Battlefield 4-ready PC in under $700

With the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and now, apparently, the long-rumored Steam Box looming just over the horizon, the average system requirements for AAA PC games is about to spike. Whether you're looking stay in the game, or just need to update an old toaster, right now is a great time to look at a new PC build.

[MethCupcakes]

-___- I got one too. Its called a PS4. $400. Really $421.62 if you include state tax.

I'm building a gaming PC and Getting a PS4.

[Starbucks_Fan]

"I got one too. Its called a PS4."

*grabs popcorn*

[come_bom]

But on the PC games are cheaper, you don't pay for multiplayer, you can do way more things with a PC then a console and you can be sure that you can play your games on the PC in 10-20 years from now, contrary to console games.

... but I'm still buying next gen consoles (at least one of them).

[SonyNGP]

Please don't lie. The PS4 isn't out yet.

[kingduqc]

yeah cmon man

[kingduqc]

it's 400$ for the console, 400$ for the online(8years so that's 870$ right there if you count the game) but hey, console gamer can't really think that far can they. It's only 4-5$ a month right?

The build on the site isn't really good frankly, there could be much more done...

[MethCupcakes]

Hey man, I have a question. Is it where you come from they put the dollar sign after the number? I've been to Europe and it's done like how it is in America "$1234" not "1234$". If not then you're just another stupid troll and I applaud you. You managed to get on internet, type out n4g in the address bar, click an article, scroll down , see my comment and attempt to use your tiny brain to type out a troll comment. All in one day.. Bravo! Bravo!

[kingduqc]

@MethCupcakes

Here In Canada, everyone type XXXX and then the sign $....

http://www.futureshop.ca/fr...
Take a look, all the cost of items are XXX.XX$

Oh, and I'm also a troll right? Because I'm sure you won't be playing online for battlefield right? No need to pay sony 50$ a year to play on the console right?

Yeah, shut up man. "PC GAMING IS SO EXPENSIVE, man look how cheap consoles is if you don't take into consideration paying for online, price of games that never drop, more expensive game at release, the gas I pay to buy games cause you know, they are stuck 10 years in the past and they still don't distribute games digitally. Oh and don't forget, Gotta upgrade the proprietary hard disk that cost 3-4 times more then a normal Hard drive because hey... there is a Microsoft logo on it."

enjoy your 30 fps in 2 year, chpping down to 20's lol..

[Mini0510]

I hope the above comment is a joke and not actually serious...
can't tell which side you are on.

[Mini0510]

I don't recall that the PS4 can do photoshop. How about making a program in C++?
Let me know, kid.

[JustPlay4]

who would spend only 700 on a gaming PC, that kinda lame. Should spend at least 2000 on it, if you really want one that will play most games.

[the_espresso_kid]

You don't need to spend 2k on a gaming rig, that's an old cliche.

[JustPlay4]

cliche or not 700 to low, I have computer that can't play games at all and it cost 1100 to buy

so for me that to low, just my opinion

[WheatBread]

I spent only $540 and I can play most games out there.

$205 - HD 7950 3GB
$265 - i5-3570k and MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate motherboard
$70 - Corsair TX650

I used my old ram, hdd, and windows 7.

[JustPlay4]

That sound like a good deal to me

[NewMonday]

so you already have a PC but you just updated it, for someone starting out will need:

m/k
HDD
backup HDD
MB
case
windows

[starchild]

That's ignorant beyond belief. My rig with an HD 7950 and i5 2500k could be built for probably around $700 and it maxes out virtually every game. I'll be able to play Battlefield 4 very well.

If you buy some crappy pre-built with poor hardware choices then yeah you can spend a lot more. But if you are building it yourself and you makes smart choices about the parts you can build a very capable gaming PC for around $700.

[NewMonday]

I doubt that

also PC gaming is about upgrading every 2-3 years.

[SaulGoodman]

PC gaming is for people who like to wait in 7 hour lines every year to drop 800 dollars on a new iPhone.

[Mini0510]

700 is budget pc. $1000-$1200 is probably good experience and not too costly.

[FantasyStar]

You're not going to get 60FPS with a HD7790 at 19x10. They quoted the FPS rate when FXAA is used. What's the point of bumping up to Ultra quality for your textures if you're just going to get blurred textures cause of the post-processing FXAA? You might as well should bump down the textures to High or Medium and stick with MSAA and spare your GPU the wasted effort. Besides, why run FXAA on a AMD GPU?

Frankly, if you are gaming at 19x10: those small jaggies are nothing compared to playing at 12x7 or 14x9 such that you can settle for either 2x MSAA or even no AA at 19x10.

You can maybe save some money on the motherboard+CPU if you decide to go with the FM2 socket and go the APU route. Since the list doesn't include the usage of a SSD: no point in investing in the 970 chipset. The Hudson D4s should be good enough for most gaming applications for the passing PC gamer: which is what this article seems to be aiming at.

[starchild]

People have different opinions about this. I personally think a lot of people over-exaggerate the blurring caused by FXAA. It's not that bad in my opinion. Certainly not enough to be worse than dropping down the texture resolution.

Also, it depends on how close you sit to your display. If you sit, say, 6 feet away from your monitor/HDTV you aren't going to notice the minor FXAA blur nearly as easily as if you were sitting 1 or 2 feet away.

FXAA has its place. It gets rid of specular aliasing better than just about any other anti-aliasing technique short of SSAA (or TXAA on Nvidia cards). I prefer a cleaner and softer image quality over a sharper and noisier image quality.

And there is no problem running FXAA on an AMD card. I use RadeonPro with nearly every game and I will sometimes use FXAA at the highest quality setting and, depending on the game, it can look great and has very little impact on performance. I've never found a case where I would prefer no anti-aliasing over using FXAA.

[xKugo]

OMG, here comes the PS4 v. PC debacle.

[xKugo]

That PC is not going to garner 1080p/60fps in Ultra settings on BF4; I'm sorry but just no, especially with post-processing FXAA enabled. Spare that crap GPU and keep it at mid-high settings so as to retain high-quality textures.

[FantasyStar]

If you read the article closely: you'll see that they quoted the AnandTech benchies which shows the 7790 capable of pushing out around 60FPS with FXAA.

http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

I agree with you about the rest though, but facts are facts.

[xKugo]

Yes, on BF3, which alone has a much lower minimum and maximum requirement than BF4 does. You can't say that just because the mid-entry level rig you have now can run BF3 in 1080p/60fps in ultra settings, that it can also run BF4 in ultra. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense, because if that were the case no one would feel the need to upgrade their rigs(which people are certainly doing just for this game). Not trying to be a dousche, but I'm just trying to make a point.

[starchild]

@xKugo

What are you talking about? Most of the system requirements are not that much higher. The main change is in the area of memory.

The recommended system specs for Battlefield 3 were:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
RAM: 4GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950.
Graphics card memory: 1 GB
Sound card: DirectX compatible sound card
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

The recommended specs for Battlefield 4 are:

OS: Windows 8 64-bit
CPU: AMD six-core or Intel quad-core
RAM: 8GB
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7870 or Nvidia Geforce GTX 660 with 3GB of memory
http://bf3blog.com/battlefi...
http://www.shacknews.com/ar...

The memory requirements went up quite a bit, but the CPU and GPU requirements are fairly similar.

The recommended graphics cards for Battlefield 4 are just one notch up from those recommended for Battlefield 3. This isn't some terrifying massive leap in the requirements.

[iistuii]

If you could run B3 on ultra I doubt you'll need to even buy a new card. But even if you did you'd only need the one above.

[AceBlazer13]

Under $700? Chances are it's gonna pump out quality equal to if not slightly better than ps4, save yourself a couple bucks.

[decrypt]

Yea but the 700usd PC plays 25 years worth of games. In comparison PS4 has no library.

[Jovanian]

its kinda pointless to compare the cost of a gaming PC to a console.

A gaming PC can do much, much more than a console, and consoles are also sold at a loss. You aren't dropping down 700 bucks for a piece of hardware that just plays games, you are getting something that browses internet, is able to be upgraded, able to launch computer programs on, everything a console pretty much can't. I mean you can technically browse internet on a console, but its janky as hell and impractical for anything other than quick google searches.

I'd warrant that most people who own a console also own a desktop or at least a laptop for internet browsing purposes. Thats 200-300 right there if you get the bottom of the barrel crap. Oh look price has been equalized back up to 700

[AceBlazer13]

Lol and pc gamers still have to get consoles for exclusives.

[bumnut]

Have to? really?

[iistuii]

Id agree that system won't max out B4. But it will run it at a higher resolution & higher settings than the consoles, especially if they are 720 & medium settings. Let's stop the ridiculous arguments about the PC vs PS4/X1 just like it is today the PC multi formats will be miles ahead in the graphics dept. it's funny, it's like I'm sat in my Lamborghini, watching 2 kids racing against each other in hot hatchbacks arguing which is quicker.