• 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

It is confirmed that BF4 will be a 100% 64 bit application. But they have also included a 32bit version. Dice stated in the event that the 64bit had higher performance vs the 32bit when it came to stuff like water simulation. Finaly getting some nmative 64bit games.. About freaking time!

Dice and AMD driving PC gaming forward. :cool:
 
Well i'm worried :( just gone through an upgrade now this api, I always new AMD would bring out a good card for the money and thats a good thing but with this low level API reliant on game and what graphics card you go for well as a consumer i feel deflated.

But on the other hand i do see the sense in this approach and have to say if i had a 7000 AMD series card i would be very excited :cool:

So whats in store for BF4 with Nvidia hardware ? are we going to have very poor support from DICE?? this is the bit i hate the not knowing, I paid a lot of money to have good gaming experience, At least DirectX was uniform an impartial "well i think it is lol"

Of course you won't, relax. Dice are not going to ditch support for Nvidia users who probably make up half or more of their player base. The only difference might be AMD users running mantle have a performance advantage. That's not to say it will run badly for Nvidia on DX11 API, it will run similar to Battlefield 3, but better optimised for all.
 
Apparently the R280X (7970) and higher are 3GB.

The R270X (7950 lite) and below are 2GB.

It's odd that they'd cut the VRAM from the 7950, but apparently that's what they've done.

So the 7850,7870,7950 re-brands all get 2GB this time.

Such little difference between the 7950/7970 its hardly surprising. The 7970 is now at 7950 pricing abnd Gibbo hinted that will be its new long term price £240ish. Expecting to get 3gb vram on a new version 7950 costing £180 or less is asking a bit too much i think.
 
Something I don't get is the R9 290X is billed as a 4K capable card yet 4gb of vram is not enough at that resolution.:eek:

There is more chance of BF4 running maxed on my GTX 690s @1080 than there ever will be of getting it to do the same even with 4 x R9 290X cards @4K.:eek:

Mantle could lower vram usage? Complete speculation on my part but anything is possible. Also there are 6gb/8gb versions of the 290X coming.
 
I think 8 Pack said the other day there will not be 6gb versions as they would have to redesign the PCB.

I also don't think Mantle will do anything for the internal workings of a graphics card so should not make any difference to vram requirements.

For normal use like a GTX 780 or 290X there is no problem having 3gb or 4gb of vram on board. But I really think AMD have put there foot in it by claiming the R9 290X is suitable for 4K. Four R9 290Xs a copy of Crysis 3 maxed out and a 4K monitor just won't cut it.

Its ok though, you can play Dirt 3!

There will be a higher vram version coming out. There is a 6gb version of the 7970 so to think they won't release a 8gb version of the 290X is silly.
 
Even if it sees the light of day an 8gb version will cost a pile.

AMD really have shot themselves in the foot with this claiming a 4gb card is suitable for 4K

4x 6gb HD 7970s vs 4x R9 290Xs playing Crysis 3 @4K

No contest the HD 7970s would win easy as the 290Xs would not even be able to run it unless you turned the settings down.

We don't even know the cost yet of the 290X. Its speculated to come in at just under 780 pricing (backed up by Gibbo) so a 8gb version will naturally be more expensive. Whatever happens it will still be much cheaper than a titan so i dont really a see a problem here. Either way need to wait for the product launch.
 
If 3gb ram is recommended and 2gb won't be enough for 1080p, I don't see how 4gb will be enough for 4k.

I don't think anyone has ever said 2gb won't enough at 1080p. Some people speculated it might not be enough but there's no harm in that. I'm not sure why that keeps getting mentioned. What i actually said was im not sure 2gb will be enough at 1600p/1440p with all the bells and whistles.
 
In a game with all the bells and whistles on at 1600/1440p it certainly wont be vram that will be affected. I've read this full thread and you're a bit of a scaremonger and I'm pretty worried people may actually be influenced by what you say.

Forgive me for going on alpha benchmarks and recommended game requirements. I don't see how suggesting 2gb might be exceeded @higher resolutions and details is scare mongering. What we know so far all points to that being correct. I call it future proofing and to me and many others it makes good common sense.
 
To be fair at the start you suggested that 2GB might not be enough for 1080p with all the bells and whistles.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24913712&postcount=10

I said might, as i didn't want to guarantee anything only to have it bite me in the ass. I also said i think it will be ok. As always my point from the beginning which you kindly quoted is what i stand by. :)

By the way that might was based on the alpha vram benchmarks, which proved to be spot on according to the beta. Despite me getting told numerous times they were wrong.
 
Yeah, 'might' is a great word (I use fluffy words like that a lot). If 1080p is fine even with 4xMSAA or higher you can fall back on 'might' and if 1080p can't do more than 2xMSAA then you predicted it correctly all the way back on the 9th September but nobody listened! Win-win as you can't be wrong either way!

I made it pretty clear what i thought, that 1080p would be ok but above that the limit would be exceeded. I couldn't say with complete certainty either way, instead choosing to base my predictions on alpha benchmarks and official game requirements. Beta benchmarks have now proven me to be correct so ill leave it there.
 
As requested by LtMatt in another thread, i'm posting my findings regarding vram usuage in BF4 here. I found a nice TDM server running paracal storm 24/7 with only 100 tickets so i tested each setting bellow for one round each.

1440p - Ultra Settings - 4x MSAA = 2033MB peak Vram usage
1440p - Ultra Settings - 2x MSAA = 2028MB peak Vram usage
1440p - Ultra Settings - 0x MSAA = 2017MB peak Vram usage

I then noticed that there is an Anti aliasing post process setting so i tried messing with that too. It was set to high in the last three tests.

1440p - Ultra Settings - 0x MSAA - AA postprocessing LOW = 2010MB peak Vram usage
1440p - Ultra Settings - 2x MSAA - AA postprocessing OFF = 2008MB peak Vram usage
1440p - Ultra Settings - 0x MSAA - AA postprocessing OFF = 1858MB peak Vram usage


So there we go. At 1440p i run into my vram limit with any kind of AA turned on. FPS is around 80 most of the time but as soon as the vram limit hits it drops down way low and i get a short but noticeable freeze. You could almost call it a stutter but its slightly longer then that.

Thanks for the feedback. I have a friend who also experiences the same issue with a 2gb sli setup at 1440p maxed details.
 
Back
Top Bottom