Best Gpu for Battlefield without breaking the Bank

[Speiner]

So here's my build atm

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/7xMGbv

What I'm wondering is do u think I can get away with something other than a 780 in battlefield and get 60-70+ fps on high or even medium. And if u are running something less than a 780 and u could post a pic of ur fps that would be awesome

[Firearm2112]

If its mainly for battlefield, get an AMD card, cause mantle

[Horrorfull]

290x is a couple bucks cheaper than the 780. I get 130+FPS Ultra 1080p with mantle. I can play at 5760x1080 at a stable 60+fps if i turn down the graphics to med.

 

Future AAA games will have mantle so yeah there's that.

[mapegl]

a 280 should be enough for medium.

 

 

I have a 290 and it is much cheaper and very powerful for playing battlefield on ultra 60fps.

[TheRetiredSlave]

I haven't really payed attention to my BF4 framerates recently, but the numbers that I recall off the top of my head are this (single GTX 780 and 4770K, both OC'd):

-Solid 120 FPS (v-synced to 120, btw) on medium/high/custom at 1920x1080

-~60 FPS on Ultra/custom at 2560x1440 

[SeanBond]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mwv8bv

[Levent]

a 280 should be enough for medium.

 

 

I have a 290 and it is much cheaper and very powerful for playing battlefield on ultra 60fps.

"medium" ? i play the game on ultra (without AA) with my 7850 (DX11) get steady 60fps

[Syntaxvgm]

880 comes out in September according to gigabyte. Maybe wait for that? 

[Syntaxvgm]

"medium" ? i play the game on ultra with my 7850 (DX11) get steady 60fps

yah 

[mapegl]

"medium" ? i play the game on ultra (without AA) with my 7850 (DX11) get steady 60fps

Well steady 60fps for me is that it won't dip any lower than that. Unless you play on a 720p screen that seems hard to accomplish with anything lower than a 290x or 780ti.....or if you only play TDM, that is not as demanding. Even my 290 will dip to about 55 in some scenarios expecially "Paracel Storm".

I don't mean to offend, it just is hard to believe.

 

And I owned a 280 before and that thing dropped down to 40fps at times on full settings, as well as my 7950 boost before that.

[Speiner]

880 comes out in September according to gigabyte. Maybe wait for that?

ya I won't be buying this til Black Friday so I'll wait til next gen then make my decision

[Roddy189]

I have a 780 and get around 45-50ish on 5760 x 1080. and on average around 120 with 1920 x 1080. I'd say the 780 is a little over priced compared to an R9 290 as there is very little difference between the two. Personally I'd say go with a 770 or a 280 (4gb versions) 

 

Good choice with the Evo, although if you do save some cash with a cheaper GPU I'd suggest maybe 250GB as opposed to 120GB as it really can run out of space quite fast once you see how quick loading times go down with it.

[Levent]

Well steady 60fps for me is that it won't dip any lower than that. Unless you play on a 720p screen that seems hard to accomplish with anything lower than a 290x or 780ti.....or if you only play TDM, that is not as demanding. Even my 290 will dip to about 55 in some scenarios expecially "Paracel Storm".

I don't mean to offend, it just is hard to believe.

 

And I owned a 280 before and that thing dropped down to 40fps at times on full settings, as well as my 7950 boost before that.

you are correct on paracel storm but it doesnt dip below 50 which completely acceptable and you can always switch to mantle besides than that no, steady 60fps

[IBIubbleTea]

AMD because of mantle. I have a R9 290 and I have been using Mantle for Battlefield 4 and I find that the game is so much smoother. We all know that the Dragons Teeth DLC frame rate sucks right? Turn on Mantle. SMOOTH with more frames

[loccilucas]

So here's my build atm

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/7xMGbv

What I'm wondering is do u think I can get away with something other than a 780 in battlefield and get 60-70+ fps on high or even medium. And if u are running something less than a 780 and u could post a pic of ur fps that would be awesome

A 280x will run the game ultra 60+fps. If my 660ti can do it, a 280x definitely can.

[loccilucas]

Well steady 60fps for me is that it won't dip any lower than that. Unless you play on a 720p screen that seems hard to accomplish with anything lower than a 290x or 780ti.....or if you only play TDM, that is not as demanding. Even my 290 will dip to about 55 in some scenarios expecially "Paracel Storm".

I don't mean to offend, it just is hard to believe.

 

And I owned a 280 before and that thing dropped down to 40fps at times on full settings, as well as my 7950 boost before that.

Honestly I don't know what it is but for some people BF4 is really hard to run and for others its really easy to run. I play on ultra/very high at 60+fps.....with a 660ti. So I believe everything @Levent said.

[Nineshadow]

My 560 runs BF3 at high settings, 1680 x 1050 at around 50 fps.

 

R9 280 (x) would be the best performance/price you'd need at 1080p.

[Timopomer]

my 770 runs bf3 at max 1080p 90 fps+ at all times

[Muzicfreq]

a 280 should be enough for medium.

 

 

I have a 290 and it is much cheaper and very powerful for playing battlefield on ultra 60fps.

..........

Medium? if that were the case then DANG! AMD IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE!

But I know better and know that is can do ultra from what seems to be 40-60fps so toning it down to very high or high will be more than enough.

 

medium... heh

[Brawly]

I'm running Ultra smoothly on a 280X and an i5 4690k.

[Deletive]

..........

Medium? if that were the case then DANG! AMD IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE!

But I know better and know that is can do ultra from what seems to be 40-60fps so toning it down to very high or high will be more than enough.

 

medium... heh

lol my 750ti can do medium at 70-80... 60 at high

[mapegl]

I feel like we are talking about different scenarios here....oh well.

 

I would say proof (vids or pics) or it didn't happen.

I would love to see a 660ti or 7850 go 60+fps at all times on ultra without dipping below that mark and if you proof me wrong, i will go staight ahead and buy a 660ti for my second PC.

 

I am not saying anyone is lying here, I don't want to offend anyone,  I am just really interested in actual performance numbers and I gave mine.

What I said about my 280 was the worst fps I got, Ultra around 40. I don't want to tell the OP to get one and then realize that in some cases he will experience worse fps than he was asking for.

[Syntaxvgm]

I feel like we are talking about different scenarios here....oh well.

 

I would say proof (vids or pics) or it didn't happen.

I would love to see a 660ti or 7850 go 60+fps at all times on ultra without dipping below that mark and if you proof me wrong, i will go staight ahead and buy a 660ti for my second PC.

 

I am not saying anyone is lying here, I don't want to offend anyone,  I am just really interested in actual performance numbers and I gave mine.

What I said about my 280 was the worst fps I got, Ultra around 40. I don't want to tell the OP to get one and then realize that in some cases he will experience worse fps than he was asking for.

well idk about ultra but yea high. A lot of people play games on "ultra" settings but not "maxed". 95% of benchmarks you find out there are with every single setting turned up, and a lot of people don't realize that, which leads to people overbuying.  For high or even ultra settings without everything maxed you will get a lot better performance with lesser cards.

This is the 280x on ultra for bf4 

Great fps, and the uploader says the recording software drops 5-15 from that number. 

I could not find a 280 vid for bf4, but I didn't look for long. 

[Nakoron]

AMD 280 or if it's cheap enough an 280x


/thread

[lachyman]

I never dip below 60FPS at max settings with my 780 and before with my 660 I had smooth 60FPS at high.