G80FTW
Active Member
Im glad you learned a new word, but what does that have to do with this? There is no circular argument or reasoning going on here.
Rebuild my PC for BF4
- Thread starter Bskate907
- Start date
Im glad you learned a new word, but what does that have to do with this? There is no circular argument or reasoning going on here.
G80FTW
Active Member
Exactly. Im not even convinced that a C2Q platform will run BF4 smoothly at max settings. I have not yet been able to play the game on my system, but if its more intense than BF3 he will probably struggle online.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1823376/intel-core-quads-bf4.html#.
The best information I could find on such an old processor running a new game (since no one really benchmarks and charts such things that I know of). And just as I thought, it doesnt look good. If the C2Q can just by the skin of its teeth play BF3 max @ 1080p @ 30FPS then you can bet it wont be up for maxing BF4 at all.
Last edited:
Jiniix
Well-Known Member
Okedokey, I have a theory on how Corsair and BitTech have such different results.
Corsair doesn't state where and how they benched, but BitTech uses a cutscene-ish part that's only 60 seconds. If the game already know what it needs, it'll pre-render and prepare for it, while Corsair maybe did some more custom bench run.
Here's what I would do if I were Bskate. I would buy a R9 290, plug in my system, see if the game ran fine. I guarantee that it will play it medium or high settings. Then, when Broadwell comes out, I'd take a look at upgrading my system all-together and just re-use the 290, as it'll still be a beast card by then.
Intel Q6600 2.4GHz (2.99GHz)
Corsair 2x2GB DDR2-667MHz (832MHz)
AMD XFX HD 6870 1GB DD stock
This build ran BF3 1920x1080 on medium-high settings with ease. I need 50FPS+, but a person who can tolerate 25FPS+ could probably have run it at high-ultra settings. Without AA tho, but who needs that at full HD anyway?
Corsair doesn't state where and how they benched, but BitTech uses a cutscene-ish part that's only 60 seconds. If the game already know what it needs, it'll pre-render and prepare for it, while Corsair maybe did some more custom bench run.
Here's what I would do if I were Bskate. I would buy a R9 290, plug in my system, see if the game ran fine. I guarantee that it will play it medium or high settings. Then, when Broadwell comes out, I'd take a look at upgrading my system all-together and just re-use the 290, as it'll still be a beast card by then.
Intel Q6600 2.4GHz (2.99GHz)
Corsair 2x2GB DDR2-667MHz (832MHz)
AMD XFX HD 6870 1GB DD stock
This build ran BF3 1920x1080 on medium-high settings with ease. I need 50FPS+, but a person who can tolerate 25FPS+ could probably have run it at high-ultra settings. Without AA tho, but who needs that at full HD anyway?
Last edited:
Since nobody can decide what's going to be best - here is what I'd do.
Keep your existing Q9400 setup and grab that new video card and power supply (if need be). See how you get on.
If it's all good and it runs nicely, that's great. If not, look at upgrading your CPU/board/RAM to something newer. Just get what's the newest at the time. Don't keep waiting for new things unless it's only a few weeks or days away from being released.
Keep your existing Q9400 setup and grab that new video card and power supply (if need be). See how you get on.
If it's all good and it runs nicely, that's great. If not, look at upgrading your CPU/board/RAM to something newer. Just get what's the newest at the time. Don't keep waiting for new things unless it's only a few weeks or days away from being released.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Im glad you learned a new word, but what does that have to do with this? There is no circular argument or reasoning going on here.
Because a circular argument is a fallacy, thus making your argument invalid. Thats the point. Plus its not new, as a scientist and engineer, its one of the first concepts you're taught to look out for....
You never build a PC on a concept of a new future game. Plus he has categorically stated (as per the title of the thread) that he is building his PC FOR BF4. So denying this fact is silly. Plus, if he builds a PC that runs BF4 at max settings now, it will be good for as long as anyone factors builds (e.g. their lifetime).
As explained three times now, the CPU has almost no influence on the game. Yes, it will be part of the process, but the GPU is doing ALL the work. That is shown by the benchmarks I have provided already, where the cpu had 2 CORES TURNED OFF and it still didn't change the FPS. Not even by 1FPS. That tells me that a high end C2Q at 3GHz will be absolutely fine. Secondly your links relate to the Alpha of the game, which makes it completely nonsense.
The first part is plainly wrong. If it were pre-rendered (which it isn't) it wouldn't test the GPU at all. This simply means that they have captured a scene that is still a valid benchmark, but makes sure that (unlike multilayer), is a consistent comparison between changes such as RAM, CPU frequency. Much much more valid, and not a cut scene in anyway. They explained this but you must have mis-read it...
So far this benchmark showing no difference in the CPU or RAM is the most reliable quoted yet.
The second part of your statement is excatly the same as what i said...
as is this
This is just silly. You are not going to get a better FPS than a 780Ti or 290X in that machine with a $1300 budget if you get a mid range GPU to run BF4. It just wont happen. Even if the 780Ti / 290X pegs the CPU to 100% on all cores, it will still be a much much better gaming performance than any mid-range card.
Why even say this? A E4300 is light years away from a Q9400 and a 260 isnt even close to a 780Ti/290X so your experience here is simply irrelevant. Plus yet again, your logic is a fail.
To the OP.
It works like this.
If your want to play BF4, spend as much money as you can on the GPU. If that means waiting until later for a CPU and motherboard upgrade (which isn't needed right now), then thats what you should do. Spending three-quarters of your budget on a new CPU, RAM and motherboard (and windows) is going to provide almost no net gain in BF4, and you will have a much poorer FPS with the mid-range card you'll be able to afford than if you simply spent $700 on a 780Ti/290x.
Last edited:
PCunicorn
Active Member
Can't wait to your smart ass reply to this, Okedokey. Maybe you should learn to argue without calling everyone's logic falsies. Wait, I can see your comeback to that statement now. First, BF4 is CPU dependent. The sooner you learn that, the better. See chart below. Secod, a E4300 and 260 is a perfect comparison to this scenario. A E4300 was low end when the 260 was made, and the C2Q is low end especially compared to a R9 290.
A Phenom X4 955 is somewhat equvilant to a Q9400. So FPS would be doubled with a i5. This is the beta so some optimazations have happened but not enough to make the 2500K and 955 even close.
A Phenom X4 955 is somewhat equvilant to a Q9400. So FPS would be doubled with a i5. This is the beta so some optimazations have happened but not enough to make the 2500K and 955 even close.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Thats the Beta. A really really bad comparison as a lot of optimisation is done between that and the retail game. Your guess work and assumptions are really silly, as you have never even played the game, nor provided any reliable or relevant information. How about a RETAIL benchmark?
From your source RETAIL bench:
and this
www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
or here (notice that 2 cores DISABLED)??
All im saying is that regardless, with a $1300 build - aiming for BF4 gameplay performance, you don't spend 75% on non GPU hardware, you spend 50% on a GPU and a bit more RAM.
The only things in BF4 (related to graphics) that are CPU dependant are AA, mesh quality and AO. Turn these down slightly and everything else up, and he'll be fine. Everything else is GPU dependant on the Frostbite engine.
So to the OP (for the last time), spend as much money as you can afford on a GPU, and later, if you want, a new motherboard, CPU, RAM and windows key. For now though, with a $1300 budget, get DDR2 4GB RAM, a R9290X and an SSD. This will by far give you the best bang for your buck. Yes, your CPU will probably peg at 100%, but who cares when you're getting 60FPS+ on BF4 at ultra.
Last edited:
PCunicorn
Active Member
Are those multiplayer? And I managed to find the Retail ones
Singleplayer doesn't matter, you can have a higher end Core 2 Duo and it won't matter. It's multiplayer that counts, and I have a feeling if OP is building this PC just for BF4, it's for multiplayer. Nobody spends this much for a 8 hour campaign.
And that's a whole 30 frames from Athlon to 4670k.
Singleplayer doesn't matter, you can have a higher end Core 2 Duo and it won't matter. It's multiplayer that counts, and I have a feeling if OP is building this PC just for BF4, it's for multiplayer. Nobody spends this much for a 8 hour campaign.
And that's a whole 30 frames from Athlon to 4670k.
Last edited:
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
The point here is, a 780Ti, or 290x will last a very long time. The FX4100 is about the same performance as a Q9400 - they're very very similar in performance.
Therefore, a GPU is the best use of money, as even a Fx4100 will average around 60FPS and never goes below 30FPS, except the Q9400 is more overclockable (easily at 3GHz on air).
My suggested build is keep everything you have and add...
R9290X - $590 or $627 with BF4 iincluded (if you don't already have it)
Samsung 840 Evo SSD 512GB - $329
4GB DDR2 RAM - $71
Total $1027 with Battlefield 4 or about $1000 without.
You can spend the additional $300 (if its burning a hole in your pocket) on a all in one watercooler ($90)that can be used for other CPUs in the future and an aftermarket GPU cooler for the 290x ($120) , , and overclock the q9400 to 3.4GHz.
Thats what id do.
Therefore, a GPU is the best use of money, as even a Fx4100 will average around 60FPS and never goes below 30FPS, except the Q9400 is more overclockable (easily at 3GHz on air).
My suggested build is keep everything you have and add...
R9290X - $590 or $627 with BF4 iincluded (if you don't already have it)
Samsung 840 Evo SSD 512GB - $329
4GB DDR2 RAM - $71
Total $1027 with Battlefield 4 or about $1000 without.
You can spend the additional $300 (if its burning a hole in your pocket) on a all in one watercooler ($90)that can be used for other CPUs in the future and an aftermarket GPU cooler for the 290x ($120) , , and overclock the q9400 to 3.4GHz.
Thats what id do.
Last edited:
PCunicorn
Active Member
To where this build will cost $300 more and be a full computer (exchange the 780 for a 290X of course.)?
Last edited:
As far as being CPU bound. To me its more core bound then clock speed. Seen some benches where the AMD quad has alittle hard time, probable because of the sharing on the module vs. a full quad. Looks as long as you have a AMD FX X6 and up or a Intel quad, your good to go. Other then that I would dump most of the money on the video card.
G80FTW
Active Member
So my argument that I had personal experience with increasing RAM speed leading to an increase in gaming performance was invalid? Well gee, thanks I guess. And granted, that was some time ago dealing with DDR RAM bottlenecks were well existing back then however after some research it seems that DDR3 offers virtually no bottleneck to any CPU at this point in time. That said, I have seen no comparison to DDR2 and DDR3 in terms of how an upgrade from DDR2 to DDR3 will effect performance.
Moreover, you have not presented any information proving that a C2Q running DDR2 memory with a top of the line graphics card can max BF4 online at playable framerates. Whether it be alpha,beta, or official release the information I provided says completely otherwise. And, the information I also provided showed that a C2Q could hardly play BF3 at 30FPS average which tells me that a more intense graphical game will not fare well on the same processor.
And lastly, I will go ahead and agree that the OP just buy a new graphics card first. Since he will get one anyway. And he can see how he likes the performance with that. However, I can almost assure you that given his platform any new flagship GPU he buys will perform worse than the 680 in my machine given that he is using a CPU platform from 2006 era (I couldnt imagine trying to game on it).
You can go ahead and yell at the top of your lungs that the CPU does not matter for BF4. However, at the end of the day all the benchmarks provided are provided with NEWER processors than the one in question. MUCH newer mind you. These newer processors are far more efficient than the Core 2 architecture.
And that you link you posted about the C2Q being "similar" in performance to an FX-4100....well, you might want to check it again because thats indeed not what it says. And even then, thats not exactly a trusted source with very little information actually given on the test performed.
$71 for 4GB of DDR2??? Another reason to ditch that ancient platform. I paid $60 for 12GB of DDR3 1600.
He wont be getting 60FPS+ in BF4 on ultra. Not even close I can bet.
Okeydokey, telling someone that a basically 7 year old platform is perfectly fine for PC gaming today is the most illogical thing I have read in this entire forum. Without any evidence to back it up, its just ridiculous. I wouldnt call medium settings ok for PC gaming. Especially if you drop $500+ on a graphics card for the game.
Last edited:
Jiniix
Well-Known Member
Yep, you said it. So did I... in the very first post of this thread.
Anyway, I would drop in another $300 over an SSD, 4GB old RAM and GPU upgrade and buy an entire system as PCUnicorn points out. I wouldn't buy the 290X though, since for $100 less you can get the normal 290. The build draft I did was based on a lot of deals though, not sure how many of those that are still active.
Oh and I didn't mean pre-rendered like that. I see how that's a wrong way to use it, but English is not my first language
I meant in the way that there are no surprises, all the events that are going to happen in that 60 second run has been planned out ahead. Not like multiplayer, where it's based on what players do and needs instantaneous attention when it happens.Sure it's a stress test, but I wouldn't call it a real world scenario. Multiplayer is where that's at. And you can get consistent benches in multiplayer, and some reviewers do do that, and they claim better performance from RAM. It just takes a lot longer to get the data.
Last edited:
