Nice question! :D

[Tenge500]

Motherboard:

Intel DP965LT - 8 years old

RAM:

4x1GB 667mhz ddr2 Kingston - 8 years old

HDD:

WDB 200GB (186gb usable) - 8 years old

CPU:

Intel Core 2 Duo @2.4ghz - 8 years old

GPU:

Asus GTX750TI OC 2GB GDDR5 dual fan - most recent

PSU: Corsair CX430 Builder - most recent

OS: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate

Question:

How will Battlefield 4 run?

(Average fps on X settings pls)

[Kevin_Walter]

I don't think a core 2 duo is going to run BF4 outside of the campaign... and even then, it'll probably chug.

[Dabombinable]

Motherboard:

Intel DP965LT - 8 years old

RAM:

4x1GB 667mhz ddr2 Kingston - 8 years old

HDD:

WDB 200GB (186gb usable) - 8 years old

CPU:

Intel Core 2 Duo @2.4ghz - 8 years old

GPU:

Asus GTX750TI OC 2GB GDDR5 dual fan - most recent

PSU: Corsair CX430 Builder - most recent

OS: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate

Question:

How will Battlefield 4 run?

(Average fps on X settings pls)

Just looking at the clock speed of your Core 2 Duo, it might run but not at playable framerates. Mine at its stock 3.1GHz was only able to average 37FPS.

I don't think a core 2 duo is going to run BF4 outside of the campaign... and even then, it'll probably chug.

I had mine running BF4 without too many problems when overclocked to 4GHz, but it really struggled on the most part.

[Tenge500]

Just looking at the clock speed of your Core 2 Duo, it might run but not at playable framerates. Mine at its stock 3.1GHz was only able to average 37FPS.

I had mine running BF4 without too many problems when overclocked to 4GHz, but it really struggled on the most part.

Average 37 fps is awesome what are you talking about?

Please answer my question correctly...

How mucb average fps will I get approx ~ on which settings?

[AnimeDudeJ]

60 fps is overrated imo... anything over 35-40 is OK

 

though dont turn down 60fps if you have the choice

[Stomplar]

yep. 35-45 fps is smooth enough. But some folks here are so spoiled rotten they will fight tooth and nail. Why? im not sure. Spite maybe.

[typographie]

"Average," strictly speaking, might be in the 30's–40's due to the reasonable GPU, but minimum framerate is far more relevant in this case. CPU-related lag in BF4 usually looks like huge drop-offs when a lot of mayhem/physics is happening around you, rather than a lower constant framerate at all times. Something like turning to face an exploding tank behind you, and instantly dropping to 5-10 FPS for a few crucial moments.

 

I play on a Core i5-750. It's good enough for an enjoyable experience, but it's occasionally very apparent that I'm using a 4-year-old processor. I'm glad I don't have one slower than that.

[Dabombinable]

yep. 35-45 fps is smooth enough. But some folks here are so spoiled rotten they will fight tooth and nail. Why? im not sure. Spite maybe.

I went from that at lowest settings with my old laptop, to 60FPS+ at the highest settings 1080p in any game, I can tell you right now that if that's what you game at, you do not know what your missing.

[-TesseracT-]

Just looking at the clock speed of your Core 2 Duo, it might run but not at playable framerates. Mine at its stock 3.1GHz was only able to average 37FPS.

I had mine running BF4 without too many problems when overclocked to 4GHz, but it really struggled on the most part.

You didn't even say on what settings, very useful information I must say.

[-TesseracT-]

yep. 35-45 fps is smooth enough. But some folks here are so spoiled rotten they will fight tooth and nail. Why? im not sure. Spite maybe.

Lol, anything lower than 60 is unplayable...

[Tenge500]

@typographie Your information provided is not useful at all. On what settings should I be getting 30-40? On low at 768p or what? 

 

Let me restate the question then:

 

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p ultra? 

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p high?

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p medium?

 

Coudl you answer 3 questions pls?

[Dabombinable]

You didn't even say on what settings, very useful information I must say.

On mid settings with no AA, I can't run the same tests on BF4 because the last update stopped the game from launching (pisses me off as I'd almost finished), but with Crysis 3 on the high preset, I had my 970 get bottlenecked by more than 50%, and that was with the 4GHz overclock.

[Dabombinable]

@typographie Your information provided is not useful at all. On what settings should I be getting 30-40? On low at 768p or what? 

 

Let me restate the question then:

 

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p ultra? 

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p high?

How much average FPS can I get on 1080p medium?

 

Coudl you answer 3 questions pls?

That is kind of difficult to show as I only have the older 650ti 2GB to compare with, but at 1024x768 (my old monitor) and when I was still using my 650ti, I was able to play with no lag at all with all of the settings in Crysis 3 on high (I didn't have BF4 then).  In all honesty though your CPU will really hold back the games you play, as you can see from mine at 4GHz.

[GrimNeo]

Lol, anything lower than 60 is unplayable...

I feel bad for the console owners. They get 30fps at best. But seriously 30fps or higher is playable or else people would not buy consoles lol.

[Kevin_Walter]

I feel bad for the console owners. They get 30fps at best. But seriously 30fps or higher is playable or else people would not buy consoles lol.

 

While I do agree that 30 is playable (it's the baseline I use when adjusting settings in single-player games), in multiplayer, it's another story entirely.

 

The biggest difference between PC and consoles is that on consoles, everyone is getting the same performance. This means that playing a multiplayer game on a console at 30fps is a more reliable experience than trying to play that same game on PC at the same framerate.

 

Most players in BF4 on PC are going to be playing their game with at least 60fps in mind. If you're playing at 30fps, you're at a distinct disadvantage.

 

So specifically when it comes to multiplayer games, I'm inclined to agree that "anything less than 60fps is unplayable".

[GrimNeo]

While I do agree that 30 is playable (it's the baseline I use when adjusting settings in single-player games), in multiplayer, it's another story entirely.

 

The biggest difference between PC and consoles is that on consoles, everyone is getting the same performance. This means that playing a multiplayer game on a console at 30fps is a more reliable experience than trying to play that same game on PC at the same framerate.

 

Most players in BF4 on PC are going to be playing their game with at least 60fps in mind. If you're playing at 30fps, you're at a distinct disadvantage.

 

So specifically when it comes to multiplayer games, I'm inclined to agree that "anything less than 60fps is unplayable".

Well that makes sense. I agree with you if you are talking about mulitplayer only but the other person said anything below 60 is unplayable which is not true. Really its just an opinionated subject. Destiny runs at 30fps and a lot of my friends love that game. While higher fps is preferred. I will never decline a game at over 60fps. 30 fps is the bare minimum