This is the ultra high end PC that’ll power Battlefield 4 at GamesCom

DICE has revealed the ultra high end PC that will power Battlefield 4 at GamesCom later this month.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Ghost_of_Tsushima1557d ago

Why don't they show it running on consoles? They scared of the outcome?

Rearden1557d ago

I remember the Xbox One demo failed at E3 and they ran it off a PC.

Rimeskeem1556d ago

They should try it on the PS4

drsfinest721556d ago

Oh yeah like the AC ps4 crash on e3 and destiny lagging? Right

Deathdeliverer1556d ago

@ drsfinest72
You act like those were games that come out tomorrow. I am willing to bet that ANY game we saw at E3 will look and run better than it did then compared to now. Kills me when people talk about alpha and beta games crashing or lagging. Its unstable because its INCOMPLETE AND UNPOLISHED.

drsfinest721556d ago

@deathdeliver okay exactly. So what u said can go in Xbox one defense as well when the demo acted up at e3

M-M1556d ago

Lol at Microsoft and Sony fanboys arguing against one another, never gets old. They both had problems because all of the software were very early versions.

Ghost_of_Tsushima1556d ago


Yea PC fanboys are just as bad.

FanboyCrusher1556d ago

The audio was messed up, besides it was all on PC in the first place. Take a wild guess as to what actually failed at the Sony conference on dev kits. Black flag, and Destiny. Don't bash one for menial crap where you seem to be missing facts.

assdan1556d ago

yeah, that's because the xbox one wasn't even near ready at that point I find it hilarious that they were using "dev kits" to run demos when they were using different brand gpus, the gpus were three times stronger, and they were using a difference os.

Army_of_Darkness1556d ago

That's just great, show case your game on a machine that most people wont have or can't afford and they wonder why some people get dissapointed in the quality when they actually play it on their console or pc?!
I think it would of been smarter of EA to showcase bf4 on the ps4 or xbone so if anything the people with high end pc's will be more impressed when they see slight enhancements afterwards rather then a bunch of people getting dissapointed.

starchild1556d ago

@Army of Darkness

You make no sense. If the enhancements on PC are only "slight" then why would people be disappointed when they play the PS4 and XB1 versions? Surely they are not going to notice "slight" differences simply going off their memory of online videos.

It seems you don't wan't to fully admit that the PC version will be quite a bit better, yet it still bothers you that they will be showing it off on the PC.

B-radical1556d ago

The bf4 xbox one demo had sound problems and wasnt even a live demo.....

JsonHenry1556d ago

Not too concerned with how beta software was running on beta hardware. Unexpected things happen.

I doubt that this PC will be required to run the game on Ultra settings but DAMN! is that machine sexy or what?!

fr0sty1556d ago

That's my system with half the RAM and a much better GPU setup.

NewMonday1556d ago

single 7970 or GTX680 should be enough for top end PC gaming for a couple of years

ziggurcat1556d ago

@ M-M:

PC elitists are way worse.

WarThunder1556d ago

Big deal! a good PC for a crap generic hollywood style fps game..

slayorofgods1556d ago

Well, a dual AMD Radeon 7970 graphics cards, and a bulldozer 8 core cpu does blow away the specs of a ps4. That's why they are showcasing it on a pc, it must be optimized for those specs...

This is the best news for AMD, great news for PC Gaming, and good news for console gaming. Next generation gaming looks to mirror all three of those.

bligmerk1556d ago

Their demo booths at E3 were also running on PC's in the cabinet underneath the mock XBone on top of the cabinet. If you open the MS XBone demo unit cabinet doors at Gamescom, you will probably get to see these PC's that are "representative" of the XBone and constitute the equivalent of "devkits".

pixelsword1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

@ The_Infected

Although I am considering skipping this gen and going all out on my PC, I have to agree: in some cases, PC fanboys are way worse then console fanboys;

The reason being almost all of them act like every time a game goes into any PC on earth that the PC will turn into one of those ultra high-end PCs pictured above. All the way up to this current generation, the leap from consoles to PC was vast; the difference is notable still, of course, but the graphical differences on most games weren't all that great to say "the PC was the clear winner in terms of graphics and performance to the point that the console version is not worth purchasing".

EDIT: I forgot Quake Wars: that SUCKED on the PS3, and I assume the 360 as well; the PC was the clear winner in terms of graphics and performance to the point that the console version is not worth purchasing. LOL!

Before if you had a console and you saw the PC version of the game, you just gawked in awe and shook your head at the console (I did that in the end of the PS1 era and from there was mainly a PC gamer until way after GoW came out on the PS2).

The next generation may narrow the graphics gap to where consoles look like a higher-end PC game or at least get games to the point where it looks like a very good upper-middle-range PC.

GuyThatMakesSense1555d ago


From Riglaxable, commenter in YouTube:

"Actually, all demos on E3 this year were recorded as they were being played. That's why it lagged; it was NOT the game's fault."

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 1555d ago
RicardJulianti1557d ago

Probably. They need to show it off looking as best as it can so that people are excited to buy it. If they show off a lesser version, people just might go "Meh." and walk away.

It'll look better on PS360 than BF3 did....but it won't look pretty. PS4/X1 will look very good, but running at 60fps is going to mean a drop in extra effects compared to what was shown at the reveal.

IF EA wasn't completely lazy, they could have a Wii U version that ran better than PS360, but worse then PS4/X1.

For comparison's sake:
PC>>>>PS4>> >X1>>[Hypothetical Wii U version]>>PS360

Rimeskeem1556d ago

For all the xbox fanboys that are going to get mad ill do this

PC>>>>>>PS4 =X1>>>[Hypothetical Wii U version>>>PS3/360

theWB271556d ago

How is EA lazy for skipping the WiiU? The reason why is pretty simple...

PS3/360- Install base is huge and you don't skip sales number like that.

PS4/PC/X1- Showcase the best the game has to offer on a home console and PC.

The WiiU doesn't fit into either one of those camps. It doesn't have the install base, and it wouldn't be the best console version you can buy. So skip it...

RicardJulianti1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )


Because they explicitly talked about the Frostbite engine "brought to you on a Nintendo system." and spoke of their "unprecedented partnership"

The laziness comes from them "trying out" Frostbite 2 on unfinished Wii U dev kits (rumored to be locked at one CPU core until launch) with poor documentation, not getting "favorable results" (most likely due to a lack of optimization)....and so they don't even bother trying to get Frostbite 3 to work on the system.

They didn't showcase the best Mass Effect 3 had to offer on a home console and it didn't have a single system sold at the time....yet they went ahead with it, yet sabotaged the game before it even released.

Crysis 3 would have been the best version on a home console and yet they killed that. By that logic they should kill the PS4/X1 versions Battlefield 4 whose launches won't reach much higher than the Wii U's first 4 months, if even that, by the end of the year.

theWB271556d ago

Mass Effect has been on 360/PS3 for quite some time now. The trilogy is done and they only released ME3. As of now I don't think its reached a million sales.

It's EA's fault Nintendo gave them piss poor dev kits? That's Nintendo's's a business. They shouldn't have to spend extra resources developing an engine for a system when Nintendo wasn't doing their part. That's crazy you say Nintendo locked the system until launch, but it's EA's fault.

Microsoft and Sony aren't locking the systems until launch. That's Nintendo's fault.

Sony and Microsoft will have a better launch than Nintendo. You also have to take the crowd into consideration. Nintendo is not a 3rd party system. Period. PS and Xbox are.

History has shown Nintendo doesn't care about 3rd party in point not having finished dev kits. Nintendo dropped the ball...the WiiU is selling terrible. They themselves didn't have any significant titles ready for why aren't you attacking Nintendo for not being ready for its own launch? If 1st party aren't delivering big titles...then why should 3rd party worry about it especially since sales are terrible.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1556d ago
tubers1556d ago

Since Bullshots are almost industry standard (high res/ high AA), at least "running on PC" isn't as bad :P

Pandamobile1556d ago

Easier to get your hands on 64 $4000 PC's than 64 PS4 or Xbox One dev kits, I can assure you.

MRMagoo1231556d ago

I am a sony fan and always will be but i also love gaming on my pcs i have been a pc tech for a good 20 years now, so i just think they wanna do it on pcs cos they want the game looking the best it can possibly look, i mean why not if it was me i would do the same and there would be no bugs to worry about compared to dev kits. Im looking forward to seeing this game in action BF has been my favourite fps franchise for a long while now.

SonyPS41556d ago

The most hardcore BF fans play the games on PC. Consoles get the scraps.

T21556d ago

Cant wait for the day of cross play to watch ppl put their money where mouth is

badz1491556d ago

are those the GHz Edition? and why xfire setup and not single dual GPU like HD7990? or maybe HD7990 xfire while they are at it? and THAT would be the REAL MONSTER of a pc!

ABizzel11556d ago

Overkill. Based on those specs. the PC is about $1,500 - $2,000, and Xfire 7970's is more than enough to get 1080p @ 60fps Ultra, so I guess the demo is running in 2k or 3k (as it has been).

badz1491556d ago

overkill, sure but there's no overkill when it comes to the dev themselves, right? I would build 1 for myself if I have the money and call it a day and still be running all new games on ultra 3-4 years down the road!

Athonline1556d ago

Better marketing for AMD, as definitely they got agreements with AMD.

I doubt a single 7990 or a GTX 780 will have any trouble running it on Ultra.

H0RSE1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

Scared that people won't see BF4 running at its full potential. Which is likely why they opted for PC.

BF4 is going to look great on both next-gen consoles, but when you're trying to showoff a product, you want it to look it's very best, and consoles cannot deliver that. There's also the idea that DICE wants to show that they aren't slacking on the PC version. BF did start out as a PC only game, so I see it only fair that it get the limelight in situations like this.

Also, anyone claiming that the PS4 is just as powerful, consider this - The 7990 combines two graphics cores to create over 8.6 billion transistors and 8.2 teraflops of computing power. That’s over 4x the performance Sony claims the PS4 (which also uses an AMD Radeon chip) will offer.

aquamala1556d ago

if next gen consoles can max out BF4 there's obviously no need to use high end PCs for demos.

HammadTheBeast1556d ago

They can't Max it out, it requires a Titan or something around that to Max BF3 out.

It won't look bad at all, probably High settings, but no way that it can go to ultra at 1080 p and 60 FPS.

Well, maybe I can see it for PS4, with a few settings turned off. I can only say PS4 at the moment because I can compare Planetside 2 which is running at max on PS4, so I'd assume that BF4 would be comparable, assuming we exchange 2000 players/vehicles/massive maps for better graphics, destructible environments and artifacts.

H0RSE1556d ago

Even if the next-gen consoles could max out BF4 graphically, it wouldn't be able to run it at 60fps. It would be a case of either/or, but not both.

I'll take Med/High settings at 60fps, over ultra at 30fps any day.

cyguration1556d ago


Yeah but is that Ultra on PS4 with 100+ players on the screen?

My PC could also run PS2 on the near highest settings until I respawned in a highly populated area and my FPS dropped down to 15.

Believe it, you'll be looking at Ultra settings on a PS4 with PlanetSide 2 when no one else in in sight.

HammadTheBeast1556d ago

Because it's primarily a PC game, looks and runs best on PC?

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Either way, I can safely say that BF3 was one of the best looking multiplat on consoles.

Corpser1556d ago

I don't understand why ps4 can't max out this game, it has 8GB of GDDR5, code to the metal and mark cerny

Pandamobile1556d ago

Probably because it's using a mobile CPU and GPU?

zebramocha1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

@panda what does matter if the ps4 has mobile parts if it's more than go enough then I don't see the problem. Here's a benchmark for the radeon 7850,the CPU is definitely better the ps4 but I don't see why the game couldn't be on ultra settings with tweak anti aliasing.

1556d ago
mep691556d ago

PC is the main platform, from a business pov it's common sense to show the superior platform.

SporadikStyles1556d ago

Probably not showing it on consoles because of NDAs from the console makers

sAVAge_bEaST1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

EA got money hatted from M$, hence only showing it on their system at E3, (while the dude from dice looked super uncomfortable)

ATi_Elite1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

My PC is running dual HD7970 GHZ cards, water cooled, a 4 core Intel 2600K with 8GB DDR3 ram but it did NOT cost me $4000.

Someone got Ripped off and paid too much.

Also kiddies need to remember that Gamescon is more of a PC event unlike the console driven E3 and also that Battlefield is still a PC first game and Battlefield should ALWAYS be shown on a High End PC so we can witness it's perfection in all it's Ultra Glory.

Showing BF3 mostly on PC worked really well last time as it sold over 14 million units on 360/PS3 alone.

Besides the moment we see BF4 on XB1/PS4 then those DARN PC Elitist will have a field day when it doesn't look like BF4 PC on Ultra, Those Jerks!

Dazel1556d ago

The guy writing doesn't know his arse from his elbow, each card may have 3GB v ram but that doesn't make a total of 6gb it can use, it doesn't work like that in crossfire or sli.

Also you would think they would at least show this on ps4 so we can see what consoles can do.

Psn8001556d ago

I can't afford that but I can afford my Ps4 that will do me .

SilentNegotiator1556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

Because they would rather market it in the quality that 99.9% of gamers won't experience it in, to make it look better.

Feralkitsune1556d ago

No, it's likely the best looking version. You always want to present something at it's best.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 1555d ago
latincooker2141556d ago (Edited 1556d ago )

i want to see what it looks like on the PS4. do you guys think will see it running on the PS4 at GAMESCOM at all???

Zephyrnix1556d ago

Judging from what I’m reading. We’re looking at a AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor, so including everything you posted. The price of this PC would stand somewhere just under $2,000.

Not bad actually.

modesign1556d ago

You get the same result with a $400 ps4

SonyPS41556d ago

PS4 doesn't have a 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor...

FlyingFoxy1556d ago

PS4's cpu is clocked lower, and less performance than an Intel chip at the same clock speeds.

Zephyrnix1556d ago

No. you don't get the same results with a PS4. Don't fool yourself.

The PS4 will first off, have a mobile processor isn't isn't as strong as this processor.. I don't even need to go on after that.

Besides, what does that ahve to do with this conversation?

NarooN1556d ago

PS4 will have nice specs for what it is.

But it won't compare to this rig.

PS4 has a slower CPU with a low clock speed because of HSA. The CPU will be used for the most basic of things. However, because the games will be multi-threaded, you don't really need a super-high IPC for basic things like A.I. and positions of objects on the map, etc. The GPU will handle the visual things, the textures, the usual, as well as physics, taking nice loads off the CPU.

But no, the PS4 won't get you the "same result" as a ~$2000+ gaming rig. You pay for what you get most of the time.

josephayal1556d ago

in general the PS4 Is better

Perjoss1556d ago

"You get the same result with a $400 ps4"

But you get nowhere near as many exclusives as you get on the PC.

1556d ago
+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1556d ago
Netic1556d ago

4,000$ ...LOL these articles...Judging from those specs its not over 2000$.

As for "modesign" comment : No you don't get the same results with a 400$ PS4. It can't run this game at 60fps with 2560x1440 resolution,4x AA and 16x AF ultra settings.

Sorry but you get what you pay for

modesign1556d ago

So ea designed bf4 specifically for a 4k PC. For $4k I'm gonna want the game to have maps the size of states and 5k npc' s on screen

Zephyrnix1556d ago

Are you not listening? He just said judging from the specs, it own't be over $2000...which is exactly like I posted.

Don't fall so hard for the Sony propaganda dude. Sonys (and microsofts) NEXT Gen, is PCs, Last Gen.

And unlike consoles, we're not limited to Resolutions for Frames Per second. I'd invest in a gaming rig if I we're you. This rig they're talking about will set you back about 2k. And LORD knows the gamers are way cheaper on PC. I just got 6 games today for $5. One of them was Battlefield 3. You can't go wrong with that bro'ham.

modesign1556d ago

@zeph. I would have to see how planet side2 runs on the ps4. If its shit then I will invest in a PC.

Hate to be a buzz kill but publishers are going to invest in what they feel will get them most bang for their buck and so far its consoles.

Murad1556d ago

Awesome, they are using a Corsair C70 Vengence.

Truehellfire1556d ago

Noticed that too. Corsair is probably my favorite case maker. Rocking their Obsidian 650D myself.