The PS4 community automatically makes it better than PC.
PC BF4 community is pretty much dead...
Cool, a new alt, ban dodging much? and right now 30428 players are online on the PC version, more than on Xbox One, Xbox 360 and PS3 and only a 3k players less than the PS4 version, wow, dat dead PC version.
You do realize that there are a lot less people who own a PS4?
Lol bf4 is far from dead on PC . As much as the launch tried to kill it, its still has more players than all other platforms except ps4 that has no other good shooter to play of bf4s caliber. Compare to PC where the competition for shooters in insane.
It actually doesn't. There is hardly any difference. Keep lying to yourself.
How is the difference between PS4 vs Xbox One vs PC.Is there a huge gap between the three.
No. Other than better AA and higher res on the PC version they are almost identical.
it more then AA and resolution , X1 and PS4 use worse textures, lower LOD, and has lower performance in MP because of the CPU's.
the textures are identical. the lod is SLIGHTLY worse on the console versions, but honestly its so horrendously awful even on pc it doesnt matter. the difference basically boils down to aa/resolution/foliage quality when viewed thru smoke
It actually doesn't. There is hardly any difference. Keep lying to yourself.
How is the difference between PS4 vs Xbox One vs PC.Is there a huge gap between the three.
No. Other than better AA and higher res on the PC version they are almost identical.
it more then AA and resolution , X1 and PS4 use worse textures, lower LOD, and has lower performance in MP because of the CPU's.
the textures are identical. the lod is SLIGHTLY worse on the console versions, but honestly its so horrendously awful even on pc it doesnt matter. the difference basically boils down to aa/resolution/foliage quality when viewed thru smoke
It actually doesn't. There is hardly any difference. Keep lying to yourself.
How is the difference between PS4 vs Xbox One vs PC.Is there a huge gap between the three.
No. Other than better AA and higher res on the PC version they are almost identical.
it more then AA and resolution , X1 and PS4 use worse textures, lower LOD, and has lower performance in MP because of the CPU's.
the textures are identical. the lod is SLIGHTLY worse on the console versions, but honestly its so horrendously awful even on pc it doesnt matter. the difference basically boils down to aa/resolution/foliage quality when viewed thru smoke
false
Even with those screens you posted, I still wouldn't gauge the visual advantages of the PC port over the PS4/X1 port "a generation ahead". It definitely looks noticeably better, but not by a generation.
It actually doesn't. There is hardly any difference. Keep lying to yourself.
How is the difference between PS4 vs Xbox One vs PC.Is there a huge gap between the three.
No. Other than better AA and higher res on the PC version they are almost identical.
it more then AA and resolution , X1 and PS4 use worse textures, lower LOD, and has lower performance in MP because of the CPU's.
the textures are identical. the lod is SLIGHTLY worse on the console versions, but honestly its so horrendously awful even on pc it doesnt matter. the difference basically boils down to aa/resolution/foliage quality when viewed thru smoke
false
Even with those screens you posted, I still wouldn't gauge the visual advantages of the PC port over the PS4/X1 port "a generation ahead". It definitely looks noticeably better, but not by a generation.
Never said it was a generation ahead, just proved the fact that PS4 is not identical or on par with many different aspects.
Find something better to troll about. BF 4 being 60fps on ps4/xone is common knowledge here.
my 400 dollar PC gets 120fps in bf4 ultra setings while looking at the sky in some empty servers, does it mean bf4 on my U$400 PC is 120fps?
The ps 4 benchmark videos show roughly a 55 fps average which would easily be 60fps wihout the framerate cap.
ps4 benchmarks average 50fps, it means it goes from 40 to 60, its very different from constant 60
the frame cap cant lower the average framerate, in fact by saving hardware by preventing it from going above 60 it helps the system to stay cooler and the resourses being less used , this way it helps keeping the fps closer to 60, without the framecap it could maintain the average 50 or maybe going from 40-80fps but with a average 45
ive tested it on my PC: 900p 50fps medium settings, sure its much better than ps3 but its almost equivalentely distant from 1080p 60fps ultra settings
Find something better to troll about. BF 4 being 60fps on ps4/xone is common knowledge here.
my 400 dollar PC gets 120fps in bf4 ultra setings while looking at the sky in some empty servers, does it mean bf4 on my U$400 PC is 120fps?
The ps 4 benchmark videos show roughly a 55 fps average which would easily be 60fps wihout the framerate cap.
ps4 benchmarks average 50fps, it means it goes from 40 to 60, its very different from constant 60
the frame cap cant lower the average framerate, in fact by saving hardware by preventing it from going above 60 it helps the system to stay cooler and the resourses being less used , this way it helps keeping the fps closer to 60, without the framecap it could maintain the average 50 or maybe going from 40-80fps but with a average 45
ive tested it on my PC: 900p 50fps medium settings, sure its much better than ps3 but its almost equivalentely distant from 1080p 60fps ultra settings
Then to add multiplayer fps averages are worse then the SP benchmarks.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
@leandrro said:
@Cranler said:
@leandrro said:
@Cranler said:
@mems_1224 said:
@silversix_ said:
@mems_1224 said:
lol 900p 30fps
Bish calm yo tits its 60fps
lol not it isn't. not on ps4.
Find something better to troll about. BF 4 being 60fps on ps4/xone is common knowledge here.
my 400 dollar PC gets 120fps in bf4 ultra setings while looking at the sky in some empty servers, does it mean bf4 on my U$400 PC is 120fps?
The ps 4 benchmark videos show roughly a 55 fps average which would easily be 60fps wihout the framerate cap.
average 50fps, it means it goes from 40 to 60, its very different from constant 60
the frame cap cant lower the average framerate, in fact by saving hardware by preventing it from going above 60 it helps the system to stay cooler and the resourses being less used , this way it helps keeping the fps closer to 60, without the framecap it could maintain the average 50 or maybe going from 40-80fps but with a average 45
ive tested it on my PC: 900p 50fps medium settings, sure its much better than ps3 but its almost equivalentely distant from 1080p 60fps ultra settings
All the highs and lows are included when calculating a framerate average. Surely the PS 4 is powerful enough to get above 60 here and there. Oh and the main reason to cap at 60 is to prevent tearing. I mean how many people do you think are playing on a PS 4 with an old crt monitor or a 120hz lcd monitor?
Find something better to troll about. BF 4 being 60fps on ps4/xone is common knowledge here.
my 400 dollar PC gets 120fps in bf4 ultra setings while looking at the sky in some empty servers, does it mean bf4 on my U$400 PC is 120fps?
The ps 4 benchmark videos show roughly a 55 fps average which would easily be 60fps wihout the framerate cap.
ps4 benchmarks average 50fps, it means it goes from 40 to 60, its very different from constant 60
the frame cap cant lower the average framerate, in fact by saving hardware by preventing it from going above 60 it helps the system to stay cooler and the resourses being less used , this way it helps keeping the fps closer to 60, without the framecap it could maintain the average 50 or maybe going from 40-80fps but with a average 45
ive tested it on my PC: 900p 50fps medium settings, sure its much better than ps3 but its almost equivalentely distant from 1080p 60fps ultra settings
Then to add multiplayer fps averages are worse then the SP benchmarks.
He is talking about mp. If you watched the Digital Foundry sp framerate test video you would see that the majority of it is 60 fps which means it would average above 60fps without a cap.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
From my experience it's mostly in the 50-60 range. The buggly launch version may have hit 40s but I haven't noticed any drop to the 40s since the numerous patches they did post launch.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
From my experience it's mostly in the 50-60 range. The buggly launch version may have hit 40s but I haven't noticed any drop to the 40s since the numerous patches they did post launch.
I can believe that, although I heard the recent naval strike DLC was completely fucked
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
What holds more weight? Video footage or someones word?
Floodzone rooftops are constant 60 fps yet they complain about the framerate in an obscure part of the map where you can't shoot anyway.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
What holds more weight? Video footage or someones word?
Floodzone rooftops are constant 60 fps yet they complain about the framerate in an obscure part of the map where you can't shoot anyway.
Probably the official analysis they put in writing, and submitted as the official digital foundry comparison
bf4 is pretty shit on all platforms. eveyr aspect of the game is broken in at least 1 way. the game is slightly less ugly on PC because you can use some AA.
bf4 is pretty shit on all platforms. eveyr aspect of the game is broken in at least 1 way. the game is slightly less ugly on PC because you can use some AA.
Being a hermit, I have the game on PS4 as well. I bought it for the PS4 hoping it would be less buggy than the PC versions, and while it could be true - it was still nigh unplayable for a couple of months due to how buggy it was. I still played it, but god damn it was awful. A couple of the popular large maps just had this awful stutter that would occur every few seconds, and I'm using a SSD Hybrid drive in my PS4 so I was hoping I wouldn't suffer from it. Lots of random disconnects and sound dropping out as well.
The LoD settings are a lot worse than the PC version, but the textures and effects are pretty nice. Looks great on my Plasma TV (which I am not going to hook my PC up to just to play this game). I prefer playing BF4 against casuals anyways, it's a lot more of an enjoyable experience when you don't have to worry about being railgun'd from across the map every 5 seconds like in every other Battlefield game ever made.
bf4 is pretty shit on all platforms. eveyr aspect of the game is broken in at least 1 way. the game is slightly less ugly on PC because you can use some AA.
the pc version has the worst community of players possible. its near impossible to find a server where more than 3 people have the slightest idea of what they are doing.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
What holds more weight? Video footage or someones word?
Floodzone rooftops are constant 60 fps yet they complain about the framerate in an obscure part of the map where you can't shoot anyway.
Probably the official analysis they put in writing, and submitted as the official digital foundry comparison
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
What holds more weight? Video footage or someones word?
Floodzone rooftops are constant 60 fps yet they complain about the framerate in an obscure part of the map where you can't shoot anyway.
Probably the official analysis they put in writing, and submitted as the official digital foundry comparison
The video isn't official?
It is, and their official analysis is that the game runs predominantly at 40-50fps
Do you really think that their entire framerate analysis was only 5 and a half minutes?
This should really not be that difficult to understand.
@Cranler: according to digital foundry it is predominantly 40-50 fps
If you bothered to watch the videos from Digital Foundry you'd see that the framerate is usually in the 50's. Also remember there hasn't been any new performance tests since the infamously buggy BF 4 launch.
Okay, and their article says predominantly 40-50fps with drops to the 30's on flood zone
Yet none of the videos show any frame drop into the 30's. In this video Flood Zone is almost constant 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT1-mXZBDMM
Okay, and their article says there are frame drops and it runs predominantly 40-50fps. In addition, that video isn't their final review analysis
"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps. Flood Zone gives us the biggest drop, going down to 30fps while swimming through a submerged ground floor of a building, but the overall experience across a breadth of levels is predominantly between 40-50fps"
Yet both videos show the framerate to be 50-60 most of the time.
Okay, so what. Their official tech analysis states it as 40-50fps
What holds more weight? Video footage or someones word?
Floodzone rooftops are constant 60 fps yet they complain about the framerate in an obscure part of the map where you can't shoot anyway.
Probably the official analysis they put in writing, and submitted as the official digital foundry comparison
The video isn't official?
It is, and their official analysis is that the game runs predominantly at 40-50fps
Do you really think that their entire framerate analysis was only 5 and a half minutes?
This should really not be that difficult to understand.
They cherrypicked moments of the game for the video. The video that's mainly 50-60 fps. Why not show the areas where the fps was 40-50?
Log in to comment