Battlefield 4 Graphics Performance Overview With Current Generation GPUs
Mid-Range Graphics Card Performance
Moving on to the “mid-range” graphics cards, which by any measure are still quite high end, and we can see it is another mixed bag. At the top end we can see the AMD R9-270X punching well above its weight, coming in at $199 it is a much better value solution for Battlefield than Nvidia’s $250 GTX 760 which performs only marginally better for 25% more cost. If we had an OC version of the R9 270X to show you results of then the differences between it and overclocked GTX 760 SKU we had would be minimal. Both the GTX 760 and R9 270X are absolutely ideal for maxing out Battlefield 4 on a single 1080p panel, the GTX 760 has the slight edge but you’d expect that for the higher premium. As you start to sink down a bit AMD still have the advantage, the R9 270 at $179 wipes floor of the GTX 660 which is equivalently priced. Both struggle to maintain a consistently high 1080p framerate at ultra but if you dropped back to the Very High preset or dropped some of the AA then you’d easily manage a comfortable 50-60FPS average. At the lower end Nvidia swings a punch back as the GTX 650 Ti Boost is superior to the equivalently priced R7 260X. If you’re on a tight budget both of these graphics cards make highly competent 1080p solutions, you’d have to drop some of the “bells and whistles”, maybe falling back to Very High with reduced AA, to get 45+ FPS but for the price I think that’s not bad at all.
At higher resolutions all the graphics cards struggled. We can see that none of them are cut out for Eyefinity or Surround gaming and even if you dropped settings to the Medium preset it is unlikely you’d be able to maintain playable framerates. At 2560 x 1440 the picture is different. I think the GTX 760, R9 270X and R9 270 are all cut out for 1440p gaming if you are willing to drop some of the settings down a few notches. It certainly is impressive that AMD can offer a $179 card (the R9 270) that is so capable of taking on 1440p gaming.
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 🙂
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
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.
Battlefield 4 has stopped working…
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
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?
SSD. 4 to 8GB of RAM makes minimal difference, 8GB to 16GB will make no difference.
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).
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.
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.
I get 72 fps on ultra settings with system specs: 3570k at 4.2Ghz, 780 at 1097mhz, 8gb 1600mhz, windows 7.