Battlefield 4 recommended system requirements: 3 GB VRAM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with unified memory (HUMA), doesn't that mean the redundancies we see in conventional RAM+VRAM will be eliminated?

Example: The level geometry and texture in conventional RAM+VRAM setup are redundant (two copies), while in unified RAM, there is only one copy that both the CPU and GPU can see and utilize.

So hypothetically, a next-gen game (XB1 and PS4) would use 5 GB of unified RAM on their consoles, while on the PC, it would be seen as 5GB RAM + 3GB VRAM utilization? This is of course, before all the AA and additional effects and resolution increase comes into play, which would bolster VRAM requirement even further.
 
Last edited:
BusyBeaverHP said:
So hypothetically, a next-gen game (XB1 and PS4) would use 5 GB of unified RAM on their consoles, while on the PC, it would be seen as 5GB RAM + 3GB VRAM utilization?
Click to expand...
No. DirectX 10, and higher, do not duplicate data in video RAM to system RAM.

And unified RAM isn't hugely different from what modern PC's have been doing since the advent of DirectX 10. Both system RAM and video RAM are mapped in one contiguous block of addresses, which allows (nearly) seamless sharing of resources between the two (from a software perspective).
 
Last edited:
RamonGTP said:
No, you're missing the point and its one anybody who has a clue could figure out.

That makes zero sense if you actually took the time to think about what you're saying. Ok so I need the graphics power of a 7870... I go buy one... Oh wait, not good enough because it's only 2GB of ram. These explanations I expect to hear from a kid who has no clue what he/she is talking about. I must stress again that the GPU and VRAM are contained on a single device. You explanation would make sense if they weren't, but they are so it doesn't. I can't buy a 7870 then go by 3GB of VRAM, so if it actually needs 3GB of vram like it suggests, recommending a 7870 would be completely useless.

Unless you can tell me how I can meet the recommended system requirements by running this game on a 7870, those recommendations are erroneous and your explanation baseless. So please enlighten me on how I can accomplish this.

They could also make a dual core running at 6GHz if they really wanted to, that doesn't meant it's going to be in the recommended system req's... When was the last time you saw system requirements posted recommending hardware that didn't exist? I just don't understand why it's so hard for you to acknowledge there's a glaring error there. Sorry if I'm being condescending, I just think it's funny how someone who's posturing as a techie is trying so hard to defend requirements based on hardware that doesn't even exist and pretending it's totally legitimate to recommend GPU and VRAM configurations that you can't actually get.
Click to expand...

Look, Shirlock, a Newegg search turns up five 660s and one 7850 with 3GB+ of VRAM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...eValue=683:266450&PropertyCodeValue=683:49638

What's your brilliant theory, that the developers don't know most 660s come with only 2GB VRAM? You must think you're a genius if you think everyone else is stupid.
 
Unknown-One said:
It is an assumption, you're assuming the existence of a console version = the PC version being held back. It is just as likely the PC version was made as well as it possibly could be, and the console version is simply paired-down hugely.
Click to expand...

Both PC and console versions tend to have the same size maps, same number of NPCs, same AI etc. So while those may not directly affect VRAM usage, they certain indirectly affect it.

It's possible game engines like DICE's make it easy to port between PC and console, but I think it's more likely that having to fit the game into the consoles' 512M of shared ram limits what developers can do.

Has anyone seen BF4 running on current gen consoles? Maybe they're gonna make major changes to the console versions.
 
To add to that Varmint- the version of BF3 for the current consoles was limited to 24 players from the PC's 64, and to far smaller maps. I'd feel claustrophobic playing the game on a console, if I didn't drown in puke from the graphics and slit my wrists over having to use a controller for an FPS first :D.
 
Unknown-One said:
Both system RAM and video RAM are mapped in one contiguous block of addresses, which allows (nearly) seamless sharing of resources between the two (from a software perspective).
Click to expand...
No, there's an enormous seam between the two: one is accessible via pointers into addresses and the other is accessible only through graphics APIs (which merely give you abstracted handles to those resources). You can only get a resource into video memory by going through the API abstractions.
 
Varmint said:
Look, Shirlock, a Newegg search turns up five 660s and one 7850 with 3GB+ of VRAM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...eValue=683:266450&PropertyCodeValue=683:49638

What's your brilliant theory, that the developers don't know most 660s come with only 2GB VRAM? You must think you're a genius if you think everyone else is stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't need a theory, I just know how to read. Specs say 7870. I don't think everyone else is stupid. You're the only one who's continuing to argue about it.
 
Only 2 months away. I'll wait till its out....and then throw a mini kerfuffle.....then probably upgrade. It's how it usually goes =)
 
Whach said:
Only 2 months away. I'll wait till its out....and then throw a mini kerfuffle.....then probably upgrade. It's how it usually goes =)
Click to expand...

Yup... well, I may skip this next generation, depending on how well my GTX670 2GB cards do in BF4 at 1600p. I'm thinking I'll be alright for another year or so, until I can afford to go hex/octa-core and 8GB or 12GB cards, and 4k.
 
Varmint said:
Both PC and console versions tend to have the same size maps, same number of NPCs, same AI etc. So while those may not directly affect VRAM usage, they certain indirectly affect it.
Click to expand...
Same size "maps"? Most games these days use resource-streaming. There aren't really individual maps, just an overall draw distance with an LOD system. This can be dynamically adjusted based on the performance of the hardware with ease.

Same number of NPCs? I'm sorry? Go ahead and load up an NPC-heavy game like Assassin's Creed some time. PC version blows the consoles away...

And lets not forget online multiplayer, where the PC often allows double (or more) the number of players.

Same AI? Sure, but the PC can handle many more multiple streams of it. Again the higher number of NPCs leads to a pretty dramatic increase in CPU utilization (there's a reason RTS games suck on consoles, they can't keep up with all the AI... that, and the control scheme).

Varmint said:
It's possible game engines like DICE's make it easy to port between PC and console, but I think it's more likely that having to fit the game into the consoles' 512M of shared ram limits what developers can do.
Click to expand...
Pretty darn easy to turn a few nobs and instantly have 4x the number of NPCs, 4x the amount of AI, and 4x the draw distance (before LOD kicks in) and totally blow away what any current console can reasonably handle.

And lets not forget physics. Batman Arkham City has some serious stuff going on when hardware accelerated PhysX is available. This includes a full fluid simulation on fog so that you can leave wakes and ripples in it. Amazing stuff, and again, something not even next-gen consoles will be doing.

n370zed said:
I really need an excuse to get a 2600k....
Click to expand...
Do a lot of video encoding? Perfect excuse, right there. You'll easily see a 20% performance boost over a 2500k :D
 
Last edited:
lilstevo said:
Wonder how much those 8 our 12 GB cards will cost...
Click to expand...

They will cost whatever the market will bear. If there's a real demand for them, though, expect a short price war between vendors to get them within spitting distance of cards with less RAM welded on; it may take three months, or it may take two years, depending on the developers really, but expect mid-range cards to ship with no less than 6GB and high-end cards to ship with 8GB to 12GB no later than halfway through this next console cycle. And hopefully, far sooner than that.
 
RamonGTP said:
Let's talk when we can build a system that meets the recommended spec using the recommended 7870. ;)
Click to expand...

You do realize they're recommending a class of card, not specific cards. And you do realize you must meet all the requirements on the list, not just some of them. So you need a 7870 class card, 8GB RAM, Windows 8, etc and 3GB VRAM.

Such a card already exists, it's a 3GB 660.

More such cards will likely be released soon, 660/7870 class with 3GB RAM.

If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help.
 
Unknown-One said:
Same number of NPCs? I'm sorry? Go ahead and load up an NPC-heavy game like Assassin's Creed some time. PC version blows the consoles away...
Click to expand...

That's cool, didn't know about that. I knew about BF3's larger maps and higher number of players, but figured that was a rare case.

Pretty darn easy to turn a few nobs and instantly have 4x the number of NPCs, 4x the amount of AI, and 4x the draw distance (before LOD kicks in) and totally blow away what any current console can reasonably handle.

And lets not forget physics. Batman Arkham City has some serious stuff going on when hardware accelerated PhysX is available. This includes a full fluid simulation on fog so that you can leave wakes and ripples in it. Amazing stuff, and again, something not even next-gen consoles will be doing.
Click to expand...

Sure, but these are rare cases, most games have the same draw distance, especially indoors, same number of NPCs, most games aren't PhysX enabled etc. So there's plenty of room for improvement with the new consoles' power.
 
I really want to see how this game handles multiple processors. Most games do not take advantage of that.

On the down side, looks like I will have to crossfire my 3gb card sooner than later....
 
Varmint said:
You do realize they're recommending a class of card, not specific cards. And you do realize you must meet all the requirements on the list, not just some of them. So you need a 7870 class card, 8GB RAM, Windows 8, etc and 3GB VRAM.

Such a card already exists, it's a 3GB 660.

More such cards will likely be released soon, 660/7870 class with 3GB RAM.

If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help.
Click to expand...

7870 is a specific model, not a class. The "class" would be 7900 series. If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help. Not that it matters, you can call 7870 a class, a series, a sepecific model, it's still 2GB.

You can continue to make excuses or simply admit there's an error there.
 
RamonGTP said:
7870 is a specific model, not a class. The "class" would be 7900 series. If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help. Not that it matters, you can call 7870 a class, a series, a sepecific model, it's still 2GB.

You can continue to make excuses or simply admit there's an error there.
Click to expand...

There were numerous HD7870 'models', just like there are numerous Chevy 1500's. Seriously dude, you sound like a democrat losing an argument. We must be racist and it must be Bush's fault! Lol. Keep pushing that same line of reasoning.
 
Nauseous said:
bf3 was so bug filled, i'll pass on bf4.
Click to expand...

Because there's another game out there with fewer bugs that provides the same or better gameplay? We've been playing BF3 successfully since the first public beta. It hasn't been smooth, I'll give you that, but you can hardly characterize the game as being any more 'bug filled' than any other AAA-title, and none exist that match BF3's depth and scope.

How did you like Skyrim, by the way?
 
RamonGTP said:
7870 is a specific model, not a class. The "class" would be 7900 series. If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help.
Click to expand...
IdiotInCharge said:
There were numerous HD7870 'models', just like there are numerous Chevy 1500's. Seriously dude, you sound like a democrat losing an argument.
Click to expand...
I think you gentlemen need to sit back and reflect on what it is you're arguing about and how ridiculous it must seem to those on the sidelines.
 
I'd actually like to discuss something else, and this guy just can't help but troll. His composition skills are good though, so I'd say fourth or fifth grade, maybe. Just wish he'd take me up on the reading comprehension offer!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
There were numerous HD7870 'models', just like there are numerous Chevy 1500's. Seriously dude, you sound like a democrat losing an argument. We must be racist and it must be Bush's fault! Lol. Keep pushing that same line of reasoning.
Click to expand...

Then please show me a 7870 model with 3GB of vram. I'm saying it doesn't exist, you're saying I'm wrong yet agree that it doesn't exist.
 
RamonGTP said:
7870 is a specific model, not a class. The "class" would be 7900 series. If this doesn't make sense to you, you're beyond help. Not that it matters, you can call 7870 a class, a series, a sepecific model, it's still 2GB.

You can continue to make excuses or simply admit there's an error there.
Click to expand...

Why don't you contact DICE and tell them how you, in your infinite wisdom, caught them in an error. :rolleyes:
 
Varmint said:
Why don't you contact DICE and tell them how you, in your infinite wisdom, caught them in an error. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not necessary, I know what will and won't work. I wasn't the first to catch it anyway. When it was caught however, I recognized it as an error and didn't vehemently defend it by pointing to cards that aren't 7870's as my "proof."
 
RamonGTP said:
Not necessary, I know what will and won't work. I wasn't the first to catch it anyway. When it was caught however, I recognized it as an error and didn't vehemently defend it by pointing to cards that aren't 7870's as my "proof."
Click to expand...

Did any of us say that a 3GB HD7870 exists? I definitely didn't. Are you really going to keep this up?
 
Varmint said:
rare cases, most games have the same draw distance, especially indoors, same number of NPCs, most games aren't PhysX enabled etc. So there's plenty of room for improvement with the new consoles' power.
Click to expand...
Rare cases? :confused:

Most PC games I've played have much better draw distance than their console counterparts. In modern games, this usually shows up as high-quality models being displayed farther into the distance before being swapped for lower-quality ones. Did you think I was referring to some archaic "distance fog" setup?

So, while the console version can technically see as far as the PC version, the the detail ramp is much more severe so that anemic console hardware isn't overwhelmed by it. The quality ends up being much lower on the console side of things in order to maintain such high overall draw distance.

And I already pointed out that Assassin's Creed can have a much larger number of NPC's in its PC version (same goes for its sequels). Newer games like Hitman Absolution manage to get an impressive number of NPC's onto the screen (even on consoles) but if you look carefully you'll notice the distant ones are significantly dumbed down on the console versions. There are many more repeated models, repeated animations, and a general lack of AI complexity on the NPC's far away from the player.

None of this is a problem for the PC version. No trouble handling these levels with their complexity maxed out.

