Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Battlefield 3 vs. Battlefield 4

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 20, 2012 7:47:09 PM

This is the first post of a user who knows little about this stuff, so please be nice and let me know if I break any rules...

My friend says a PC build that can play BF3 on ultra now will be able to play ultra on BF4 (its beta releases fall 2013). The only info I've found on the graphics of the new BF is that it will run on Frostbite 2 and will use approximately 80% of the engine's capabilities, vs. BF3 using 30-40%. Based on that information, is what he said valid? This matters to me because I'm putting my PC build off until I know more about BF4 and whether I can play it on ultra with something that plays BF3 on ultra.

Also, is the Battlefield games are multi-thread optimized, right? So a quad core would be better than lets say an Intel i3-2120...?

Thanks.
November 20, 2012 7:49:42 PM

Hi :) 

The answer is NO...

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
November 20, 2012 7:53:56 PM

The answer is, "I don't have a time machine".

The odds are BF4 will be more demanding, but sequels aren't always more demanding.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 20, 2012 7:55:19 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

The answer is NO...

All the best Brett :) 


When do a game's system specs usually come out? Is it worth putting off my build?

And also, what about the threaded thing question?
]
Thanks!
m
0
l
November 20, 2012 8:39:11 PM

Yes, the battlefield series make good use of having multiple cores - quad core is the sweet spot.

Also, yes, it's very much worth putting off your build, because Haswell and the 700 / 8k series of graphics cards should both have fair performance increases compared to what's on the market today - which will be needed for BF4.
m
0
l
November 20, 2012 8:45:16 PM

Depends if you need the system right now.
If you just want a system to play BF titles get a xbox360 or PS3 which are much cheaper.
m
0
l
November 20, 2012 11:14:57 PM

Depends lol no one really know the awnser.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 2:45:30 AM

You have the answer in your question. If the new program takes 80% and the old 30-40% then the new program takes twice to 2.7 times the processing power. Since the power to price ratio of electronics is always falling over time, you are WAY better off waiting until BF4 is out before buying the hardware for it. It will be about 50% cheaper than now probably.

Yes, quad core is optimum now and appears to be growing slowly. Next year you will probably be buying a quad core threaded Haswell that will kill the game, draw 60W, and cost under $250.

m
0
l
November 21, 2012 3:25:56 AM

Forget playing BF4 on ultra...

Does any of this advice change if I declare my perspective build as a budget build ($500)?

Thanks for the help.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 1:01:57 PM

You can lookup the costs later but say you're building a system for BF3 ultra... research what it takes (i'm sure you'll find plenty of articles proposing builds)...then lookup the parts and if you're assembling them you might be able to pull it off for BF3...BF4 on the other hands...we don't know.

CPU: A I5-2500K OCed would probably get you all the power you need for upcoming games.

GPU: I'd get a 660Ti...wait and see how it handles BF4...if you need a little more power then get another 660Ti (for SLI config). That's what I did for my 560Ti SLI.

Note: the "ti" is a cheaper videocard configuration but usually pulls of the best performance per dollar ratios. The "Ti" cards usually come around Q1-Q2 or each year... that's when you can go SLI if it's worth it at that time.

Mobo: MSI make very good overclocker boards if that's what you're into.

Hope this somewhat helped.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 2:08:28 PM

babernet_1 said:
You have the answer in your question. If the new program takes 80% and the old 30-40% then the new program takes twice to 2.7 times the processing power. Since the power to price ratio of electronics is always falling over time, you are WAY better off waiting until BF4 is out before buying the hardware for it. It will be about 50% cheaper than now probably.

Yes, quad core is optimum now and appears to be growing slowly. Next year you will probably be buying a quad core threaded Haswell that will kill the game, draw 60W, and cost under $250.


That is not at all true. You can use more of the API and end up needing less power. How much of each of those effects that are used at once and at what degree will determine how much power is needed.

