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.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
fattyuk1629d ago

Much more interested in the next gen / PC comparisons tbh,

Crazyglues1629d ago (Edited 1629d 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

||.........___||............ ||

PraxxtorCruel1629d ago (Edited 1629d ago )

Delete comment.

Ju1629d ago (Edited 1629d 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?

Crazyglues1629d ago

@ ju

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

||.........___||............ ||

ProjectVulcan1629d ago (Edited 1629d 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.

guitarded771629d 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.

ShinMaster1629d 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.

TekoIie1628d ago (Edited 1628d 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 ;)

Gamer19821628d 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.

ShinMaster1628d ago (Edited 1628d 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.

BattleAxe1628d 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.

Ju1628d ago (Edited 1628d 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 [email protected] - 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...

1628d ago
+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1628d ago
JsonHenry1629d 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.

Neckbear1629d ago

It looks exactly just like BF3.

somedude3421629d ago

this is what took them 2 years to make? some new maps and a spotting animation?

Irishguy951629d ago

Water and all that **** in multiplayer, BF4 is BF3.5 really, it's just catching consoles up to the BF experience.

SilentNegotiator1629d ago


Like EA DICE wouldn't have stuck to a biennial release schedule anyway.

dcj05241629d 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.

RedDevils1628d ago

Lol so much for the hype right? haha

Gamer19821628d 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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1628d ago
venom061629d ago

if you think this looks exactly like BF3, you need you brain scanned for abnormalities... you might be sick and not know it..

ShinMaster1629d ago (Edited 1629d ago )

It probably has something to do with BF4 having the same bland, high contrast art direction as BF3.

bumnut1629d ago

"It looks exactly just like BF3"

Not on PC, it looks amazing.

JsonHenry1629d 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.

Gamer19821628d 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).

Neckbear1628d ago (Edited 1628d ago )

I played it on PC. Running it on Ultra at 1080p. It looked exactly just like the BF3 multiplayer.

Far from amazing, too.

Qrphe1628d ago

Not right now since game runs at 15fps for most

bumnut1628d ago (Edited 1628d 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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1628d ago
1nsomniac1629d ago

I clicked this because I read it as PS4. Are u really comparing PS3 to PC!??

pixelsword1629d ago (Edited 1629d ago )

No kiddin'; I said "well, I guess a mid-range PC would be a good starting poi-- PS3?!"


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.

deSSy27241628d ago

mid-range LAPTOP/NOTEBOOK, NOT desktop PC.

The GPU inside the laptop is weak compared to most desktop low-midrange GPUs.

Funantic11629d ago (Edited 1629d 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.

dazzrazz1629d ago

7 minutes wow you must suck at this game hardcore

tristanwerbe1629d ago

This game does suck just like bf3 sucked

Blastoise1629d 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

bumnut1629d ago

Thats because 24 players is nowhere near enough for a BF game.

SharnOfTheDEAD1629d 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....

Allsystemgamer1629d ago

So. You watch PC footage and then complain when you play the console version....logic right there....

FITgamer1629d 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.

dcj05241629d 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.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1629d ago
kevnb1629d ago (Edited 1629d 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.

infamous-butcher1629d ago

well at least its a messy beta and not a messy retail version.