How many frames BF4 Ultra?

[Tron_Impact]

Building a PC, how may frames will this build get on battlefield 4 ultra?

I am taking some of the parts from an old computer so I will link the specs of that.

GPU - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/geforce-gtx-770-2gb-gddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card/1826004.p?id=1219065626957&skuId=1826004&st=770&cp=1&lp=3
CPU - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/core-8482-i5-4670k-3-4ghz-processor/1420917.p?id=1219051768459&skuId=1420917&st=i5-4670k&cp=1&lp=1
Fan/PSU - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/cx-series-modular-cx750m-750w-atx-power-supply/8324202.p?id=1218872214205&skuId=8324202&st=750w&cp=1&lp=2
Motherboard - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130693
Other Specs (8GB RAM 1 TB HARDDRIVE) -http://h20565.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/kb/docDisplay/?javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.prp_ba847bafb2a2d782fcbb0710b053ce01=wsrp-navigationalState%3DdocId%253Demr_na-c03673337-4%257CdocLocale%253D%257CcalledBy%253D&javax.portlet.tpst=ba847bafb2a2d782fcbb0710b053ce01&sp4ts.oid=5330777&ac.admitted=1384822594417.876444892.492883150
CPU COOLER - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099

If my cooler can handle it I was looking to overclock my CPU


Any other suggestions will help out thank you so much!

 

[Tom Tancredi]

Ultra NO on i5, that is i7 level demands. You could TRY but really 8-15fps? If you want BF4 Ultra 64man MMO with HeliPod shooting its load at you and keep 120FPS is not really possible, but around 50-60 with a i7 and say your 770 would be more practical. I was on High to Ultra on my 1st Gen i7 during Beta, 16GB RAM (yes this does matter!) SSD for Windows (to keep Windows from lagging me) 670M 1.5Gb video, and still had apps running in the backgroun (email, im, etc.) and I was still cranking 50-60fps during then if that help.

 

[Xtian1911]

Depends on what resolution are you going to play.

Here

Your system can pretty much handle it within very playable framerates. If you want a smooth finish I should recommend a 280x simply because AMD's new cards are BF4 optimized

 

[Xtian1911]

Ultra NO on i5, that is i7 level demands. You could TRY but really 8-15fps? If you want BF4 Ultra 64man MMO with HeliPod shooting its load at you and keep 120FPS is not really possible, but around 50-60 with a i7 and say your 770 would be more practical. I was on High to Ultra on my 1st Gen i7 during Beta, 16GB RAM (yes this does matter!) SSD for Windows (to keep Windows from lagging me) 670M 1.5Gb video, and still had apps running in the backgroun (email, im, etc.) and I was still cranking 50-60fps during then if that help.

seems you rly dont know anything and not have any clue

Yeah so much for a NOOB opinion from a guy with a GFX card expert tag.

Going back to the topic.

Your system will be fine. Even if its a first gen i5 it can still have playable framerates in BF4. Tweak it on Very High Settings and you will surely have smooth playing experience and you wont even notice the difference. Downside is BF4 crashes and you won't prolly figure out if its the card or the game itself. Not unless you stress your card for a few days.

I have a similar system (i5 4670k, 4x2gb gskillsripjawXCL9, ASRock z87 pro3) and I am buying a Sapphire 270x soon and BF4.

See you there! 😀

 

[Tom Tancredi]

kristianAA: Don't be tossing just rude comments that don't help address the OP question, THAT is a troll point, to just make a comment inflamitory and NOT assist in the discussion.


1) The OP isn't asking if his combo is 'fine'. His purpose (with no extra details) was to play ULTRA (all settings max, 8xAA, 8xAF, etc.) mode on BF4 and know how many frames he will get based on a i5Core system.
No explicit "Yeah plugged into three 1920x1080 using Eyefinity" or "on a 1400x900 single LCD" nor what he would fine acceptable "yeah if it aint' doing 120FPS I don't want that rig then". So the expectations could be WAY OUT THERE UNREALISTIC just because he is buying a excellent video card, but not realizing he will STILL be limited by a i5 if he was trying for 'extreme' levels (i.e. ULTRA everything).

2) Xtian1911 if you realize what you POSTED with the specs, that is based on a i7-3970X, 16GB @2400Mhz, with the system optimized on a SSD OCZ Vertex 3!! This is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR CLOSE TO THE OP! The OP has half the memory running half the speed (he is cannibalizing it off the old HP IF YOU READ WHAT HE POSTED) and on a 7200RPM TB Drive.

Further THAT test system IS what I SAID (I7 Core and more extreme setup for a Gamer) would perform ALOT better for ULTRA settings, but IT was tested with AA Off, AND IF YOU EVEN READ IT, the OP card he is getting (770) on THAT extreme rig does 45 to 66. Again, I mentioned on MINE I was doing 40-50 (670M on a i7 First Gen) to demonstrate to the OP the comparision for his i5. IF you bothered to get the OP Specs you would get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cj8RP4kEGo @ 2:57 till the end WHICH also showed your same spec picture from the Russian Game site FYI.

Again to SUMMERIZE: i5 Core, WILL BOTTLENECK as compared to a i7Core (DUH!) when using HIGHER END game cards (i.e. OPs 770) and wanting to go ULTRA / EXTREME settings.

 

[Tom Tancredi]

....

....

yeah 15 fps on i5😀 i ahve watched hispost he is total joke, i hope no1 takes his advises srsly but no point discussin over some internet troll😀

Here kid... http://www.amazon.com/The-Merriam-Webster-Dictionary/dp/087779930X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385498894&sr=8-1&keywords=Dictionary

If your going to write something in public it is best to use PROPER English. You Capitalize the first letter of the first word in a sentence,
I ' s are capitalized, there is no ahve it is have, srsly is spelled seriously, advises doesn't exist it is advices, discussin isn't a word it is discussion.

So like seriously man, like maybe spend more time in the English class and passing basic skills then with the homees trolling the threads would help alot more 😛 (SIC)

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Lets be civil in this thread please.

 

[iceclock]

your cooler can handle it, and should run nicely in ultra. atleast 40fps+

 

[iceclock]

the 280x is a better deal. i dont agree about ur comments about the rest. but yes the 280x is a better deal and only does 3-4 frames less at stock onced overclock is beast.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/radeon-r9-280x-graphic-card-1070-mhz-core-3-gb-gddr5-sdram-pci-express-3-0/1309056934.p?id=mp1309056934&skuId=1309056934&st=radeon%20280&cp=1&lp=1

for 322 is beast

 

[CplusPlus2]

the 280x is a better deal. i dont agree about ur comments about the rest. but yes the 280x is a better deal and only does 3-4 frames less at stock onced overclock is beast.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/radeon-r9-280x-graphic-card-1070-mhz-core-3-gb-gddr5-sdram-pci-express-3-0/1309056934.p?id=mp1309056934&skuId=1309056934&st=radeon%20280&cp=1&lp=1

for 322 is beast

it does 3-4 frames MORE

And here it is for $300. http://us.ncix.com/products/?usaffiliateid=1000031504&sku=90920&vpn=GV-R928XOC-3GD&manufacture=Gigabyte&promoid=1284

I'm not an oc expert but i'd say this version has a better OC capability due to it's 3 fans.

 

[iceclock]

We'll that's even better

 

[Deleted member 217926]

the 280x is a better deal. i dont agree about ur comments about the rest. but yes the 280x is a better deal and only does 3-4 frames less at stock onced overclock is beast.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/radeon-r9-280x-graphic-card-1070-mhz-core-3-gb-gddr5-sdram-pci-express-3-0/1309056934.p?id=mp1309056934&skuId=1309056934&st=radeon%20280&cp=1&lp=1

for 322 is beast

it does 3-4 frames MORE

And here it is for $300. http://us.ncix.com/products/?usaffiliateid=1000031504&sku=90920&vpn=GV-R928XOC-3GD&manufacture=Gigabyte&promoid=1284

I'm not an oc expert but i'd say this version has a better OC capability due to it's 3 fans.

Not sure where you got the graph but HardOCP just did a very good acrticle comparing Windows 7 to Windows 8 in BF4 and those numbers are not even close.

Read it here.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/24/battlefield_4_windows_7_vs_81_performance_review/1#.UpUvNGeA200

At 2560 x 1440 4x MSAA/16x AF Ultra Settings

" What we want to point out with this test is the difference in the video cards performance against each other versus OS. For example, the R9 290X performs 63.9 FPS on average under Windows 8.1. The GTX 780 performs 61.7 FPS under Windows 8.1. The R9 290X has an advantage of 3.5%

Now, under Windows 7 the R9 290X has a performance advantage over the GTX 780 of 7%.

What this means is that under Windows 7 there was a wider gap in performance between the 290X and 780. However, simply by upgrading the OS the performance narrows between the cards to a much lesser 3.5% difference. This means upgrading the OS has brought the cards together in performance a lot closer than it was under Windows 7."

 

[iceclock]

Interesting

 

[Xtian1911]

kristianAA: Don't be tossing just rude comments that don't help address the OP question, THAT is a troll point, to just make a comment inflamitory and NOT assist in the discussion.


1) The OP isn't asking if his combo is 'fine'. His purpose (with no extra details) was to play ULTRA (all settings max, 8xAA, 8xAF, etc.) mode on BF4 and know how many frames he will get based on a i5Core system.
No explicit "Yeah plugged into three 1920x1080 using Eyefinity" or "on a 1400x900 single LCD" nor what he would fine acceptable "yeah if it aint' doing 120FPS I don't want that rig then". So the expectations could be WAY OUT THERE UNREALISTIC just because he is buying a excellent video card, but not realizing he will STILL be limited by a i5 if he was trying for 'extreme' levels (i.e. ULTRA everything).

2) Xtian1911 if you realize what you POSTED with the specs, that is based on a i7-3970X, 16GB @2400Mhz, with the system optimized on a SSD OCZ Vertex 3!! This is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR CLOSE TO THE OP! The OP has half the memory running half the speed (he is cannibalizing it off the old HP IF YOU READ WHAT HE POSTED) and on a 7200RPM TB Drive.

Further THAT test system IS what I SAID (I7 Core and more extreme setup for a Gamer) would perform ALOT better for ULTRA settings, but IT was tested with AA Off, AND IF YOU EVEN READ IT, the OP card he is getting (770) on THAT extreme rig does 45 to 66. Again, I mentioned on MINE I was doing 40-50 (670M on a i7 First Gen) to demonstrate to the OP the comparision for his i5. IF you bothered to get the OP Specs you would get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cj8RP4kEGo @ 2:57 till the end WHICH also showed your same spec picture from the Russian Game site FYI.

Again to SUMMERIZE: i5 Core, WILL BOTTLENECK as compared to a i7Core (DUH!) when using HIGHER END game cards (i.e. OPs 770) and wanting to go ULTRA / EXTREME settings.

Actually it wont. Though battlefield4 is multi threaded and would even support up to 8 threads the i5 4670k is more than capable of running it. Do not worry IT WILL NOT BE A BOTTLENECK for a fact that you can still even OC it since it is the unlocked version.

The critical part of this is the GPU. Most games are GPU dependent. I will prove it this weekend when I get my 270x

 

[iceclock]

games are gpu bound, and trhe 4670k is sweet and will do well in games. enought said.

 

[slimething]

The older benchmarks aren't that reliable IMO. Having recorded several rounds after the patches and newer drivers, here are the latest results on my setup ran today if it helps any:

System:
Fresh build
Win 8.1 Pro
i7 4770k
Gigabyte 280x
16 gb ram
Samsung Syncmaster P2770 monitor
No overclocking or tweaking; straight out of the box.

I tried to stay in the most intense fighting areas and minimize death counts. The high FPS between dying and respawns/revives doesn't affect the average much when playing long rounds and trying to keep deaths to a minimum.

Game video settings:
Ultra, AA Post High, 4x MSAA, HBAO
1920 x 1080p


FRAPS results (started after map loaded and stopped just before round ending):

Run #1:
64 player full server, Operation Locker TDM, Normal mode, fast respawn. For this round my K/D was 22/7.
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
88077, 1190297, 44, 114, 73.996

Run #2:
64 player full server, Operation Locker, Conquest, Hardcore Mode, normal respawn, For this round my K/D was 13/17
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
76619, 942625, 50, 120, 81.283

 

[IIFellerII]

Well, You should be fine running BF4 on Ultra.
I am using a i5 3570k on 4,1Ghz with GTX660Ti and Ultra on 50-70fps (2x AA)
My friend has the i5 4th generation stock with GTX760 on 70-90fps (no AA)

to your question on your CPU Cooler, yes it should easily handle it.

I wouldn't take the advice of Tom, he has only played the Beta and the Beta was laggy as hell, that's why it's called a "Beta".
The new BF4 is fine now since the new patches, less drops, no crashes, everything ok.

 

[slimething]

Well, You should be fine running BF4 on Ultra.
I am using a i5 3570k on 4,1Ghz with GTX660Ti and Ultra on 50-70fps (2x AA)
My friend has the i5 4th generation stock with GTX760 on 70-90fps (no AA)

to your question on your CPU Cooler, yes it should easily handle it.

I wouldn't take the advice of Tom, he has only played the Beta and the Beta was laggy as hell, that's why it's called a "Beta".
The new BF4 is fine now since the new patches, less drops, no crashes, everything ok.

Agreed. I don't know why so much emphasis was placed on beta tests; they were essentially meaningless. The graphics and FPS are smooth even at the lower settings.

Even with my old system 965BE w/6970HD the game is quite playable, save the memory leak issue. My son's laptop with i7 and 650m runs just fine, granted at medium settings.

 

[slimething]

kristianAA: Don't be tossing just rude comments that don't help address the OP question, THAT is a troll point, to just make a comment inflamitory and NOT assist in the discussion.


1) The OP isn't asking if his combo is 'fine'. His purpose (with no extra details) was to play ULTRA (all settings max, 8xAA, 8xAF, etc.) mode on BF4 and know how many frames he will get based on a i5Core system.
No explicit "Yeah plugged into three 1920x1080 using Eyefinity" or "on a 1400x900 single LCD" nor what he would fine acceptable "yeah if it aint' doing 120FPS I don't want that rig then". So the expectations could be WAY OUT THERE UNREALISTIC just because he is buying a excellent video card, but not realizing he will STILL be limited by a i5 if he was trying for 'extreme' levels (i.e. ULTRA everything).

2) Xtian1911 if you realize what you POSTED with the specs, that is based on a i7-3970X, 16GB @2400Mhz, with the system optimized on a SSD OCZ Vertex 3!! This is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR CLOSE TO THE OP! The OP has half the memory running half the speed (he is cannibalizing it off the old HP IF YOU READ WHAT HE POSTED) and on a 7200RPM TB Drive.

Further THAT test system IS what I SAID (I7 Core and more extreme setup for a Gamer) would perform ALOT better for ULTRA settings, but IT was tested with AA Off, AND IF YOU EVEN READ IT, the OP card he is getting (770) on THAT extreme rig does 45 to 66. Again, I mentioned on MINE I was doing 40-50 (670M on a i7 First Gen) to demonstrate to the OP the comparision for his i5. IF you bothered to get the OP Specs you would get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cj8RP4kEGo @ 2:57 till the end WHICH also showed your same spec picture from the Russian Game site FYI.

Again to SUMMERIZE: i5 Core, WILL BOTTLENECK as compared to a i7Core (DUH!) when using HIGHER END game cards (i.e. OPs 770) and wanting to go ULTRA / EXTREME settings.

2nd gen i5 is on bar or better than 1st gen i7 and 3rd gen i5 is alot faster than that i7 of yours
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/454/Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-920.html
To prove again you are wrong msaa/fxsaa depends on gpu not on cpu. 4th gen i7 is like 2-3 fps faster than 4th gen i5 in gaming
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_4670K_and_i7_4770K_Comparison/8.html
You can play 130-140 extra usd for 2 fps but other people will spend on that extra on gpu and get still alot faster perfomance than with i7 its better if you do alot rendering/editing/streaming while playing same time even then 8350 would do same thing without loseing any perfomance

The OP is about BF4. The link you provided is for BF3 which for the i7 is 8 FPS higher than the i5.

Being a long time AMD user, switching back to Intel had to bring some significant improvements. For whatever reasons, the i7 4770k seems to really bring BF4 to life in real world playing. Before building my latest box last weekend, I waited for some patches and graphics drivers to come out so the hardware could be better evaluated before deciding what combination to use.

I dare say if I replaced the i7 4770 with an i5 4670 there would be >70 FPS avg with zero lag spikes (low FPS). Look at my tests; they are just two of several which have yet to yield <70 FPS avg and <45 for the low.

The i5 has had its 15 minutes of fame. Give it a rest. The OP hardware list will be fine, but it all depends on how much eye candy is desired.

Those pretty graphs above are meaningless anyway.

 

[slimething]

kristianAA: Don't be tossing just rude comments that don't help address the OP question, THAT is a troll point, to just make a comment inflamitory and NOT assist in the discussion.


1) The OP isn't asking if his combo is 'fine'. His purpose (with no extra details) was to play ULTRA (all settings max, 8xAA, 8xAF, etc.) mode on BF4 and know how many frames he will get based on a i5Core system.
No explicit "Yeah plugged into three 1920x1080 using Eyefinity" or "on a 1400x900 single LCD" nor what he would fine acceptable "yeah if it aint' doing 120FPS I don't want that rig then". So the expectations could be WAY OUT THERE UNREALISTIC just because he is buying a excellent video card, but not realizing he will STILL be limited by a i5 if he was trying for 'extreme' levels (i.e. ULTRA everything).

2) Xtian1911 if you realize what you POSTED with the specs, that is based on a i7-3970X, 16GB @2400Mhz, with the system optimized on a SSD OCZ Vertex 3!! This is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR CLOSE TO THE OP! The OP has half the memory running half the speed (he is cannibalizing it off the old HP IF YOU READ WHAT HE POSTED) and on a 7200RPM TB Drive.

Further THAT test system IS what I SAID (I7 Core and more extreme setup for a Gamer) would perform ALOT better for ULTRA settings, but IT was tested with AA Off, AND IF YOU EVEN READ IT, the OP card he is getting (770) on THAT extreme rig does 45 to 66. Again, I mentioned on MINE I was doing 40-50 (670M on a i7 First Gen) to demonstrate to the OP the comparision for his i5. IF you bothered to get the OP Specs you would get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cj8RP4kEGo @ 2:57 till the end WHICH also showed your same spec picture from the Russian Game site FYI.

Again to SUMMERIZE: i5 Core, WILL BOTTLENECK as compared to a i7Core (DUH!) when using HIGHER END game cards (i.e. OPs 770) and wanting to go ULTRA / EXTREME settings.

2nd gen i5 is on bar or better than 1st gen i7 and 3rd gen i5 is alot faster than that i7 of yours
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/454/Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-920.html
To prove again you are wrong msaa/fxsaa depends on gpu not on cpu. 4th gen i7 is like 2-3 fps faster than 4th gen i5 in gaming
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_4670K_and_i7_4770K_Comparison/8.html
You can play 130-140 extra usd for 2 fps but other people will spend on that extra on gpu and get still alot faster perfomance than with i7 its better if you do alot rendering/editing/streaming while playing same time even then 8350 would do same thing without loseing any perfomance

The OP is about BF4. The link you provided is for BF3 which for the i7 is 8 FPS higher than the i5.

Being a long time AMD user, switching back to Intel had to bring some significant improvements. For whatever reasons, the i7 4770k seems to really bring BF4 to life in real world playing.

Those pretty graphs above are meaningless.

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1061&page=3
I dont think bf4 uses more cpu than metro or uniengine 4.0 and difference in ultra is like 0.5 fps conclusion is you dont need i7 to run battlefiled 4 on ultra

Uh huh.

Ok, I just played a few rounds of BF3 Metro, 64 player, Conquest, normal mode. All settings on Ultra etc., typical nade fest and constant explosions.

Full round:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
153664, 1099438, 66, 198, 139.766

This isn't all GPU doing this. Show me one i5 that even comes close to those numbers. I'm not saying it is necessary, but let's be honest about this ok? BF4 most definitely uses more of something, and I'll bet it isn't just the video card.

Micro Center has/had one heck of a deal for a i7 4770k and mobo combo. Today I see the CPU is on sale for $250. http://www.microcenter.com/product/413248/Core_i7_4770K_35GHz_Socket_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

Throw in a low cost mobo, 280x and you've got a killer setup for not much more than a i5 or 8320/8350.

I had my mind set on a nVidia 780, but so far this 280x is performing above expectations.

Edit: If I had a AM3+, Micro Center has the 8320 for $100!! My rig was almost 5 years old anyway and maxed out for playing BF4, but that certainly would have been tempting to make it last longer. OTOH, I don't generally OC much (maybe 10% max if required) and don't think saving $50-100 on a CPU and turning around to buy a $50-200 cooler so it be OC'd to near death makes much sense. To each his own.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

OP has not replied to this thread once and it just continues to devolve into an argument not worth having. I am closing the thread before people start getting banned.,