Look at Crysis 2 vs Crysis 1. Crysis 2 uses a lot more effects, but Crysis 1 is more demanding.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 2:35:30 PM

ROUGHRIDER13 said:
Forget playing BF4 on ultra...

Does any of this advice change if I declare my perspective build as a budget build ($500)?

Thanks for the help.


You won't be playing on the highest settings with good frame rates on a $500 budget build. Sorry mate.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 2:40:27 PM

The only advice I can give is to make sure your motherboard has a spare PCIe x16 slot that will operate at least least at x8 when in SLI/CF. That way when BF4 does come out, you can improve your FPS if needed.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 3:02:55 PM

My speculative build looks like this:

CPU: AMD FX-6300 or AMD FX-4170
Mobo: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+
RAM: Kingston 8 GB RAM
Storage: Kingsotn Momentus XT 500 GB
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF 912

The GPU is not SLI-capable (I read this can be changed manually?)

Basically, my real question comes down to this: can a build like this give me ultra on BF3 and medium on BF4 based on what we know of BF4 and advancements in the future? Or is this just not answerable?

Thanks guys.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 5:01:53 PM

ROUGHRIDER13 said:
My speculative build looks like this:

CPU: AMD FX-6300 or AMD FX-4170
Mobo: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+
RAM: Kingston 8 GB RAM
Storage: Kingsotn Momentus XT 500 GB
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF 912

The GPU is not SLI-capable (I read this can be changed manually?)

Basically, my real question comes down to this: can a build like this give me ultra on BF3 and medium on BF4 based on what we know of BF4 and advancements in the future? Or is this just not answerable?

Thanks guys.


According to Nvidia, you can't play BF3 on Ultra with that card (rather Medium BF3 which probably means Lower for BF4...at least at launch time).

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt...

Unless you meant 660Ti?... then you're probably good to go.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 5:59:56 PM

ROUGHRIDER13 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZPlMPL_Mo

Seeing is believing!

By the way, I have no appreciation for AA.


Not all magic tricks are true you know ;)  ... It's not because it's on youtube that it's true...

If Nvidia says the Nvidia 650Ti gets ~40FPS on medium settings with a I7 clocked at 3.3Ghz...it's probably true (if not very generous). Take out between 5-10FPS because your "speculated" CPU is much lower in performance...you'd get about 30-40FPS average (BF3 @ medium settings 1080p).

or you can check another reference...here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-650-ti-...

That said, if you're good at building your own, this article might inspire you. There's still hope for you, padawan.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-pc-overclock...
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 6:05:31 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
Not all magic tricks are true you know ;)  ... It's not because it's on youtube that it's true...



This ^

Not bashing on your build, or the YouTube video you posted. But it is a YouTube video :/ . Versus experts (nvidia, toms etc)

I still say a $500 gaming system is not going to be able to max out ultra, But other things come into play too. Do you care about the Eye candy? There are a lot of settings you can change / turn off. Is 30-40 fps an acceptable playing rate? (for some no less then 60 is)
Lots and lots of factors into why I say that. Not just saying it to bash on your build :) .
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 6:12:15 PM

If you look at the video information, you will find this:
Quote:
Ultra Settings

1280 x 720 resolution for recording (1680 x 1050 when not recording with graphics on custom settings mainly all on high)
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 10:26:18 PM

Ok... fine, fine.

Question 1: What if I kept that build and gave it a Radeon HD 7850 1 GB?
Question 2: Will BF4 still be quad core optimized (best guesses?)

Just to update my goal: Battlefield 3 on high and Battlefield 4 on medium.

Thanks
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 11:18:11 PM

bystander said:
That is not at all true. You can use more of the API and end up needing less power. How much of each of those effects that are used at once and at what degree will determine how much power is needed.

Look at Crysis 2 vs Crysis 1. Crysis 2 uses a lot more effects, but Crysis 1 is more demanding.

sorry dude your mistake. the api is and application programming interface. it is an interface that acts as as a go between between the main program and things like function calls, libraries and other data structures use by a game.
while true that if its better optimized it will increase performance it has very little to do with the main bulk of the program. that itself has to be optimized as well to take any advantage the optimized api has to offer.
crysis is more demanding because it uses an older instruction set while crysis 2 uses a much more optimized and cleaner one to achieve better performance.
an api is just an interface that allows 2 parts of a program to communicate in a way they both understand and can pass results to each other that means something to the specific parts of the code.
direct x isnt an api but does employ an api to talk to the program that uses it. nor is windows although windows does consist of multiple api structures it cant be called an api because its an external environment that applications run separate from but can use an api to interface with.
basically an api is like an interpreter. 1 guy speaks Chinese the other English the interpreter in the middle speaks both and it all depends on how well the interpreter speaks both as to how well the Chinese speaker and English speaker will be able to communicate.

m
0
l
November 21, 2012 11:32:43 PM

HEXiT said:
sorry dude your mistake. the api is and application programming interface. it is an interface that acts as as a go between between the main program and things like function calls, libraries and other data structures use by a game.
while true that if its better optimized it will increase performance it has very little to do with the main bulk of the program. that itself has to be optimized as well to take any advantage the optimized api has to offer.
crysis is more demanding because it uses an older instruction set while crysis 2 uses a much more optimized and cleaner one to achieve better performance.
an api is just an interface that allows 2 parts of a program to communicate in a way they both understand and can pass results to each other that means something to the specific parts of the code.
direct x isnt an api but does employ an api to talk to the program that uses it. nor is windows although windows does consist of multiple api structures it cant be called an api because its an external environment that applications run separate from but can use an api to interface with.
basically an api is like an interpreter. 1 guy speaks Chinese the other English the interpreter in the middle speaks both and it all depends on how well the interpreter speaks both as to how well the Chinese speaker and English speaker will be able to communicate.


Any way you look at it, just because it uses a higher percentage of its capabilities, does not mean it has to be more demanding. To what degree each effect is used, the clipping plane, texture sizes, polygon count, and many other aspects all play a part in how demanding the game is. Some of those calls can even be used to speed up the game.

Note: I did not say it WILL be less demanding, I did not even say I think it will be the same, I just said that using more of the engines capabilities does not mean it will be more demanding. Ever use MaLDoHD Crysis 2 mod? You can make the game use more of the engines abilities, and speed up the FPS at the same time. It's quite amazing, really.
m
0
l
November 22, 2012 12:01:48 PM

I'm not sure how the 1 gig version would do but the 2GB version apparently can push an avg of 50-60FPS on the BF3 SinglePlayer benchmark tool.

***Edited: I forgot to include the link for this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-revi... ***

Things to keep in mind regarding BF3:

1 - Whenever you see a benchmark, it'll probably be that benchmark tool (which pushes a lot more FPS than say a 64 player battle in multiplayer). Framerates will dramatically get lower (by probably 10-20FPS not to mention the more than occasional sluttering).

2 - FrostByte engine is more/less equally heavy on the CPU and GPU. Which means getting a super CPU and lower GPU doesn't work...same goes for the other way around. So a 7850 would perform pretty well but on big multiplayer maps, you CPU would really start sweating.

All these points were taking into consideration when I gave you my first post (the recommended system buiid). If we were talking about any other games (or engine) then it'd be totally different but in this case...i'd go with at least what I've mentioned for a BF3 ready build and a fair build for BF4.

You won't get a good rig at $500 for play both games at desired settings. On that budget, you can get the game(s), a console, and an online account with them. On the flip side, building a $500 PC (like the one I've posted earlier) would still give you better graphics than the consoles. Though, an extra 200$ in your budget would go a long way in building a Battlefield PC.
m
0
l
March 27, 2013 2:38:27 AM

ROUGHRIDER13 said:
This is the first post of a user who knows little about this stuff, so please be nice and let me know if I break any rules...

My friend says a PC build that can play BF3 on ultra now will be able to play ultra on BF4 (its beta releases fall 2013). The only info I've found on the graphics of the new BF is that it will run on Frostbite 2 and will use approximately 80% of the engine's capabilities, vs. BF3 using 30-40%. Based on that information, is what he said valid? This matters to me because I'm putting my PC build off until I know more about BF4 and whether I can play it on ultra with something that plays BF3 on ultra.

Also, is the Battlefield games are multi-thread optimized, right? So a quad core would be better than lets say an Intel i3-2120...?

Thanks.


So here is the thing about this, a lot of people are scared and saying; I need the new titan... However I do believe that with a I5 anything above the 3,4 ghz border should be just fine. I personally have an Intel I5 2500K oc to 3,8 GHz this should be enough. In terms of the graphics card, AMD released a statement that the 7xxx should easily run the games smoothly at 1080p for the upcoming 2 years. I personally have the GTX 680 and I am quit confident that I will be able to play bf4, and if I am able to run the game on perfectly on ultra I probably wont on multiplayer. This is my personal preference because I like the highest fps possible. I believe that with my current gaming setup I will be able to run the game BF4 smoothly on Ultra anything between 60/80 fps. I personally am really glad that the "new" generation of game consoles is coming, the only reason games still look the same as 2 years ago is because of current generation of gaming consoles. One other part I would to put down is, if you look at the bf4 gameplay footage there is a lot of graphical comparison to Crytec's new game Crysis 3. I would like to put out there, if you can play Crysis 3 normally with high settings you will be able to play the games that will be released the upcoming 2 years (possibly longer) I believe this because games can not look really much better as Crysis 3, the little things will be improved but the overall graphics wont.

For the time being this is my believe, only time will tell. But with a rig like mine you should be fine.

proc: Intel 2500K 3,8GHz
graphics card: GTX 680 (I believe that the GTX 660TI should be just fine as well)
RAM: DDR3 16GIG
MOBO: Formula IV
Power supply: 750 watt gaming supply
m
0
l
March 28, 2013 12:34:16 PM

Can I max BF4 on 1920x1080 on this build?

*Core i7 3770K
*4x4 GB 16GB DDR3 1600MHz cl9 RAM 1.5V
*MSI BIg Bang Mpower Z77 motherboard
*Dual SLI GTX 680 2GB MSI LIghtning edition
*Corsair AX860i 860W power supply
*ZALMAN CNPS9900X MAX red CPU cooler
*1TB WD Caviar Black 7200RPM 64MB Cache HDD
*24X DVD ROM
*Corsair Vengeance C70 mid-tower case military green
*Four ventilation case fans (two 120mm and two 140mm)
*128GB Corsair SSD
*Windows 7 HP 64-bit
m
0
l
March 28, 2013 6:50:07 PM

I personally hate waiting. So what if the new 700 series will come out. People tell you 2 months where it could also be 5 months. My advice, don't play the waiting game. You want it now? Get it now amd enjoy it. Future proofing does not exist. If you were to buy a GTX 680 or 670 you would play BF4 just fine. Then you would just upgrade at the 800 series.
m
0
l
March 29, 2013 7:07:19 AM

In my opinion if you can run battlefield 3 in ultra maybe you will run battlefield 4 on medium or high

Just bought bf3 cuz I can't wait for bf4 and tried it with hd 7770 OC and played online in ultra with 35 to 45 fps

P.S. my screen resolution : ( 1366x768 )
m
0
l
March 29, 2013 7:24:27 AM

BF4 would more likely run on High. Which is pretty good. I'm obviously assuming you would have a GTX 680 or 670. And just because something is running 60 % percent more doesn't mean it will be 60% better. When battlefield 4 comes out....are you going to wait to build a computer for battlefield 5? Might as well wait for 6. 700 series wot be out till Q3 or 4.
m
0
l
March 29, 2013 8:58:49 AM

it depends on your screen if it's higher than 1600x900 you will need to buy GTX 670 if its lower like 1366x768 or 1280x768 then the best cards are hd 7770 , hd 7850 , GTX 650 ti
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:07:48 AM

bystander said:
The answer is, "I don't have a time machine".

The odds are BF4 will be more demanding, but sequels aren't always more demanding.





This is a next generation port, so It's most certainly going to be more demanding
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 12:29:29 PM

But it will be better optimized
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 12:33:04 PM

It's not a complete new engine and the 1 min gameplay video was played with a GTX 670. Chances are its not that much more demanding. It's also on the current generation consoles. Who said it would be a direct port from ps4?
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 4:59:03 AM

Zeus8577 said:
It's not a complete new engine and the 1 min gameplay video was played with a GTX 670. Chances are its not that much more demanding. It's also on the current generation consoles. Who said it would be a direct port from ps4?






It's a cross generation title, So the PC port is most likely going to be more demanding(at least on ultra settings) than a game that was a 7th generation port
m
0
l
May 4, 2013 3:17:50 PM

Will my dual GTX 680's in SLI run BF4 on all Ultra settings with AA/AF maxed out on 1920x1080?
m
0
l
May 4, 2013 3:47:40 PM

iplikator3333 said:
It's a cross generation title, So the PC port is most likely going to be more demanding(at least on ultra settings) than a game that was a 7th generation port


You are guessing, we really don't know until it is released. You can guess it'll be more demanding, and I predict it would to, but we don't know.

Example: Crysis 2 was less demanding than Crysis 1, even though it had a new engine.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 10:47:07 AM

bystander said:
iplikator3333 said:
It's a cross generation title, So the PC port is most likely going to be more demanding(at least on ultra settings) than a game that was a 7th generation port


You are guessing, we really don't know until it is released. You can guess it'll be more demanding, and I predict it would to, but we don't know.

Example: Crysis 2 was less demanding than Crysis 1, even though it had a new engine.






Yes, but this is an 8th generation port, so it's pretty much obvious that the ultra settings would be much more demanding than BF3 on Ultra which is a 7th Generation port.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 11:02:10 AM

Likely, yes, obvious, no. The odds are it will be, but until it is delivered, we won't know.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 12:10:13 PM

bystander said:
Likely, yes, obvious, no. The odds are it will be, but until it is delivered, we won't know.






Look at some late 6th generation PC ports and compare them to early 7th generation ports, In most cases the early 7th generation port will be much more demanding on ultra than the late 6th generation port on ultra
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 12:16:51 PM

iplikator3333 said:
bystander said:
Likely, yes, obvious, no. The odds are it will be, but until it is delivered, we won't know.


Look at some late 6th generation PC ports and compare them to early 7th generation ports, In most cases the early 7th generation port will be much more demanding on ultra than the late 6th generation port on ultra


Exactly my point. Most the time, not every time.
m
0
l
July 15, 2013 12:22:50 PM

ROUGHRIDER13 said:
This is the first post of a user who knows little about this stuff, so please be nice and let me know if I break any rules...

My friend says a PC build that can play BF3 on ultra now will be able to play ultra on BF4 (its beta releases fall 2013). The only info I've found on the graphics of the new BF is that it will run on Frostbite 2 and will use approximately 80% of the engine's capabilities, vs. BF3 using 30-40%. Based on that information, is what he said valid? This matters to me because I'm putting my PC build off until I know more about BF4 and whether I can play it on ultra with something that plays BF3 on ultra.

Also, is the Battlefield games are multi-thread optimized, right? So a quad core would be better than lets say an Intel i3-2120...?

Thanks.


Just saying. BF4 is on Frostbite3 not 2. And after looking at your build, I'd go with a better GPU for sure, it never hurts to do a little future proofing (if only to get one that's SLI/CFX compatible). Also consider that BF4 is still a while out, save money and get off a budget build, and go high end everything if you can.
m
0
l
!