Battlefield 4 Graphics Performance Overview With Current Generation GPUs



/ 1 year ago

Next Page »

1 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 StumbleUpon 0 Pin It Share 0 Reddit 0 Email -- Filament.io Made with Flare More Info'> 1 Flares ×

Introduction


battlefield_4_wallpaper

Battlefield 4 has been one of the biggest game releases so far this year for gamers on all gaming platforms. The FPS title from EA and DICE has got off to a relatively shaky start with numerous audio, graphical and gameplay problems across the various platforms it was released on. In fact for many Battlefield 4 owners the game is still in a dysfunctional or buggy state, but you can expect (or hope) that EA and DICE will begin to patch and fix the majority of the problems within the coming weeks as they have said they will. The shaky launch aside, what most PC owners/gamers want to know, if they haven’t already found out, is how do current generation GPUs perform in Battlefield 4 on the PC?

Today we put that question to the test with an extensive, albeit not entirely complete, range of current generation AMD and Nvidia GPUs. On the AMD side we have the R7 260X, R9 270, R9 270X, R9 280X, R9 290 and R9 290X while on the Nvidia side we have a few more offerings with the GTX 650 Ti Boost, GTX 660, GTX 760, GTX 770, GTX 780, GTX 780 Ti and GTX Titan. All of the aforementioned graphics cards are current offerings and to the sharp-minded readers you will notice some graphics cards are missing. Mainly the current generation lower-end graphics cards from both AMD and Nvidia are absent, that includes the Nvidia GTX 650, GT 640 GDDR5, GT 640 DDR3 and the AMD R7 250 and R7 240. The main reason for not testing these graphics cards, other than that we didn’t have most of them, is because they simply aren’t that capable of running such a high end gaming title. Of course that’s not to say they can’t but given the nature of the resolutions we test (mainly 1080p or above) and the quality settings our readers like to see (very high or ultra) these GPUs simply aren’t cut out for the test. Arguably they are more aimed at gamers with 1366 x 768 monitors tackling medium-high details but I digress. The system requirements for Battlefield 4 reveal a similar picture, if you want a smooth gameplay experience then you need an AMD Radeon HD 7870 or Nvidia GTX 660 or better. However, those system requirements show you very little about what you can expect at different resolutions.  So without any further ado let us show you our results and show you exactly how AMD and Nvidia’s offerings stack up!

battlefield4-requirements

1 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 StumbleUpon 0 Pin It Share 0 Reddit 0 Email -- Filament.io Made with Flare More Info'> 1 Flares ×

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page »


  • Andy

    Very good review, although considering you are only using Windows 7, there is a major FPS increase with Windows 8/8.1, I had Windows 7 64Bit and I was able to just about play on Low settings and getting 60-70 FPS, I then bought a copy of Windows 8 and reformatted etc. I am now able to run the game on Medium Settings with 70-80 FPS, so anyone looking at this with a Windows 8 PC will definitely see different results :)

    • http://www.eteknix.com/ Ryan Martin

      We are looking to make the jump to Windows 8.1 soon but we are waiting to see a bit higher uptake on the Steam hardware survey before we make the shift because we want to see that most gamers actually use it. Currently WIndows 7 64 bit has 53.4% of steam users while Windows 8(.1) 64 bit has 15.66%, that means WIndows 7 users outnumber Windows 8 users on Steam gaming by over 3 to 1. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

    • GH0ST_SE7EN

      This has to be a joke. I had NO performance increase with Win8 and reinstalled Win7. This is with a GTX 660 running on a 1600×900 monitor though, so idk.

  • Branden Jew

    Battlefield 4 has stopped working…

  • H3Ad_HuNt3r_uk

    im running Win 7 64Bit, 8Gig DDR2, 2x 580GTX in SLi & Intel Core 2 Duo X9650 Extreme 3.00Gig O.C. to 3.6Gig and using this :http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri put me in the middle of Minimum & Recommended while having settings set at Auto and seeing a very poor game play still :S

  • Ezio Crenshaw

    I have an i5-3770k, ASRock motherboard, 8 gigs of RAM, and a GTX660 Ti Boost. Win7 is currently the OS but I’m considering Win8 for performance boosts, as my sister also plays NFS games (Most Wanted2 and this year’s Rivals). However, my HDD, which was a compromise, is WD Scorpio Blue, which is understandably slow. So, do I go in for an SSD this year, or do I up the RAM?

    • http://www.eteknix.com/ Ryan Martin

      SSD. 4 to 8GB of RAM makes minimal difference, 8GB to 16GB will make no difference.

      • faaaaq

        Ryan’s post only has validity if the games are the ONLY thing you are running. There isnt a time when I’m not already using 8gigs of ram. I would have to close every program just to be able to properly run any games, and that is silly. But, getting more ram will not improve anything for you unless you already NEED more ram. And an SSD will also not get you any gaming benefits other than faster loading times and less texture issues (if you were having any to begin with). I would get more ram, or better ram, and wait a while longer while SSD prices are still dropping. You dont need either (for the price of an SSD worth buying, you could get a new GPU…which is what you should be doing anyways).

    • cXn-John

      I got a 250GB Sumsung 840 series SSD and i was amazed at how much better my games loaded, but this is all it will do, load things faster. But that being said i do not have a top end PC and struggle to run BF4 at anything above Medium settings, granted medium gives me 120 solid FPS any other combination of settings gives me bad FPS drops and skipping due to my 2x 6870s being old and not up to the job of this new game.

      • Ezio Crenshaw

        I’d gladly go for the SSD even for just booting up faster. Currently takes about 4 minutes for boot, which is odd, considering it doesn’t get much usagew when I’m away. It is also a relatively new PC, got in Jan. Nothing wrong with it according to windows, but I suspect some sort of interference by the ASRock quick boot programs, and they recommend having an SSD in the booklet somewhere.

  • Brian Collins

    I get 72 fps on ultra settings with system specs: 3570k at 4.2Ghz, 780 at 1097mhz, 8gb 1600mhz, windows 7.