I am looking for some information on how the game runs on mid-range PCs, with specs around the official "Recommended" range? I have an i7-4k series with a Geforce 760 (which is fairly close to the 660 they recommend); so while I'm sure I would be able to run it, I don't know how well. 1080p with 45-50fps on mid-settings is what I would be happy with but I don't know if my specs can pull that off.

I have a PS4 as well so I'm not sure which platform to go for. Thanks in advance for any help duders!

I have an i7-2600K @ 3.2Ghz and a 670. Runs about 30 - 40fps on ultra. 40 - 60 on high. Hopefully that helps.

I have an i5 3470, HD7870, and 8GB of ram and I don't have any trouble running it well on fairly high settings.

You should run it fine. I was playing it with my old 580 with a mix of ultra an high with little AA an it ran great.

I've got an i5-2500k, 8GB of RAM, and a 2GB HD7870 XT and it runs pretty well with everything maxed out except for MSAA and textures which I have on ultra rather than "fade-touched". I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I'd guess it's staying in the 40s for the most part.

You should be fine dude, you have nothing to worry about. On the aside I will throw out this warning... for some reason during "cut scenes" the FPS gets capped at 30. So expect to see a lot of weird frame issues during those but for the game to play fine normally.

670 and i7 3770K. I caped the game at 30 FPS and running everything on ultra except tessellation quality (I haven't even tried turning that setting up yet so I couldn't answer if it will tank the framerate). So far the game runs at 30FPS 99% of the time.

I'm running a 660 Ti with everything on medium (except meshes, which are on ultra) at 1920x1200. Gameplay is pretty locked in at 60, cutscenes can get pretty chuggy but not terrible. You should be fine.

Works fine on my gtx 660 I got it working on ultra with minimal screen tearing by going into the nvidia settings and setting vsync to adaptive. Game looks great on high settings as well so you won't see much of a drop off.

One of the things that's interesting is that you can scale the rendered resolution. So, you can set your graphical resolution to say 1080p but then set the rendering scale to 70%, so it upscales the image, like what consoles do.

Never seen the option in a PC game.

Running a 7950 at 1200p and the game's smooth as silk. The cutscenes are jarringly off and I've found the main menu has some real performance issue if I drop back to it from the game.

Played around with that and while it does help performance a litlte bit I wouldn't recommend it. I found lowering msaa or turning it off completely makes all the difference in the world if you want a bump in frame rate when playing on an older rig.

@spacetrucking: speaking to if you had to pick between the pc or ps4 version. From comments posted on other sub forums for this game there really hasn't been much of a complaint of the ps4 version and the game is best played with a gamepad. I'd probably suggest going for the ps4 version so you don't have to mess around too much getting the best performance on a mid range rig.

R9-290 fx-8350 shadows and tesselation medium, postprocessing AA low, msaa off everything else ultra at 1440p and i'm averaging about 45-50fps, in battle appears to stutter more but i haven't conclusively checked yet. did the supposed cinematic fix and it looks like it does nothing. can't tell if DX11 or mantle runs better (to my eyes appeared about the same).

i would think i'd get better performance out of this setup considering others appear to get better framerates with similar hardware. probably the bump to 1440 that's killing it.

Yup, I have similar components (except I have 16 GB of RAM which isn't really needed for games). With the exception of some chugging in cutscenes like what @rorie said in his review and others mentioned already, game runs pretty well during gameplay on high settings and I just turn down the antialiasing so the framerate stays consistent.

@i_stay_puft: I didn't realize the post processing option also contained AArealize until TotalBiscuit did his port report yesterday. MSAA has a pretty big performance hit. I turned it off and don't notice much of a difference graphically. Not enough to take a 10-15fps hit.

@zelyre: Yeah same, I tried to find those jaggies and if you're actively looking hard enough you can spot them here and there but nothing game breaking. In my game I have msaa off.

I played it on a relatively ancient i7 920 processor (five years old) with a 770GTX and it ran great at mostly high settings.

Not sure why, but the game runs like absolute garbage for me. I've got 6 gigs of ram, a quad core cpu and a Geforce 670 and even on low or medium I am lucky if i can push past 20fps.

It's actually a built in feature of the Frostbite Engine. So Battlefield 4 (and I assume Plants Vs Zombies: Garden Warfare) has it and presumably most of EA's non-sports games going forward will have it since all Bioware, DICE, and Visceral games that are currently announced make use of that engine.

I'm using an AMD HD 5870, a Phenom II X4 940, have 6GB of RAM and it's been maybe 5 years since I reinstalled my system. I'm running with most settings medium, some high, one or two low (postprocessing in particular, DoF is the worst). 1080 with no AA. I have a mostly solid 30fps and the game looks good, so I'm perfectly happy with the performance. Some areas (such as Redcliffe) do chug fairly heavily though, but it's nothing too bad.

Now if they just gave it proper m+kb controls instead of the MMO-style controls we have now, I'd be set.