And there are actually a LOT of games that use PhysX for physics, it's just very few of them that make use of hardware-acceleration (even if it's available). This is probably one of the few areas where consoles are actually holding up PC development; they have no way of running these complex physics simulations, so gameplay has to be altered to exclude any scenarios that requires intensive physics. And no, the new consoles do not rectify this situation, they still don't have enough power (fitting all assets into available RAM is not the problem, raw computing power is).

So, circling back around... just because consoles have a limited quantity of RAM does not always, if ever, mean these games are designed specifically to work within that quantity of RAM. It's equally likely that they were scaled down to the respective systems after the fact.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
Did any of us say that a 3GB HD7870 exists? I definitely didn't. Are you really going to keep this up?
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror buddy, you're just as guilty of "keeping this up" as I am and I'm not the one arguing with something I agree with.
 
Unknown-One said:
Rare cases? :confused:

Most PC games I've played have much better draw distance than their console counterparts. In modern games, this usually shows up as high-quality models being displayed farther into the distance before being swapped for lower-quality ones. Did you think I was referring to some archaic "distance fog" setup?

So, while the console version can technically see as far as the PC version, the the detail ramp is much more severe so that anemic console hardware isn't overwhelmed by it. The quality ends up being much lower on the console side of things in order to maintain such high overall draw distance.

And I already pointed out that Assassin's Creed can have a much larger number of NPC's in its PC version (same goes for its sequels). Newer games like Hitman Absolution manage to get an impressive number of NPC's onto the screen (even on consoles) but if you look carefully you'll notice the distant ones are significantly dumbed down on the console versions. There are many more repeated models, repeated animations, and a general lack of AI complexity on the NPC's far away from the player.

None of this is a problem for the PC version. No trouble handling these levels with their complexity maxed out.

And there are actually a LOT of games that use PhysX for physics, it's just very few of them that make use of hardware-acceleration (even if it's available). This is probably one of the few areas where consoles are actually holding up PC development; they have no way of running these complex physics simulations, so gameplay has to be altered to exclude any scenarios that requires intensive physics. And no, the new consoles do not rectify this situation, they still don't have enough power (fitting all assets into available RAM is not the problem, raw computing power is).

So, circling back around... just because consoles have a limited quantity of RAM does not always, if ever, mean these games are designed specifically to work within that quantity of RAM. It's equally likely that they were scaled down to the respective systems after the fact.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the explanation. I haven't played many games on both to compare the two.
 
RamonGTP said:
Look in the mirror buddy, you're just as guilty of "keeping this up" as I am and I'm not the one arguing with something I agree with.
Click to expand...
You do know the difference between an inclusive list and an exclusive list, right?

- We recommend an HD 7870 to run this game.
- We recommend 3GB of video RAM to run this game

This is an exclusive list. All parts stand alone as valid statements. You can effectively assume an "And/or" between every line.

We also know it's possible to use less than the recommended specs, but more than the minimum specs. Using the recommended HD 7870 meets the recommended requirements for raw GPU power, but does not meet the recommended requirements for RAM (it does, however, greatly exceed the minimum requirements). It is a perfectly valid card to list there.

If you would like to exceed all of the listed recommended specs, then you are perfectly free to pick a card faster than the HD 7870 with 3GB (or more) of video RAM on board.
 
RamonGTP said:
Not necessary, I know what will and won't work. I wasn't the first to catch it anyway. When it was caught however, I recognized it as an error and didn't vehemently defend it by pointing to cards that aren't 7870's as my "proof."
Click to expand...

Just man up and admit you're crying cause you just bought two 2GB 680s before this announcement. ;)
 
Varmint said:
Just man up and admit you're crying cause you just bought two 2GB 680s before this announcement. ;)
Click to expand...

Bought them well before the announcement. Confidant at my resolution (1200p) I can crank up the settings and be CPU limited before i'm GPU limited, same as I am with BF3. ;)
 
RamonGTP said:
Bought them well before the announcement. Confidant at my resolution (1200p) I can crank up the settings and be CPU limited before i'm GPU limited, same as I am with BF3. ;)
Click to expand...

You may be right for BF4 (I'll say that you'll be dialing back a slider or two not related to GPU rendering performance), but you're dead wrong for fully next-gen games built exclusively for incoming consoles and the PC.

For me, at 1600p, 2GB was just barely enough, but I knew that these cards would last for the two years I needed them. And yeah, I'll be dialing back settings until I replace them- but I'm already doing that to keep BF3 at competitive frame-rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top