Battlefield 4 Recommended Requirements - 3GB Vram

[LtMatt]

I think with AMD cards it'll need 3gb. Like said a few posts up. Nvidia have much better memory management then AMD do. It doesn't matter to me. I'll change cards soon anyways either way

I think that's a myth Retro. It might have been the case before but its not any more.

This is a TWIMTBP title as well where you would expect Nvidia to have this 'better memory management' as you call it.

 

[LtMatt]

That's just showing memory usage though, memory management includes more than just usage.

Maybe, but id say the gpu using less vram is managing the memory better.

 

[LtMatt]

I'm still wondering does having a faster bus and faster clock on memory mean you need to use less of it to buffer, i'd assume so?

Hmmm, now theres a thought.

Ltmatt. lol....your love for AMD is legendary

I know FUD when i see it Retro.

 

[LtMatt]

Would love to see an example of this better memory management aside from using more vram than the other card.

 

[LtMatt]

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

Any actual proof or is this all just conjecture?

 

[LtMatt]

Linkage?

You won't get any. Its just opinions being passed off as fact.

I remember a similar argument before and what was said was Nvidia have better memeory management because they use less vram for equal performance. Now they use more vram its still the same.

 

[LtMatt]

Ltmatt. lol....your love for AMD is legendary

you do know he works for amd ?

You might think that way but all i do is question some of the stuff people come out with about AMD. Most of it turns out to be BS. If you can find things ive posted like that about Nvidia then be my guest.

The only things ive ever complained about regarding Nvidia is things they've done with games like crysis 2 (tessellated things you can't see) or removing dx10.1 support from assassin's creed.

Although i get caught up in it sometimes i generally try to avoid unnecessary mud slinging or spouting FUD about one vendor or another.

 

[LtMatt]

AMD cards still use more VRAM. Unless you're going by a chart from a game in Alpha? Which would be a bit silly. It's a non issue anyway, I was simply stating that Nvidia cards are good at managing it. I wasn't knocking the hand that feeds you

Those days are gone my friend.

I pulled the first two pages from gamegpu's latest released and reviewed titles. Couldn't be bothered to go back further.

It compares vram usage of red vs green, 7970 vs 780 vs titan.

Since AMD did the memory management re-write early this year (around feb-march time) they've generally (though not always) used less vram than the green counter part.

From the titles i pulled only in Saints Row did Nvidia use less vram than AMD.

Spoiler

 

[LtMatt]

Hey mat. Have you ever said anything good about Nv? Not that I can recall? I like both,butsorry mate,but it's hard to take posts here seriously if all you talk about is one brand. We do know the name for this. Fanboy. They have this same childish issue on consoles too.

I don't talk much about Nvidia because i don't use their cards so thats why i don't generally spout any FUD about then. I stick to what i know. If that makes me a fanboy then so be it. As long as im seen as a helpful fanboy then im happy with that. Could care less what anyone thinks of me.

Well when you haven't used a card from the other side for a while it's hard to offer an opinion. I can see why Matt prefers to discuss AMD.

Suarez summed it up.

 

[LtMatt]

Matt. Management doesn't just mean overall usage. It's how it copes when hitting a VRAM limitations and overall handling / effects on performance. It's not FUD at all, it's several years of comparing the like from experience. It's not as black and white as that. Which you'd probably admit if you weren't quite so bias.

I did start out by saying NV cards were good with it, as opposed to better to avoid any fanboy remarks. Sadly it didn't work.

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 bias 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 think it's about time you get something Nv.

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 priced 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.

Ditto

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[LtMatt]

So have we established yet if this recommendation of 3GB is for 1080p, 1440p, 1600p or some multi monitor setup?

Not yet, hence the speculation. If we take Bru's post of BF3 Rec specs as an example. 1gb was the recommended amount and the game will use up to around 2gb without exceeding. So we could assume that the game will use up to 4gb and not exceed in BF4 using the same theory. Or it could just use up to 3gb and not exceed. Depends how you look at it. Looking at it like 2gb will be plenty is unlikely i reckon.

My GTX 690s run BF3 @1600p maxed and have no problem getting over 100fps.

The thing is no one has ever said 2gb wasn't enough for Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3's recommended specs were only 1gb though and usage definitely went way over that. So does that mean the same will happen with Bf4? One would think so.

 

[LtMatt]

Will the game run better with 3GB? who knows

Will the game run well with 2GB? of course it will, else Dice have just put off 70/80% of perspective buyers.

I agree. It might just require having to tone down AA to x2 or disable it completely for 2gb cards at 1080p/1440p/1600p, or it might not. One things for sure a vram requirement of 3gb would not be there if its not needed, depending on settings and resolution used. It just makes no sense for Dice to do this when they've never done it before.

I am counting on BF3 and BF4 having similar game engines.

Also the debate in this thread is about whether 2gb will be ok @1080p for BF4. My point is it is ok @1600p for BF3 so unless something has changed a huge amount, 2gb should be fine for BF4 @1080p

I would say the fact the recommended vram specs have jumped up a whole 2gb from bf3 recommended specs suggests something has changed, wouldn't you?

I also don't think 1080p will be a problem if at all. As ive said from the start 1440/1660p might be though.

 

[LtMatt]

Well young Petey all ive ever said is based on the evidence we have so far, it might not be enough. Then the recommended specs came out which reinforced my view somewhat. I've never said that 2gb wouldn't be enough at 1080p, but that maybe AA/details might have to be sacrificed at higher resolutions.

Basically similar to what Tommy posted earlier about pcper's findings. It might not be a case of running out of vram, it might be a case of worse performance, stuttering as vram textures are loaded into the page file for example as vram is full.

There is more to just 'caching' the vram or running out.

Pcper showed the difference extra vram makes in regards to smoothness between 2Gb 4Gb 680's on BF3.



Frame Rating: BF3 High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions









http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

Not got long to go now and all will be revealed, either way, I'm sure some cards will play better than others...

 

[LtMatt]

So you are now saying a 3gb card is not enough

If you think the Battlefield 3 specs are accurate? They were only 1gb and 2gb ended up being the right amount.

For the record i can't see this being the case but this was based on kaap saying battlefield 4 will be the same as battlefield 3.

Probably need something like 3, 2GB cards to actually provide enough grunt to push the settings required to push over the VRAM wall whilst still maintaining playable FPS. Something that's always been said, that also means 2GB card will be fine at the above resolutions because they'd have to turn settings down to actually play the game.

We're just going in circles when the topic of VRAM comes into play, if the game maxed out required 2200mb you can almost guarantee the cards that have less than the required amount also have less than the required grunt, so it's a moot point.

I'll buy you BF4 if that's not the case.

Sounds good Tone.

I can't see you needing 3 2gb cards to get playable fps while exceeding 2gb in battlefield 4 at single screen res, but we'll see.

 

[LtMatt]

Bugger. I'm forced to agree.

That's the thing you see, people don't like it if you make a point that the limit might be exceeded.

Frame times in general are pretty good at 4K resolutions with the 2GB GTX 680 the lone outlier with some noticeable and significant spikes and jumps in performance. The fact that the 4GB variant does not exhibit that problem tells us that the 2GB frame buffer is just not enough to keep up 3840x2160 at these settings.

Both the Titan and the HD 7970 have the best / lowest frame time variance with the GTX 680 2GB coming in last. It is interesting to see the added frame buffer of the 4GB GTX 680 making a noticeable difference in potential stutter.

The GTX Titans in SLI have a very narrow and smooth band of frame times. The GTX 680 4GB frame times are also noticeably tighter and doesn't exhibit nearly as many spikes in frame times as the 2GB models do.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

An example of the potential problem 2gb users could face.