• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Battlefield 4 Recommended Requirements - 3GB Vram

I think too many people are blowing this out of proportion.

Recommended graphic memory is exactly that- "recommended". If the game is already known to be using around or close to around 2GB of vram, it's only natural to "recommend" more than 2GB of vram. It is like many 4GB system memory is still sufficient for majority of the games on a 64-bit Windows, yet we ourselves would always recommend people getting 8GB of system memory, mostly because it doesn't cost much more for the extra headroom.
 
Phixsator said:
/snip/
Sidenote and EDIT to other comments: I think the only reason to be picking up an AMD gfx for this title would be the use of the latest DirectX functions that according to dice allow for better CPU utilization. Besides that i cannot see why one would ditch their 680 or 670s. Sure it might run better out the gate on AMD hardware but Nvidia will eventually get access to the game code and be able to optimize.
Click to expand...
I don't suppose you know what these functions would be because if it's the user of command lists for multi threaded rendering this is availble for both AMD and Nvidia. See this interesting article (post #28): http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2155665&page=2
 
Recommend 3GB sounds fair to be honest!

Also don't forget they are probably planning ahead for the future map packs that might have slightly bigger maps/more destruction visual effects in which 3GB would be better than 2. Also they are advertising the game at 60fps so if you have a card with 3GB memory it is generally going to be reasonably high end and should be close to hitting the 60fps performance mark depending on what resolution you are running.
 
shankly1985 said:
I play with everything ultra and do very well (stats back this up)
Click to expand...

Am I looking at the right account as they seem fairly average to me? And I know average (my stats back me up)*


Well it ain't going to look pretty but I think my computer survives another BF 'update' :cool:



*stats often mean bugger all and should be removed from BF (never happen but it would improve the game immeasurable)
 
Gibbo said:
Who wants to Play a game on min Settings though.....
Click to expand...

most people who play it more than casual .

i play bf3 on low all but mesh ultra for close to 200 fps or i could play it ultra for 85 the differences are vast.

amd are going to milk this to sell cards guess what they got brand new cards being launched just before this drops. the performance is literally the same as bf3 so if you can run that fine dont worry.

even the minimum are exactly the same as bf3. dat marketing skills :p
 
Yep, the only time I used Ultra settings was single player.

Nobody really uses Ultra in multi-player unless they are recon and can accept the slow-down.

144fps or go home :>
 
An old school friend got close to getting on the UK quake team. Used to play the top clans like four kings etc.

He once told me he pretty much makes the game look as bad as possible so player models would stand out from the surroundings plus you'd get more frames.
 
Besty said:
Yep, the only time I used Ultra settings was single player.

Nobody really uses Ultra in multi-player unless they are recon and can accept the slow-down.

144fps or go home :>
Click to expand...

I run Ultra in MP and im medic 90% of the time, with the other 10% spent as engineer. I'd rather have the game looking delightful even if it puts me at a distinct disadvantage with having enemies much harder to spot and struggling to see through the haze. I don't play the game competitively just for a bit of fun with mates on voice comms.

I can understand why the pro/diehards play on low though. Does make it much easier but it looks crap imo.
 
LtMatt said:
I run Ultra in MP and im medic 90% of the time, with the other 10% spent as engineer. I'd rather have the game looking delightful even if it puts me at a distinct disadvantage with having enemies much harder to spot and struggling to see through the haze. I don't play the game competitively just for a bit of fun with mates on voice comms.

I can understand why the pro/diehards play on low though. Does make it much easier but it looks crap imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly i play for fun and have the *oh shiny* or *OMG i never noticed the rivet before* moments and gaming with my friends as long as i can play at over 60 fps on my 144hz monitor its happy days! :)
 
Orch said:
I too enjoy the eye candy. A few extra deaths or missed shots means nothing much really.
Click to expand...

I'm planning on playing BF4 with an Xbox controller pad, that how much I care about stats...

And someone hit the nail on the head earlier, certain stats aren't conducive to playing team modes. Why does K/D matter in anything other than Team Deatchmatch? They should reward people for bomb plants/defuses and flag captures, things like that.
 
VincentHanna said:
I'm planning on playing BF4 with an Xbox controller pad, that how much I care about stats...

And someone hit the nail on the head earlier, certain stats aren't conducive to playing team modes. Why does K/D matter in anything other than Team Deatchmatch? They should reward people for bomb plants/defuses and flag captures, things like that.
Click to expand...

Quite agree. My K/D is awful, like really bad, partly because I've just moved to keyboard and mouse so took a while to get used to, but also because I play conquest mainly and don't hide protecting myself. I'm still normally in the top 5 of most final scores list. I couldn't care less about k/D ratios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom