Battlefield 4's System Requirements Won't Melt Your PC
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
but I've heard mixed reactions to MWO.
Sometime near the end of last year, though a friend handled the build for me (it actually turned out he was a lying bastard and built a better build for himself behind my back) and it cost me two rebate cheques (£450 each).Alfador_VII said:
Pretty much got a 1st gen Intel i7 920 (2.67ghz)
4 gigs DDR3 RAM (did have 12 in total but the motherboard is having none of that)
an ASRock X58 Extreme motherboard (it came from Russia for reasons unknown)
a Nvidia GTX 660ti PE.
The build itself can handle pretty much all games to the current date (save for Crysis because I'm not a fan of that series and don't wish to push the desktop to the brink of oblivion for no good reason).
The thing that really takes my cake is that I really wouldn't mind playing Battlefield, if only EA hadn't decided to include over priced premium map packs and suddenly out of nowhere turn up the requirements.
I've tried windows 8 before and I can safely say I can't find a single care for it and it just doesn't feel as great as OS 7 and since this build is rather recent, I'm strapped for cash (the rebates gave the one opportunity to make the build) and don't want to hop out there and gather more parts while racking up a hefty bill just to play one game.
I suggest you read the article again, you're way above the min specs on everything other than RAM, and you should be fine there as you match the min specShadow-Phoenix said:
I agree on Win 8, and so long as you have Win 7 64-bit, that's probably even better than what they recommend
Noooo, trust me, you're fine. I had a 660 ti and it was awesome. Pretty sure it's capable of running Crysis on high or ultra (or at least I read some reviews stating that, didn't actually try it myself), and your cpu, despite being 1st gen when we're on the 4th gen, is still quad-core with hyperthreading.Shadow-Phoenix said:
Alfador_VII said:
I'd have to agree but forgive me for not being confident in my own build with the lack of another 4gb and 3gb GPU card.TakeyB0y2 said:
That he did but he was also a roommate, after I had this build inspected by another more knowledgable friend (let's call him Andy) we had both by then confirmed my roomie had actually consulted Andy behind my back and Andy knew nothing of what had happened.TheSniperFan said:Wow, he has ripped you off there. :/
First gen Intel Core i CPU, ASRock motherboard and a Nvidia GPU*. Ouch.
I recommend you getting another 4GB of Ram if you want to keep playing demanding games on this machine.
*In before flaming:
1. There is no excuse for getting an first gen Intel Core i CPU that late. They're just such a waste of money.
2. ASRock isn't producing crap (anymore), but they only have 6 months of guarantee, whereas Gigabyte has 3 years. It's just not smart to buy ASRock until they change that, considering the price difference is not that big.
3. For quite some time now, AMD has produced the better graphics cards. They offer more power for less money and don't get quite as hot. However, Nvidia hasn't been sleeping and slowly got closer to AMD in this regard. With the GeForce 6xx series it got a lot better, but AMD still has the edge.
EDIT:
BTW, Crysis isn't *that* hard to run anymore.
it also turned out that my Roomie crafted the build spec himself, showed it to Andy to have him tell him it was crap and that's when me and Andy realised I was given my Roomie's old spec build while Andy had provided his own exact spec to my roomie.
basically me and Andy were played for chumps and well I sent my roomie packing and I've not spoken to him since because you just don't do that to a friend, let alone a friend who spent two rebates to pay for it.
I just remembered that my birthday was a few days ago with me having managed to save around £300 so I should probably keep that on ice until I can craft a new spec to build upon.
You're correct about all the parts and that is what makes me not so confident with this build, like taking a leap of faith for every new PC game that comes around.
What he said^^. Windows 8 has also been proven in benchmarks to be slightly faster on the gaming front than Win 7. I use it on my rig and find it to be a bit snappier than 7. It also boots a bit quicker. The only thing I dislike about the OS is metro but 8.1 should hopefully alleviate some of those issues with a program menu and booting straight to desktop. Or you could go the route I did and use Start8......Steven Bogos said:
I'd be happy to answer that for you. When comparing the two you assume that they both carry equal weight by their features. On paper when you look at origin vs steam there isn't too much variation, there is some though.Alfador_VII said:
However, 6 years ago I was very hesitant to use steam because it was not the great service it is today. It was saddled with problems and going through the growing pains. Yet after all those years steam won me over and I now have a library of over 200 games (majority picked up on sale of course).
Heck the only reason I shop at GMG and amazon digital sales is because they give me steam keys so I don't have games scattered everywhere on my computer. I did make a small exception for GoG but they don't require me to install another platform just to play a handful of titles.
To sum up my point; if steam meets all my needs why would I install origin if it doesn't do anything more that I need? Sure they are holding a few "decent" games hostage with the platform but that isn't enough to sway people such as myself.
Disregard completely the whole "Windows 8 recommended" part, they just want you to buy that broken OS, it will work just fine on Windows 7.
Regarding the specs themselves, I've ran the program "Can I run it?" and to my surprise the score was in the 80's. Coming from a computer which is 3yo and considered medium to high range at the moment, I am quite happy.
I don't think I will get BF4 though, since it looks pretty much the same as BF3 to me with a few extra gimmicks. That jump in requirements also doesn't help as well.
Regarding the specs themselves, I've ran the program "Can I run it?" and to my surprise the score was in the 80's. Coming from a computer which is 3yo and considered medium to high range at the moment, I am quite happy.
I don't think I will get BF4 though, since it looks pretty much the same as BF3 to me with a few extra gimmicks. That jump in requirements also doesn't help as well.
I already can play BF3 in Med-High specs, these requirements don't seem to be that much different than BF3's. In fact, I don't see much difference compared to BF3.
As for anyone complaining about Origin... really?, I mean, yes, it's not Steam, but I find it inoffensive at best, it doesn't leech resources unecessary and you don't need to keep it running if you only use it for Battlefield.
At this point, people are simply bitching about it, because "LOL EA".
As for anyone complaining about Origin... really?, I mean, yes, it's not Steam, but I find it inoffensive at best, it doesn't leech resources unecessary and you don't need to keep it running if you only use it for Battlefield.
At this point, people are simply bitching about it, because "LOL EA".
I'd rather they used the frankly very impressive for a large scale and adventurous WW2 shooter involving fronts that arent german.Zhukov said:
Competition is good, monopolies are bad. That is why Origin needs to exist. It's the single biggest competitor to Steam. It has been improving greatly in the last year or so. They even had a sale a few weeks ago!GAunderrated said:
However, I do agree that it is incredibly annoying to have your gaming library spread out over multiple accounts.
I always tell people that Windows 8 isn't bad because of technical reasons, but rather because they tried to introduce way to many changes in a short amount of time. The replacement of the start menu with metro being one of those jarring changes. When you look at both metro and the start menu, they do the same function, but the aesthetic look of metro was just too much of a change. People were used to just having the start menu right on the desktop and having it be a supplement of the desktop and Microsoft tried to make it a desktop replacement. Since people generally don't like change, you need to introduce it gradually. What they should have done was leave the start menu there, but allow you to switch between metro and the start menu and metro if you want.Griffolion said:
Differences in efficiency and manufacturing. Intel cores can generally push out more computations than AMD cores. To make up for that AMD CPUs tend to have more cores.Traviltar said: