Can the GTX 760 run BF4 at ultra, 1080p and 60 FPS?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Solution
photonboy
Useful benchmark:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_760_TF_Gaming/27.html

My BF3 experience:
I have a good GTX680 (3-slot Asus at 1201MHz boost). It's comparable to an overclocked 770.

I can ALMOST run BF3 at max settings, 1080p, 60Hz. Very rarely do I dip. The quality difference between where I'm out now and the absolute max would be almost unnoticeable.

*If you're looking for an inexpensive, good card, get the MSI N760 TF. It's the best value you can get at that price point.

GTX760 vs 670:
The 670's cost more than the 760's. Many of the 670's are $350 while brand new 770's with higher performance cost $400!

I'd recommend a 760 for $260, but go much above that and I'd recommend something like the Asus GTX770 OC...
Sort by date Sort by votes


Highly doubt it? It can easily do over 60fps on ultra. The 760 is a few frames weaker than a 670, but look at the 670 benchmark:

battlefield-1920.png



If you can run BF3 you run BF4, although it might be a bit more demanding, but should run fine. No reason to buy a 760, get a 670 or a 770.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That's with no AA, and probably not in worst case scenario, i.e. 64 player map. Also the 670 is more powerful than the 760.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No. During a 64 person match you will get above 60 easily with the occasional dip into 50s. That is with AA, it's called "MSAA X4" another type of AA like FXAA or TXAA.

Like I mentioned above, the OP should get a 670, it's better than a 760, well priced, and can do BF3 over 60FPS at 1080p in MP. Also I already mentioned the 670 is more powerful a couple times....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Useful benchmark:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_760_TF_Gaming/27.html

My BF3 experience:
I have a good GTX680 (3-slot Asus at 1201MHz boost). It's comparable to an overclocked 770.

I can ALMOST run BF3 at max settings, 1080p, 60Hz. Very rarely do I dip. The quality difference between where I'm out now and the absolute max would be almost unnoticeable.

*If you're looking for an inexpensive, good card, get the MSI N760 TF. It's the best value you can get at that price point.

GTX760 vs 670:
The 670's cost more than the 760's. Many of the 670's are $350 while brand new 770's with higher performance cost $400!

I'd recommend a 760 for $260, but go much above that and I'd recommend something like the Asus GTX770 OC card.

When you play a game like BF4, always remember to tweak. It's more important to maintain a mostly solid 60FPS experience than to crank up the quality setting to maximum and run at a lower frame rate.

Also, if you use VSYNC and don't tweak properly the actual game can drop to 30FPS and feel sluggish (not sure if FRAPS shows this correctly). If you turn VSYNC OFF to avoid this then you get screen tearing.

Summary:
- recommend MSI N760 TF
- tweak above 60FPS, run VSYNC
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
What this guy said, you can get a 670 for about 50-60 more from gigabyte, but it may not be really price/performance for you.

You will rarely ever dip in BF3 though, so you don't need v sync, it should run 60-80 pretty much all the time. On a single 670, I don't remember ever dipping below 60 ever on a 64 player match.

800 series comes out soon though, so you might wanna invest into that.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
this is all very speculative but..... bf3 uses frostbite 2 while bf4 uses frostbite 3. if the evolution of other games in years past are any indication, frostbite 3 will be about 50% more graphically intensive than frostbite 2. look for close to crysis 3 levels of hardware punishing. that said, a titan has trouble running crysis 3 fully maxed out at 1080p.

when bf3 came out, only the 6970/570/580 could max it out and stay above 40fps. i highly doubt they plan on releasing a game that is by far the most anticipated game of the year with tech that doesn't push the boundaries of computing power.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I actually own the Nvidia MSI GTX 760 oc/tf. and it is a wonderful card. I run bf3 with all settings maxed out and never drop below 65 frames EVER! The 760 is far better than the 670 and 660 with newer cooling technology and over all better card. the 760 uses the same processor as the 680 and you can actually buy a 4 gig version of the card for about $50 more. Also, my card has never gone over 72 degrees and you cannot hear the fans at all, i turned the fan speed to 100 percent and they barely purrr. Furthermore, the new fan technology allows you to run the fans at 100% for 3 years straight :) Best bang for your buck get a MSI 760 oc/tf and you will be happy. I clock my card 75 core clock over and I never drop below 80 frames :) If you want later, you can put 2 in SLI and you will have the same GPU power as a titan and you can clock them to surpass the titan for half the price!!!! :) Have fun :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I think BF4 wont be graphically intense as crysis 3 plus the drivers that will come out will optimize bf4 alot better then crysis 3 so yea i think he will be ok with a 760 and if not go sli
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Agree 100%, I faced the same decision 670 or 760, I went with the MSI twin frozr 760 O/C, used afterburner to boost the core clock to 1150 (boost to 1253mhz in game) and its quiet and cool. I set BF3 to ultra preset and it never dipped below 70 fps. I also went with the 4gb version and seriously, at ultra BF3 was using almost 1.9 GB of memory at one point and its a 2yr old game, just wait until BF4 and others are launched. Couldn't be happier with the 760.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Absolutely go with the GTX 760, OC if you want *I do...it's awesome on these cards, maybe 8-10% increase* and I highly suggest SLI when you can. I am running an FX-8350 @ 4.8** and just added a second EVGA 760, currently I have the highest Firestrike score for an AMD processor at 9463; could not be happier! I went from Xfire 7850s (OMG I am so mad at AMD and their horrible driver support, even though I benched 7700ish in 3Dmark, games felt like 2 FPS most of the time, yes I was running 13.10/.8 and every combination thereof) to a single 760 and it was smooooth as butter. I had an opportunity to pick up a second card for a great price and I did, no stuttering, pretty quiet, and I can crank everything up to Ultra on every game @ 1080p and beyond. Now I understand why people run i7's however, I see Firestrike scores in the 13000 range with 3960x', not sure if they hacked it for tess or not, but very impressive with these cards. To beat a Titan at half the price (on most resolutions) is just amazing. I am excited that AMD is moving forward in the audio department and API stuff for future, but currently Nvidia has them cooked just based on how smooth gameplay is. You will see that in reviews pitting the 690 against the 7990. I am not tied to any supplier/manufacturer, simply interested in the best price/performance/durability and support. Hope this helps!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


GTX 660, Ultra settings in BF4 @1080p and expect 60 fps? Show me because stock and OC will not support it, sorry to say...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Agreed.
It's an old post, but I'm always baffled when people report numbers that are WAY above benchmarks and other reported experiences.

In this benchmark, a GTX480 with Ultra settings in BF4 can only get 28FPS average and that's at only 1680x1050!!
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page2.html

That's probably also single-player, and it's with a better CPU than he has. He likely drops below 20FPS in Multi-player. Seriously, why do people post fake numbers like these? They are either confused on something, or lying.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I agree Completely lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Depends on the map too. (Longer blurb below), are people quoting the "performance test ?" how is this still broken....
Locker was always 20-30 fps higher (the new Metro) and seemed to be made for lower spec machines (view distance maybe).

--longer blurb follows--
I have to say I agree as well. Trolling maybe. But we need to consider the whole rig. An i5 ? really ? Running the FX-8350 will slow you down a little bit, not just because of the t-cycles (4Ghz AMD ~ 3.?GHz Intel), but PCIe v2 is a little slower, and because the on-die cache could have been larger. .

I have played over 100 hours of BF4 on a 6yo skulltrail at 3.6GHz (it's summer here) with 2 GTS250's in SLi, on 32 bit VIsta.
Graphics are still good. 55% CPU, and this is PCIe 1 . Only on the boats (miniguns) is it truly awful.

I have played on Titans too, I have three kids, my general observsation is that on auto the game probes the performance of the machine on every round, and "adjusts" for at least 40fps + on Auto. (most of the time it is 60-80) This seems to be the lower limit for gameplay anticipated by dice. It may even change on a map by map basis ? Small changes in hardware have made enormous differences.

The Nvidia optimisation for the high end cards is still seriously buggy, my advice is to just plug it in and choose Auto. Unless you mine bitcoin overnight, I cannot see where the extra thousands of dollars are worth it. I don't need 2160 yet. Does anyone ?

With a GTX760 you should not notice the difference between Auto and Ultra in gameplay. and you should get 60fps..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom