Submitted by Shaungamerthumb 197d ago | article

Battlefield 4 showdown: PS3 vs mid-range PC visual comparison

Gamer Thumb compares a mid-range PC and a PS3 to see how well each handles the Battlefield 4 beta.

It’s already a given that gamers will grab BF4 for PC if they own a high-end machine: it looks amazing.

But what about the rest of the gaming population who has to grapple with slightly older or inferior hardware?

This comparison is aimed at helping those who are tossing up between the current-gen console and PC versions for fear that there mightn’t be much difference without some expensive PC hardware. (Battlefield 4, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

fattyuk  +   197d ago
Much more interested in the next gen / PC comparisons tbh,
Crazyglues  +   197d ago
That's why he did the PC at 1600 x 900 to kinda show you what it's looking like on PS4...

That's what the PS4 build at the show was running at, so that PC version should give you an idea of what what it might look like on PS4 - or nex gen consoles... it's going to be sweet. hopefully.. if they pull it off..

here's a better look at it running on the PS4 -->


Just fast forward to about 00.40

||.........___||............ ||
#1.1 (Edited 197d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(24) | Report | Reply
PraxxtorCruel  +   197d ago
Delete comment.
#1.1.1 (Edited 197d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(11) | Report
Ju  +   196d ago
I would rather hope the PS4 version will stomp all over that. It screen tears like crazy. OMG.

Not matter how many bullet points want to underline the PC superior version...for me personally it doesn't look so much better than the PS3 version but the frame rate is so much worse, it's not even funny. Why show something like that?
#1.1.2 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(13) | Report
Crazyglues  +   196d ago
@ ju

this is the beta, try not to judge it too hard, since it's indeed going to be improved and optimized....

||.........___||............ ||
vulcanproject  +   196d ago
It obviously looks better than the PS3 version with a bunch more effects and resolution, although he hasn't turned on vsync for whatever reason.

Its running on a laptop with a 750M GPU, which isn't even as fast as a now ancient GTX460 desktop card. Like the machine he is demoing it on is way slower than a modern $80 card like a GTX650.

The PS3 version will probably improve a little but the PC version has by far the most room to improve before its finished, largely because there will be better drivers as well.

It was kinda obvious even a laptop with a relatively weak GPU can beat up PS3. It is 2013 after all.

I don't quite get the comparison but hey.
#1.1.4 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(7) | Report
guitarded77  +   196d ago
He says the comparison is for those deciding between console, and a lower grade PC set-up version of the game... for those unsure of the reasoning.

I have the game pre-ordered for PS4, and played the beta on PS3. I was not impressed with the beta. The fire was horrible... in a lot of ways, it felt like a step down from Battlefield 3 on the PS3. Maybe it was partially the bland environment of the beta level. It's just so damn grey and boring... It's like everywhere you look is the same texture, and that texture makes everything look like 3D mesh models.
ShinMaster  +   196d ago
And to think they're using HIGH settings on the PC version to compare to the PS3.

Not bad for a console over 7 years old.
Hell, I can't remember PC games looking this good in 2005/6 on PC.
Pekolie  +   196d ago

I dont remember console games looking that good back in 05/06 either.

But nice job leaving out 07 so I couldnt point out Crysis ;)
#1.1.7 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report
Gamer1982  +   196d ago
Its stupid as PS3 version will be running at around 640p (BF3 ran at 1280 x 704 on consoles this will be less as the engines more powerful) upscaled to 1080p as per usual. Mid range Pc costing around £400 can run this at 1080p NATIVE. Thats the main difference here. If you ran a PC @640P with mid settings you could probably get that PC for the same cost as a PS3 if you tried. Though obviously you lose the up-scaling. But you get a cheaper copy and PC benefits..

People gotta realise about these comparisons they are comparing them all to 1080p PC WHY??? How about you comapre the correct resolutions? Like when comparing to PS4/XBONE compare BF4 running 720p. A £500 PC can easily run the game past the 60FPS mark on high @720P. Thats what the new consoles supposedly runs at NOT ULTRA.
ShinMaster  +   196d ago
@ Pekolie

360 and PS3 launched around that time. Their hardware is around 8 years old and hasn't changed since. Crysis came out 2 years later for better hardware.
So unless you can prove that a PC under $500 with comparable hardware in 2005/6 had games that looked better at that time, I stand by what I said.

I think it just proves that even with static non-upgradable console hardware, games can improve on them.
#1.1.9 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report
BattleAxe  +   196d ago
I played the PS3 beta at a friend's place lastnight, and I thought it looked pretty good. The map that they give you to play isn't really all that good though.
Ju  +   196d ago
Don't give me this "not vsynch" crap. Because it obviously isn't. But this version simply is nowhere the "superior 60fps" nor is it anywhere close to 1080p we get hammered in here every day. The PS3 version runs absolutely smooth, the PC version doesn't. So, that said, you will need some power in your machine to be able to run this at 1080p@60fps - an this isn't even "ultra". And even "High" isn't that far above the PS3 version. The player count is the biggest difference here, because the maps are huge and will feel empty with less players. The worst in this game, however, is the "dust layer" which might be interesting from a technical perspective but makes this game ugly and grey. I liked the beta better than BF3. It plays faster and is a little bit more enjoyable, IMO. Still...I will probably skip it. Not enough since BF3 to charge me another $60...
#1.1.11 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
N4G_IS_SONYS_WHORE   196d ago | Spam
JsonHenry  +   196d ago
Even at medium settings and sub 1080p resolution this game looks great on PC. Console gamers are in for a real treat because it is gonna be on par or better than that on the next gen consoles.
Neckbear  +   197d ago
It looks exactly just like BF3.
somedude342  +   197d ago
this is what took them 2 years to make? some new maps and a spotting animation?
Irishguy95  +   197d ago
Water and all that **** in multiplayer, BF4 is BF3.5 really, it's just catching consoles up to the BF experience.
SilentNegotiator  +   196d ago

Like EA DICE wouldn't have stuck to a biennial release schedule anyway.
dcj0524  +   196d ago
They had to get out all those awful glitches and better netcode too, flying mechanics feel different too. Probably took a few months to think "Hey guys lets not make the commander a overpowered POS this time!" And actually balance the guns (Hi BF3). And so far the Map layouts look a hell of a lot better than any BF3 map. I'd say even BF2 quality. Its a natrual sewual with natrual improvments. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 or Doom 2 was a step up but not a giant one.
RedDevils  +   196d ago
Lol so much for the hype right? haha
Gamer1982  +   196d ago
New ideas are hard to come by these days in the FPS genre I mean look at COD its the same game each year with new maps and guns. All they added this year is a dog and underwater level. Not much they can do especially with older consoles holding them back. Once the leash is off however and they have sold enough consoles so they don't have to make PS3/360 versions games can get a lot better.
venom06  +   196d ago
if you think this looks exactly like BF3, you need you brain scanned for abnormalities... you might be sick and not know it..
ShinMaster  +   196d ago
It probably has something to do with BF4 having the same bland, high contrast art direction as BF3.
#2.2.1 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(1) | Report
bumnut  +   196d ago
"It looks exactly just like BF3"

Not on PC, it looks amazing.
JsonHenry  +   196d ago
The best part is not all of the visual effects are enabled on the PC beta. It's going to look even better on release when all the post effects are added in.

But visuals aside, this game just feels and plays "tighter" is the best way to describe it.
Gamer1982  +   196d ago
Looks a LOT like BF3 PC Version on PC. I got both on PC. I also have BF3 on PS3 (to play with a friend online).
Neckbear  +   196d ago
I played it on PC. Running it on Ultra at 1080p. It looked exactly just like the BF3 multiplayer.

Far from amazing, too.
#2.3.3 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
Qrphe  +   196d ago
Not right now since game runs at 15fps for most
bumnut  +   196d ago

Maybe your eyes are not 1080 compatible, I think it looks great, so much more detail than BF3.

Its the little things that make the difference like the welding sparks from the repair gun, bullets hitting metal steps, textures are a lot better too.

EDIT @ above

It runs ok for me, my friend was complaining it ran like crap with SLI 570's, turned out he was hitting his VRAM limit. Its runs ok for me with a 780, not 60 fps but still very playable.
#2.3.5 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
1nsomniac  +   197d ago
I clicked this because I read it as PS4. Are u really comparing PS3 to PC!??
pixelsword  +   197d ago
No kiddin'; I said "well, I guess a mid-range PC would be a good starting poi-- PS3?!"
#3.1 (Edited 197d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
BISHOP-BRASIL  +   196d ago
Exactly, it would be a nice down to earth comparison, because most people don't have that killer high end PC and may be wondering about get the game on next gen consoles or on their current PCs or even if they're getting a next-gen console at all.
deSSy2724  +   196d ago
mid-range LAPTOP/NOTEBOOK, NOT desktop PC.

The GPU inside the laptop is weak compared to most desktop low-midrange GPUs.
Funantic1  +   197d ago
This game sucks on the beta. I went 7 whole minutes without seeing one enemy. When I finally did see one enemy my whole team shot him up cause he had no support. The trailers always look great until you play the real game and get disappointed...huge letdown. There's just not enough action and excitement. Furthmore what's with all the gliches on the beta. This is the worst beta ever. It's so unpolished and rushed. No way am I gonna spend my money on this trash. Maybe the PC at maximum settings will do it justice visually but still won't help the dull action. Look at the video above yourself and count how enemies you see get shot. The guy has to hunt down the action. The maps are too large. Erasing BF4 beta right now.
#4 (Edited 197d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(20) | Report | Reply
dazzrazz  +   197d ago
7 minutes wow you must suck at this game hardcore
tristanwerbe  +   197d ago
This game does suck just like bf3 sucked
Blastoise  +   197d ago
Are you playing on PC? I'm playing on PS3 and at times the level just turns into a ghost town and completely winds down. I assumed it would be more frantic on PC
bumnut  +   196d ago
Thats because 24 players is nowhere near enough for a BF game.
SharnOfTheDEAD  +   196d ago
you must be playing it wrong, I've had plenty of fun with just 24 players on Xbox and not even had 64 player experience yet, also the BF4 beta has no way near as many glitches as the BF3 beta....
Allsystemgamer  +   196d ago
So. You watch PC footage and then complain when you play the console version....logic right there....
FITgamer  +   196d ago
Depends on what you are playing it on. PS3 version only has 3 objectives half the map, and 24 players. They PC version has 6 objectives, twice as much map, and 64 players. It's alot more fun on PC and looks way better, this video doesn't do it justice. Like i said in a previous post anyone planning on getting this on current-gen are going to be really disappointed.
dcj0524  +   196d ago
Lol. Man. Sorry but you have to try REALLY HARD to sucks that hard. I just got done playing the beta on ps3. Whole team locked down alll objectives except for C and the enemy team made a crazy last push. Pulled out all then vehicles. my squad was just inside killing everyone and I was supporting them with my heli. It was too epic. Your doing something wrong man.
kevnb  +   197d ago
i see the promise, but the beta is kind of messy right now. But to put this in perspesctive, the laptop used has a mid range laptop gpu, not desktop but laptop.
#5 (Edited 197d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
infamous-butcher  +   197d ago
well at least its a messy beta and not a messy retail version.
Shane Kim  +   197d ago
Skipping this and buying KZ:SF instead.
ssj27  +   196d ago
Smart move!


All MP maps dlc are free

Very well balanced MP, KZ2 MP director is back! With costum rooms and very hardcore harsh community that will give you a challenge, no 13years old COD/Battlefield (yes battlefield is full of noobs) noobs.

1080p 60fps MP
Hufandpuf  +   196d ago
Buying BF4 and Titanfall. There's always room for both.
forcefullpower  +   196d ago
BF4 beta on PS3 is pretty poor. At the point of cancelling pre order for PS4 and just keeping killzone.
Haules  +   196d ago
BF4 feels like the players are sliding on ice skates holding paper guns lol
The gameplay is over the top fast paced and it feels so unrealistic.

I don't see why people are exited for BF4, maybe the over hyping that it gets from the media...
#6.4 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
PSnation4  +   197d ago
battlefield 3 beta was better than this lol.. im not a pc gamer so i will just wait for ps4 bf4
I_am_Batman  +   197d ago
PC version is set on 1600x900 and the video is uploaded in 720p? Also it doesn't even look like 720p probably because of compression. Impossible to compare with that quality.
TechMech2  +   197d ago
I'll just wait for Star Wars battlefront for my next dice game...thanks anyway
cunnilumpkin  +   196d ago
ps4 version equals pc version set to medium at 900p

pc version can be low, medium, high, very high and finally ultra

pc version will be a generation beyond ps4 when maxed out!
elhebbo16  +   196d ago
not sure why people are disagreeing with you, theres a huge difference between playying at 1440p/ultra settings and 900p/medium settings...

but people believe what they want to believe.
bumnut  +   196d ago
It takes a monster PC to play on ultra at 1440p.

I have an i7 950 (old but still good) and a GTX 780, I don't get close to 60 fps on ultra.
saint_seya  +   196d ago
I tried today the game for the first time on my pc and with textures in ultra and and deferred antialiasing off, and i get 43 fps #on 1920x1080 with 64 players.
But idk if is the map or what, but i thought the bf3 maps looked better #but then again i played bf3 with all in ultra so idk.
It looks good, but i can imagine that with all in ultra in higher resolutions should look a lot better.
EastBayPunk  +   196d ago
Fail video is fail
dillhole  +   196d ago
These videos make almost no sense when the Youtube quality is so low and the frame rate can go no higher than 30fps. I played the PS3 beta and it performs just as BF3 did - average. It'd be nice to see Youtube offer a 60fps option at some point in the future.
Shaungamerthumb  +   196d ago
I've updated with some screenshots
JohnS1313  +   196d ago
Comparisons of betas are dumb.
Ohlmay  +   196d ago
God damn the PS3 version looks terrible.
ThatCanadianGuy514  +   196d ago
You should see the 360 version lol
Ohlmay  +   196d ago
PS3 looks to have slightly sharper textures, but both look god awful, thank god I own a PC.
ThatCanadianGuy514  +   196d ago
"Slighty sharper textures"
Now that is one hell of an understatement.
kratos_TheGoat  +   196d ago
cod ghost for X1 & bf4 for ps4
GinkgoID  +   196d ago
Interesting. I played the PS3 version of was disappointed at the visuals. However, looking the mid-range PC stuff here, it doesn't look significantly/noticeably better.

Was expecting much more. Hmm, will wait and see PS4/high-end PC before passing judgement.
tommygunzII  +   196d ago
That is a $1200 laptop. You could buy 4 PS3's and a couple of games at that price.
#18 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Broburger  +   196d ago
$400 x 4 + $120 = $1720 (before taxes)
Ju  +   196d ago
PS3 is $199
kevnb  +   196d ago
ps3 isnt a laptop.
seanpitt23  +   196d ago
I just think after bc2 which was a amazing game dice has gone down hill from there I want everything to be destructible not just odd thing here and there and a set piece that's what bf is all about destructibility
#19 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Thunderhawkxbox  +   196d ago
Woow it never gonna stop now cod fans bashing bf fans lol just play your game or buy your favorite console and stop talking trash about games or consoles at end of the day u not gaining anything do u ?
Rageanitus  +   196d ago
"The PC version is graphically superior even on middle-range hardware"
TomahawkX  +   196d ago
Pointless comparison. Is there any need to point out the obvious? It's just beating a dead horse.

Why not compare this game with N64 Duke Nukem 3D while you're at it?
badvlad  +   196d ago
playin 360 version... it looks like poo =( picked up the scar and iron site looked like a block of cement
#23 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
srd4484  +   196d ago
Do people understand that this is a Beta version?
Firestorm  +   196d ago
This is a bit of a strange comparison - the results are exactly as one would expect.
The laptop used costs around twice as much as PS4, nevermind the outgoing ps3.
What I would like to see is a comparison of how well (if at all) a high end PC from the time of PS3's release could run it.
thawind  +   196d ago
What about a gtx 780m with 4gb of gddr5 ram can it do a higher resolution and framerate than the card their using in this article?
#26 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Allsystemgamer  +   196d ago
That's exactly what I'm using. I get between 60-75 fps on ultra
#26.1 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
thawind  +   196d ago
#26.1.1 (Edited 196d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
BLKxSEPTEMBER  +   195d ago
Do you? Maybe u have a much better mother board than me cause I'm getting shit fps. Maybe its my configuration.
Allsystemgamer  +   195d ago
mine is a sager custom build. im not entirely sure what MOBO i have.
BLKxSEPTEMBER  +   196d ago
im using a 7950 hd oc edtion and im having issues running this game on high! ill just go with the next gen version. i dont have the time to screw around with config i just wanna play!
Allsystemgamer  +   196d ago
Or just wait for the optimized version to be released?
Bakkies  +   196d ago
The game is going to be fun, but I'm not going to say it looks exceptional on any platform in comparison to graphics powerhouse titles of this gen and PC.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Volt Review - Not Very Electrifying | Twinfinite

36m ago - While Volt is visually pleasing and the gameplay is challenging, it doesn't add anything terribly... | PC

Front Towards Gamer Pax East 2014 -- Awesomenauts, Sword & Soldiers II Preview

40m ago - Robert Beach checks out what Romino has to to offer at Pax East. | PC

Front Towards Gamer Pax East 2014 -- Invisible Inc: Tactical Stealth Espionage

40m ago - Paul Neafsey interviews and checks out Klei's (XCOM-esque) tactical stealth espionage game. | PC

Fan Translation: Final Fantasy VII Available in German With Corrected Text

42m ago - Carl Williams writes, "Sometimes gamers take for granted living in Japan or in North America. Gam... | Retro

Start Making Games for the PS4

Now - Want to design the next generation of video games? Start learning game design today. Click for more info on how to get started. | Promoted post

Great Scott, Retro City Rampage On Steam At 90% Discount For $0.99

42m ago - GG3 writes: "Well, damn, today’s Daily Deal on Steam is a sharp one, as you can get Retro City Ra... | PC
Related content from friends