EA 117 Gaming Community

It might help people decide what hardware they actually need for the game if we post what hardware we are running and the video settings that are being used in game and FPS (frames per second)

Currently
Processor: i7-2600k 3.4 ghz - 3.7ghz
Memory: 8GB DDR3 1333
Video Card: Gigabyte GTX560 1GB ram
Hard Drive: SATA
Gameplay screen resolution: 1680x1050
Video Options Settings: High
FPS: 40-45 with some dips when it gets really hectic. so far it doesn't seem to be laggy or stuttering form me. (to get your fps hit the tilde key, the key just left of the number 1 on the keyboard and type everything between the quotes "perfoverlay.drawfps 1" to turn on FPS counter and "perfoverlay.drawfps 0" to turn it off. There is also a cpu/gpu graph that you can turn on. I'll post that command soon.

I will try some other resolutions and settings with this card and post the results.

not that I'm educated on such things...

but wouldn't the beta version be a poor way to judge actual game performance as it relates to the final/actual version??? I mean there are bugs and glitches and all kinds of stuff that would seem to affect the FPS i would think....or am I wrong??

my FPS numbers were pretty solid at 40ish and prolly dropped to the 20's worst case but all my setting are on high/ultra and I was still tweaking stuff most of the night so i could see things and push buttons like I wanted...

Maybe so. I guess I would rather have more information than less if I was getting ready to jump into BF4. It may be that the full version maps will be larger or have higher graphics requirements. As soon as the full version comes out I will post those numbers as well. So, like Toolman said, these are just numbers for the beta. Maybe they are meaningless???

I updated to the Nvidia beta drivers on Sunday and have been running the game on ultra and have been averaging around 45 while on ultra.

FYI, I was getting lower fps when I dropped the settings to high lol.

My setup:
i7 3770
16 GB DDR3
GTX 660 Ti FTW LE 2 GB
250GB Samsung 840 SSD
Resolution: 1920x1080

So my new toys are trickling in. Should be up and running within two weeks.

I'm not real knowledgable when it comes to this gaming/graphics stuff.

What FPS is good on these new games. I see you guys talking about 45. Is that a good target.? If I remember right, on DC, 100 was real good. Is BF4 the same? Obviously mine probably won't be extremely high, just asking what a good FPS is on BF4.


how long does it usually take to put the comp together, load the OS and all that good stuff. Taking into consideration I've never put one together.

AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8350FRHKBOX
ASUS M5A99X EVO R2.0 AM3+ AMD 990X SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
XFX Double D FX797ATDJC Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model
F3-1600C9D-16GXM
Seagate ST2000DX001 2TB MLC/8GB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s NCQ 3.5" Desktop Solid State Hybrid Drive

So that's what I'm running. Sorry it seems a little long winded with the description but I'm just copy/paste from my phone.

hoppin bob - your setup looks super powerful. I think you'll be waaayyyyyy above 45fps. In fact, these guys getting 45-ish FPS like Specialist will likely go up once the beta moves to the actual game I believe. I've always heard the goal as being 60fps as a minimum if possible as the "gold standard."

You're getting the 7970 and AMD says that BF4 is going to be favoring AMD tech so you're in a good spot most likely.

I'm probably going to get a GTX 760 nVidia card so I can accelerate some 3D design/rendering software really well while still being respectable with BF4. The 760 supposedly kills it on BF3 with really really good FPS, so here is to hoping the streak continues into BF4. Not sure what I'll get though when it is all said and done.

You should be fine Bob. Assembling the computer isn't really hard. Watch some youtube videos of assembly, be especially careful with the CPU insertion. It only goes in one way and you don't want to bend any pins. Make sure that the heatsink is installed correctly. Read it a couple times and if you aren't sure ask. Memory just clips in and will only fit correctly one direction. Power supply connectors are almost always indexed to only fit in one location as well. Video card is easy to install just need to connect the power to it. Right now the beta is cool, playable for most but, everyone seems to be having one issue or another with it. My GTX660 card is running 1280x720 with graphics set to the high setting and I am seeing mostly 50 fps or better. I have even won one round (Yea me!), and sometimes do pretty well compared to general public. I am still working on experimenting with my resolutions and inputting the data for FPS in a spreadsheet to try and find the sweet spot for my computer.

I can assemble a computer and have it ready to load Windows in an hour or so depending on hardware options, case design, and wiring. Loading Windows 7 is another hour but mostly just put the disk in and turn it on. Not sure what BIOS settings your board will need adjusted but often they will run without changing anything. I normally install the NIC connect to the internet and then download the rest of the drivers from so it has the latest versions.

Good luck!

Thanks Orex.

I started to watch a three part series by newegg on building a comp. I will finish that after work today.
I will check out you tube as well.
I am chomping at the bit to get this thing going. Had to compromise with the wife on purchasing all the parts. Next Friday I will buy the last two pieces so I guess it will be middle of the following week before I can actually put this thing together.

Thanks again for all the advice.

hi bob
Well looks nice, i would add a ssd drive to that equation for gaming it works much faster and you can put back ups on your bigger drive, hybrid drives and ssd are not the most reliable in the world, so multiple redundancies is always the way to go...120gig min tho if you can snag one for under a hundred i have the samsung 840 series unit and i regret not getting the bigger one..so i bought 2...start up is 15 sec or less more if you load tons of crap on.

congrats on your new system

While an SSD will make your pc load faster and your games start faster they should make very little difference in actual gameplay. Yes SSD's are cool but if your budget is tight then imo the best value is a regular hard drive. $100 is enough to purchase BF4 and most of BF4 premium.

agreed orex ...as a value system i still like the ssd...its not a must...i wanted it cause of the quick start up for work, nothing worse than having a impatient client wanting info waiting info.

My plan is to eventually get an SSD. Looking at a new 23 inch monitor also. This whole thing has been a bit taxing on the ol wife. I'm going on 90 days working 7 days a week. Looks like this schedule could stretch to Christmas. IMO, I've earned this new toy.
She's gonna love the news that there's an extra 100 on top of the original price for BF4 premium.
Hehe.

hoppin bob wrote:She's gonna love the news that there's an extra 100 on top of the original price for BF4 premium.
Hehe.

Premium is $49.99 .

Is that on top of buying BF4????

Looks like spec is right. Just checked amazon. Battlefield 4 premium is 49.99.

Nightstalker wrote:Is that on top of buying BF4????

Yes.

hoppin bob wrote:Looks like spec is right. Just checked amazon. Battlefield 4 premium is 49.99.

Origin also has it.
https://www.origin.com/en-us/store/buy/ ... m-ANW.html

Sometimes I am not very clear Battlefield 4 is $59.99 on Origin and then for premium you add another 49.99 bringing the total to $109.98. Dammit Jim I'm a Dr. not a cunning linguist.

that's rather pathetic paying 50 bucks more for something that should be included...does it come with a Swedish blonde massaging you while playing?

ryeontherocks wrote:does it come with a Swedish blonde massaging you while playing?

Yes, his name is Gustav.

I have a
EVGA 770 4gig
AMD 8350 8 core processor
16 gigs ram

I run it on 1080 on medium settings and only drop below 60 when there are many explosions and burning tanks in-front of me and im shooting. Otherwise my frames are rock solid around 80-90 or so.

Not dropping below 60 is more important to me than pretty water.

i5 2500K - OC'd to 4.5GHz
Twin 6950's (2gigs each... doesn't stack)
8 GB's Ram
66GB SSD (for windows) + 240GB SSD (for games) +1TB HDD (for Misc.)
750W PSU

Playing on Ultra I get 40-50 FPS with drops to ~5 FPS randomly. Will try a lower graphical setting to see if it alleviates the frame drop but from what I've heard/seen the frame drops are not a graphical problem. There are a few floating theories: PunkBuster, over taxing the CPU, Windows 7 or 8. Prophet says he gets 40 frames better when he switched from 7->8. In any case everything is unlocked (yay) now to own the battlefield without forcing myself to play a specific class because of unlocks Hope to see you guys on!

Specialist wrote:

ryeontherocks wrote:does it come with a Swedish blonde massaging you while playing?

Yes, his name is Gustav.

Lmao...with my luck thats exactly what i would get

I read that changing the bf4.exe process to low priority after starting the game helps. (go to task manager, right click on bf4.exe, hover over set priority - then click on low) I have told a couple of people that were having problems this solution and both said that it made the game play smoother. Worth a shot.

Stupid question(s) ...

1. What does that do? (setting to a low priority)
2. Why would it not be better to set to a higher priority?
3. If it works with BF4 would it not work with all applications/games or are these problems you speak of BF4 related only?

I ask only because if we can squeeze better performance out of a PC just by doing that, it may help some of us that on a budget. Hell just the other day, I realized my PC was set to a power level of "Dell" .. I looked around and found the "Ultra Performance" level. I know, hold on to your horses right. Anyways it seemed to help some as it set my graphic to maximum versus the "balanced" they were set to. This was under the power options in the control panel if anyone is interested on Win 7.

Changing the process priority adjusts the priority this process' threads will have within the operating system's kernel thread scheduler, whenever the scheduler is trying to pick "who gets to use the CPU next" from a list of waiting threads.

So setting a process to "low" just means "My process is not as important as EXPLORER.EXE, WINWORD.EXE, etc., and other normal processes. When you have to choose between giving CPU time between one of my threads or any other normal process' threads, give the CPU time to the other normal process."

If setting BF4.EXE to "low" was observed to improve performance, the implied reason is that the function BF4.EXE serves during gameplay is no longer important, and all the actual gameplay execution is occurring on some other process. So lowering the BF4.EXE priority just "idles" this process even further, by making sure any background processing the BF4.EXE process does perform will be considered lower priority than whatever process gameplay is occurring on.

(Note I don't know this is true; I would have assumed gameplay occurs on the BF4.EXE process, and that lowering it's priority would not make sense.)

Raising the priority of a process indeed just means the opposite: Whenever the operating system kernel thread scheduler has to choose among threads waiting for CPU time, it will choose the higher priority process' threads first. But note this doesn't equate to "my process now runs twice as fast", because your process doesn't always have threads waiting for CPU time. It just means that whenever the scheduler does have to pick between yours and another thread, it will probably pick yours.

It's not usually useful to try and push scheduling priority higher than "Above Normal". Pushing to "High" and definitely pushing to "Real Time" can potentially starve other critical operating system processes from getting sufficient execution time, depending upon the activity of the process you raised the priority of. "Above Normal" gets you to the head of the list over other normal user processes and applications you're running, so pushing higher just risks putting you at the head of the list over critical operating system operations and making the system unstable.

Windows Scheduling Priorities

-Trench