@darji said:

@korwin said:

@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.

I can only say anything about the Beta but the beta was not even smooth on Ultra in 1080P with 2 titans according to totalbiscuit that is. Of course they have optimized it a bit more but still BF4 is very hardwarehungry

There were a few people with some issues out there, TB was probably one of them. I ran the Beta at 60 with everything cranked and 2xMSAA at 2560x1440 using SLI GTX 680's (lowly 2GB ones no less). One of my mates was holding a solid 60 with a GTX 770 using Post AA at 1920x1200, I wouldn't be worried.

I have a Radeon HD 7870 and I was able to run the game just fine with Ultra settings except I had AA deferred off and post-AA at medium in order to have good frame rates.

Also on a side note for the past few months I've been playing games on windowed mode at 1280x720 since I've just been spending most of my free time studying reviewing and I just alt+tab back into a game any time I need a break. I don't play it at full screen in order to force myself to not get too engrossed with playing. Hehe! :P

#55 Edited by Korwin (2813 posts) -

@korwin: What were the other settings? I'm about to play soon after it's done downloading on my own 770

Ultra I believe, just don't use MSAA and it should be ok in theory.

#56 Edited by kpaadet (409 posts) -
@thehbk said:

@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.

An upscaler won't matter much for the PS4 as so far BF4 is the only game that runs <1080p (well and The Order), also the resolution is not the only problem with the Xbox version, it suffers from aliasing and a more unstable framerate as well.

#57 Edited by TheHBK (5457 posts) -

@kpaadet said:
@thehbk said:

@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.

An upscaler won't matter much for the PS4 as so far BF4 is the only game that runs <1080p (well and The Order), also the resolution is not the only problem with the Xbox version, it suffers from aliasing and a more unstable framerate as well.

Well the aliasing is an issue because you run this game on a 1080p tv and it is blowing up the aliasing. It is something you can see when you play 360 or PS3 games on a 720p tv and they look crisper than they would on a 1080p tv and the aliasing is less noticeable. But that is what I say too though, that 1080p native games will not have this issue. But like they did with Halo and Call of Duty and GTAIV last gen, to get more complex looking games, they might drop the resolution for both the Xbox One and PS4 to get better framerates and the lighting they want. Its why i think Halo 3 and Call of Duty look so aliased because they run at like 600p and the scaling can only do so much.

#58 Edited by Aleryn (703 posts) -

Really happy for nextgen console players. It's the introduction of 64 player with dedicated servers that I think will most define the next run of consoles, it's just so different with a full server and playerload. The graphics are nice too.

#59 Posted by THRICE_604 (210 posts) -

Man I hope these early releases are not indicative of the long tail of these new consoles. For devs to be claiming 1080p 60 and for it to actually be 900p and 720p upscaled and even CoD being rumored (true or not) to not be 1080p on XBO is not promising. I can live with the hardware on these systems not being up to going toe to toe with a finely tuned PC but for these publishers to being lying or at least misleading so soon yeesh.

#60 Posted by Andorski (5173 posts) -

New image of the PS4 version of Battlefield 4 was just released.

#61 Posted by OurSin_360 (823 posts) -

Framerate> resolution. I can barely see a difference in resolutions above 720p besides the UI getting smaller and usually harder to read. On a 32-50 inch tv in the living room most people won't give a fuck about aliasing, pc players notice it more because the monitor is typically 5 feet from your face. And the difference between 1400x900 and 1080p was never all that noticable to me either, I gamed at 900p on a 19 inch monitor for years just fine on the pc.

#62 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@korwin said:

@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.

Yeah. My single 670 was running it great on ultra, there was weird micro stuttering but that was a pretty widespread beta issue.

These consoles are not feeling very next gen right now. What a disappointment. I think I'll wait at least 6 months before jumping onboard, seems pointless if you already have a good PC.

#63 Posted by csl316 (7954 posts) -

For a first time out working on hardware that was still in progress, works for me.

#65 Posted by dancinginfernal (470 posts) -

@csl316 said:

For a first time out working on hardware that was still in progress, works for me.

#66 Posted by Cameron (595 posts) -

Having the game run at 60fps instead of 30fps is way more important than having it run at 1600x900 rather than 1920x1080. You're unlikely to notice that resolution change very much (assuming they have a decent scaler), but going from 30 to 60 in a first person shooter is like night and day. I think they made a good choice to drop the resolution a bit and shoot for a good framerate.

#67 Posted by JulioAlvarado (1 posts) -

Guys, I can talk without being bias here. I have been a PC gamer most of my life, and I can say I prefer to play on the PS4. Not only do I have to buy hardware, ie. Video card, ram, motherboard, hard drive, every couple of years, my friends will also have to do the same. I always end up playing by myself on the PC because my friends cannot afford to keep up. Therefore, I went with the PS3, and then the PS4 so I can enjoy a nice game with them. It is a lot less expensive to keep up with the consoles, and have more fun with my friends. I got tired of spending too much money to keep my PC with the latest hardware technology for nothing. But yes, playing a game max out beats the crap out of any console experience. Specially a game like BF4 utilizing the in depth perception is fenomenal, it's always like a movie war game.

#68 Posted by StingingVelvet (569 posts) -

@julioalvarado: Yeah, I think this "OMG PC IS THE NEW WINNER" thing a lot of people are saying is going to calm down a lot when they realize they need to invest another thousand dollars to play games in a year.

And that does not come from a place of ignorance, as I have been a PC gamer all my life. My 4 year old PC needs a massive update to run Watch Dogs and whatever comes after that, and it's much cheaper and easier to just get a PS4 and be set for 5-8 years.

#69 Posted by symondymond (1 posts) -

Have 2 Titans. In 1080 I can easily switch one off (have been doing that to test the difference) actually I am finding it plays smoother on one. FPS is far in excess of what most people would call a reasonable requirements but I am not reasonable. Even on my my main monitor which is 2560x1440 one is more than enough.

I dont know about dollars but PC format recently showed how you can build a PC capable of running games like this and others for the same price as an xbox and get a far better gaming experience. It seems the real difference is information. A lot of people still think you need a monster rig to run games. A well coded game doesnt need a monster rig. I barely scrape the surface of what my benching/testing pc's can do in any game even BF4.

With intels policy of creating a mass market product for reasonable money and enthusiast components for people like me happy to pay double for 25 or 40% more capability in bench's affordable full experience pc gaming has been around for a while. You cant really compare PC gaming V console games anymore. The graphical fidelity and capability as well as graphical tools available to developers is in a different league. For example, one of the big developments of recent years was the introduction of tessellation in DX11. Its quite intensive. If you dont like it, dont turn it on and you can put in a relative cheap gpu as it will run happily without strain. Same with the resolutions available and anti aliasing.


Personally, I dont have an axe to grind but I like state of the art and want the best for myself and will go with whatever delivers that experience. When I see consoles talking about resolutions I have had for 8 or 10 years it just renders them obsolete in my mind. Xbox One is 720p so I hear.. I would have liked something for when my mates come over to mess about but that is just an insult!. Looking forward to the steambox though> I see Gabe Newell recently leaked that they have embedded Titan architecture into it. What a coup this could be.! Affordable simplified PC gaming for the masses. Could be the end of proprietary platforms right there. Not a bad thing to get back to single development environment perhaps. Just my own personal opinion. I have a been a gamer since the very first personal computers and still love gaming today. I just hope that having a new generation of consoles allows the industry in general to progress a bit. I almost stopped buying games until BF4 because there was just so must utter rubbish being released. Dumbed down and over hyped trash, not to mention my favourite series being replicated in name only and turned to dross.

#70 Edited by dkessler175 (71 posts) -

Thread Title should just be changed to Battlefield 4 doesn't run.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.