Battlefield 4 Recommended Requirements - 3GB Vram

[RetrogamerX]

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. I'd say the more efficient use of memory would come down largely to using less vram for equal performance. If you can present anything to show me that is incorrect then please do so. Otherwise you and Retro will clearly have to leave me to my bios and fanboyism.

I don't want to keep on Frosty with these graphs but i pulled a couple more from some more recent well known titles including Metro Last Light, a Nvidia game.

Spoiler

I have my reasons for going with AMD. The main one is price vs performance. AMD are always far ahead in my opinion on this front. If i had money to spare i might consider a more expensive but generally worse performing card from the other side. As it stands i need to get the best bang for my buck and for as long as i can remember that's been AMD.

I think the titan and 780 are great cards from afar but id rather have two cheaper, faster cards if it gives me more grunt and allows me to game with higher details and more AA. That's what 7950 crossfire currently offers me. All the games i play dx11 games, they all scale wonderfully with crossfire and now there is frame pacing and consistent frame time delivery i have no reason to change to a worse performance card.

I also happen to enjoy the large majority of GE titles and play them frequently and most of them play better on AMD hardware than equivalently prices Nvidia hardware.

I have nothing against Nvidia but unless they get more competitive on price, or i have large amounts of money to waste getting 2x780/titan's then i can't see any logical reason to switch from what i have now.

I'll leave it at that before i derail the thread.







Lucky for you i won't make the above remarks about you.

Like you said.

Could care less what anyone thinks of me.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I'll leave it at that before i derail the thread.

Too late. Have fun with your BIOS. The graphs have clearly shown me right up. I rue the day I ever praised another company.

 

[teppic]

Indeed, the engine is improved, but it is not completely new.

That's the general point some of us are making.

I know, I'd already said it wasn't completely new. But some are going far further than that.

 

[LtMatt]

Too late. Have fun with your BIOS. The graphs have clearly shown me right up. I rule the day I ever praised another company.

Its just a differing of opinion. I've tried to present some evidence based on my opinion that part of the memory management is efficient use of vram.

You could try and do the same rather than trying to belittle me because of a typing error i made. I'm certainly not going to do the same to you with your error you made whilst typing.

 

[Silent_Scone]

So are you saying just so we're clear; that maximum usage of VRAM is a clear indicator of efficient management / performance?

Your graphs are fantastic, but please don't try and shoot people down every time they praise something from your rival company. Well, that's assuming you have a role worthy of having such a defensive stance.


I'll remember not to praise NV on here any more, you don't have to worry.

 

[LtMatt]

Despite recent shoddy drivers, it's quite well known that Nvidia cards are better at managing VRAM across the board.

So are you saying just so we're clear; that maximum usage of VRAM is a clear indicator of efficient management / performance?

Your graphs are fantastic, but please don't try and shoot people down every time they praise something from your rival company. Well, that's assuming you have a role worthy of having such a defensive stance.


I'll remember not to praise NV on here any more, you don't have to worry.

I've got no problem with you praising Nvidia. I was simply responding to you saying this.

it's quite well known that Nvidia cards are better at managing VRAM across the board.

AMD cards still use more VRAM. Unless you're going by a chart from a game in Alpha? Which would be a bit silly.

I said i believe Nvidia did used to be better at memory management, or using less vram or whatever you want to call it. Until AMD did a well documented Memory Manager Re-Write.

As i generally keep on top of the latest games releases and vram usage bencmarks over at GameGPU i noticed that a while after the memory management re-write was complete AMD now had consistently lower vram usage than Nvidia card counter parts. Before that Nvidia were generally lower.

In all the graphs i showed you (bar one) and there are plenty more. It shows AMD using slightly less vram.

 

[teppic]

Posting "it's quite well known that Nvidia cards are better at managing VRAM across the board" isn't just praise, but it is an open challenge for people to refute that. You can't complain of being shot down if somebody produces evidence that contradicts it

 

[Suarez7]

If he said nvidia were better at memory usage then he could have been shot down yes, memory management also covers things like how memory is allocated and the speed at which memory is allocated and deallocated.

It's not quite as clear cut as just usage as has been repeated a few times. It's largely irrelevant anyway as if it mattered that much these things would be measured.

 

[LtMatt]

If he said nvidia were better at memory usage then he could have been shot down yes, memory management also covers things like how memory is allocated and the speed at which memory is allocated and deallocated.

It's not quite as clear cut as just usage as has been repeated a few times. It's largely irrelevant anyway as if it mattered that much these things would be measured.

I agree. I'm merely saying that i would consider that one part of it and a pretty big part at that. Anyway i think we all agree it probably makes very little difference. I don't believe you can just state one is better than the other and uses less vram when there is some evidence to the contrary though.

 

[teppic]

Memory management is complicated, but unless you're an AMD/nvidia driver developer you're not going to know the details. If you can get the same performance using less memory (on the same card), memory management has improved. The implication (from other posts) was that AMD needed more memory than nvidia cards for the same games, which is untrue.

 

[Suarez7]

I don't believe you can just state one is better than the other and uses less vram when there is some evidence to the contrary though.

Indeed, points should be made when you try to claim something is better. It's obvious AMD have improved memory usage but unless you're hitting your cards limit then it doesn't make any difference apart from maybe your memory will run .1c cooler

 

[LtMatt]

Indeed, points should be made when you try to claim something is better. It's obvious AMD have improved memory usage but unless you're hitting your cards limit then it doesn't make any difference apart from maybe your memory will run .1c cooler

Agreed.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Indeed, points should be made when you try to claim something is better. It's obvious AMD have improved memory usage but unless you're hitting your cards limit then it doesn't make any difference apart from maybe your memory will run .1c cooler

This is part of my original point, and all to do with management. There are a lot of other factors such as bandwidth and GPU performance which all play a part with overal VRAM usage. No, I don't write their drivers. But I know from experience that a 7570 when hitting it's VRAM limitation, performs a whole lot worse than a 640 GT (for example)

Admittedly I wasn't aware AMD had released improvements - and it was half a generalisation based on many years prior. However my original point- considering the topic of conversation was that users probably shouldn't fret, as I know when hitting these walls the drivers are very good at coping and performance is not affected. It wasn't my intention to spark fanboyisms, as both cards have their perks.

2D is always much crisper with AMD cards for example.

(I jest x They also have better looking shaders too, sometimes )

 

[~>Dg<~]

I can't really understand how people are declaring that BF4 will have the same requirements as BF3, and that the engine will be basically the same, when the developers say otherwise and the game isn't even out in beta. Looking at the info from DICE, the engine is very much improved.

when they sell the game you think they will say buy bf4 its exactly the same but we added new maps nope.

it is bf3 just tweaked and a bit more shiney. people will always swallow whatever devs say cause they love the games doesn't mean its all true.


one thing im looking forward to is the beta and how the reg and how good some guns will be then when beta ends the reg will go to **** and all good guns nerfed welcome to bf haha.

 

[Suarez7]

when they sell the game you think they will say buy bf4 its exactly the same but we added new maps nope.

it is bf3 just tweaked and a bit more shiney. people will always swallow whatever devs say cause they love the games doesn't mean its all true.

This can easily be countered by do you really think they'd release a game 2 years later with only tiny tweaks and some more shine? There was a comparison video posted in the BF4 thread and it's quite easy to see the extra detail in BF4, it's not as simple as a few tweaks and some shine if you watch it.

 

[Tonester0011]

Add Aero and you'll get that ~ 2,5GB.

However, let me put it in some other way - BF 3 can go north of 2GB. In 1050p it stays bellow 1,5GB. I don't know how much THAT will show on some simple numbers, but it is there. At the beginning it starts from 1,7-1,9Gb+ vRAM, map depending.

How our colleague went just a little bit over 1,8GB at a higher resolution, I do not know... or care. But I do care to have some better texture in the next games, not only the obvious ones, but some "secondary" as well: dashboards, land, walls, etc.

They also had Aero enabled during their tests, higher res lower VRAM usage...all points to the fabled caching, when you have more VRAM to play with. Meaning in short....BF3 doesn't *need* 2.5GB to play @5760x1080....despite your lovely graph showing 2GB isn't enough.

Exactly the same as Matt's graphs showing more than 2GB usage, but the accompanying FPS charts showing cards with 2GB and less showing similar FPS (not showing the usual signs of lack of VRAM...tiny tiny minimum and average FPS)

 

[teppic]

This can easily be countered by do you really think they'd release a game 2 years later with only tiny tweaks and some more shine? There was a comparison video posted in the BF4 thread and it's quite easy to see the extra detail in BF4, it's not as simple as a few tweaks and some shine if you watch it.

Also, in the Frostbite 3 demos (and early demos at that) it looks pretty amazing in parts.

 

[bru]

So just to wrap up this thread in a nutshell, DICE release via twitter I might add rather than the official website, the system requirements for Battlefield 4.
In a somewhat confusing fashion these list the recommended cards as a 7870 or 660ti both of which are as standard 2GB cards (in fact I don't think you can get a 7870 with more than 2GB, please feel free to link to a manufacturer that does one) but then goes on to show that 3GB is the recommended amount of Vram.

This of course sparks of the usual red vs green argument, a lot of which seems to be centred around some graphs of the test that was run on the early alpha version of Battlefield 4, with one of the arguments being that side A's data must be correct because its a alpha test whereas side B's data cannot be right because its an alpha test.

So to be honest all we know is that Battlefield 4 is coming and it will run on things as low as dual core CPU and 3870/8800 class of GPU as for the rest it's all marketing.

Just remember the recommended specs for Battlefield 3 were:

Recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3
•OS: Windows 7 64-bit
•Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
•RAM: 4GB
•Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950.
•Graphics card memory: 1 GB
•Sound card: DirectX compatibl sound card
•Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version


Bottom line to use a truncated quote from LtMatt

.... is this all just conjecture?

 

[Suarez7]

Well of course it's just conjecture until we all get to try the game. Most of the stuff in this section is conjecture

 

[LtMatt]

So just to wrap up this thread in a nutshell, DICE release via twitter I might add rather than the official website, the system requirements for Battlefield 4.
In a somewhat confusing fashion these list the recommended cards as a 7870 or 660ti both of which are as standard 2GB cards (in fact I don't think you can get a 7870 with more than 2GB, please feel free to link to a manufacturer that does one) but then goes on to show that 3GB is the recommended amount of Vram.

This of course sparks of the usual red vs green argument, a lot of which seems to be centred around some graphs of the test that was run on the early alpha version of Battlefield 4, with one of the arguments being that side A's data must be correct because its a alpha test whereas side B's data cannot be right because its an alpha test.

So to be honest all we know is that Battlefield 4 is coming and it will run on things as low as dual core CPU and 3870/8800 class of GPU as for the rest it's all marketing.

Just remember the recommended specs for Battlefield 3 were:

Recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3
•OS: Windows 7 64-bit
•Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
•RAM: 4GB
•Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950.
•Graphics card memory: 1 GB
•Sound card: DirectX compatibl sound card
•Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

Actually the requirements were pulled direct from origin, battlefield 4 digital deluxe version.

Its basically saying the 7870 and 660ti are recommended cards, no doubt if you want to run a high level of detail.

The vram requirement is separate from that. Obviously to run Ultra details with large amounts of AA at a higher res you're going to need more vram. Hence the recommended vram of 3gb.

Its pretty self explanatory to be honest.

EDIT

Will update the OP with this pic.