Jump to content

Do you think that Titanfall requires a better PC than it does to play BF4?

DanielTheBest

Which one do you think requires a better computer? 

I have been told that with my computer I would get 140+ fps with ultra settings on BF4, but on Titanfall I would get 110+ fps on ultra settings. 

Is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would not think so what are your specs and if you do not mind me asking who told you this

Christian and Proud of it

Please read the CoC                                                                                                                                                                                                                              My Build Log 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Titanfall requires better PC specs than BF4. What are your current PC specs?

 

Spoiler

-

CPU:Ryzen 9 5900X GPU: Asus GTX 1080ti Strix MB: Asus Crosshair Viii Hero RAM: G.Skill Trident Neo CPU Cooler: Corsair H110

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

BF4 on ultra 1080P requires a very good PC to keep the FPS over 60 AT ALL TIME, Titanfall on ultra 1080P, hell no, a $800 PC could run it perfectly at 60FPS all the time, at least from what I saw with my friends low budget builds.

VIDEO GAMES                                  Max Power Build Log

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck no. Titanfall is a pretty easy game to run if you have a decent GPU, but BF4 requires a high end GPU to stay above 60fps (ultra @ 1080p).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

BF4 is more demanding.

Case: Corsair 4000D Airflow; Motherboard: MSI ZZ490 Gaming Edge; CPU: i7 10700K @ 5.1GHz; Cooler: Noctua NHD15S Chromax; RAM: Corsair LPX DDR4 32GB 3200MHz; Graphics Card: Asus RTX 3080 TUF; Power: EVGA SuperNova 750G2; Storage: 2 x Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Crucial M500 240GB & MX100 512GB; Keyboard: Logitech G710+; Mouse: Logitech G502; Headphones / Amp: HiFiMan Sundara Mayflower Objective 2; Monitor: Asus VG27AQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's using a modified Source engine, so you don't necessarily need a powerful rig.

 

Unless you want all the frames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Tittyfall wouldn't need a more powerful PC, it runs on that same engine as Call of Duty 1.

....................................................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

....................................................................

Wut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Titanfall (beta) ran like absolute dogshit on my rig compared to the Battlefield 4 beta. I was surprised as it's pretty much using the Source engine. I think a lot of people are underestimating the power needed to run it with decent FPS.

 

Dunno what you're talking about, this game runs smooth as a river on both my GTX 470, 560Ti and 760.

 

Only people on integrated graphics struggle with the game, because of the greatly varied textures.

 

Dunno about AMD, but AMD usually has struggles on brand new games due to their slower driver development.

 

Multi-GPU setups also aren't perfect yet in TF.

In case the moderators do not ban me as requested, this is a notice that I have left and am not coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 7950 would not run the beta with 16x AA on Ultra because it maxed out its 3GBs of VRAM at 1080p. Shame on you respawn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm averaging around 60-90 in combat and in BF4 around 120-150 with a single 780. Titanfall is just intensiver on the gpu but BF4 is intensiver on the CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Tittyfall wouldn't need a more powerful PC, it runs on that same engine as Call of Duty 1.

it runs off source engine, ala HL2 engine

 

so it should work REALLY well on modern hardware, and be very scalable,

Desktop - Corsair 300r i7 4770k H100i MSI 780ti 16GB Vengeance Pro 2400mhz Crucial MX100 512gb Samsung Evo 250gb 2 TB WD Green, AOC Q2770PQU 1440p 27" monitor Laptop Clevo W110er - 11.6" 768p, i5 3230m, 650m GT 2gb, OCZ vertex 4 256gb,  4gb ram, Server: Fractal Define Mini, MSI Z78-G43, Intel G3220, 8GB Corsair Vengeance, 4x 3tb WD Reds in Raid 10, Phone Oppo Reno 10x 256gb , Camera Sony A7iii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen under 70fps at all with my 290.

If MINFPS is 70fps, I'd like to see the maximums..

Maximums - Asus Z97-K /w i5 4690 Bclk @106.9Mhz * x39 = 4.17Ghz, 8GB of 2600Mhz DDR3,.. Gigabyte GTX970 G1-Gaming @ 1550Mhz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Tittyfall wouldn't need a more powerful PC, it runs on that same engine as Call of Duty 1.

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

 

It runs on a heavily modified source engine, not the IW engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

 

It runs on a heavily modified source engine, not the IW engine.

......

 

It was......

a....

.......joke.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×