Battlefield 4 on PS4 and Xbox One: How it Should Look at 900p and 720p – Part 2 – The Differences

There has been a lot of talk on the fact that Battlefield 4 has been demonstrated running at a resolution of 720p on Xbox One and Ps4, and while EA DICE says that the final resolution isn’t yet finalized, and that they’re targeting to have the same resolution on both next generation consoles, many are still wondering what the real pixel count will be.

Here are several screenshots simulating how the game should look on next generation consoles with both 720p and 900p resolutions (and 1080p for refernece), and a direct comparison between them.

This second part aims to better showcase the differences between the resolutions.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
kratos_TheGoat1836d ago

looking forward for 64 players

P0werVR1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

Probably on their next title...hope so.


Oh yeah, me bad. heheheh

Abriael1836d ago

Umh, this one has 64 players.

NewMonday1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )


you actually did it, great work!

this is much better than the last time, the difference is clear on 720vs900 and also 900vs1080, 1080p is obviously the best, it looks so crisp

edite: I play on a 65'TV so the difference will stand out to me and matters

FamilyGuy1835d ago (Edited 1835d ago )

I was confused till I saw "part 2" in the title.
Glad some 1080p shots were put up this time. It's a shame we don't get the choice in the settings or something between 1080p/30fps mode and 720/900p 60fps mode. I have a big tv and prefer the higher resolution picture.

This is the only game I've head of coming to the PS4 that isn't going to be 1080p. 64 players and the destructibility of parts in the map must be very taxing, along with all the fancy lighting, particle effects etc etc.

hesido1835d ago

@FamilyGuy: I prefer higher framerates, but I like your thinking, their engine is scalable enough to provide those options.

P0werVR1835d ago


What would be the purpose of having such settings if it's already on the same system?

If they could have put a 1080p at 30fps with all the visual effects that make it Next Gen graphics, then I guarantee you they would do so. But since frame rates with advanced visual graphics is far better than a shotty 1080p resolution, it then makes a lot of sense.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1835d ago
bondsmx1836d ago

Ditto man.. Ditto. First "true" battlefield experience on consoles and I can't wait. I played bf1942, bf2 and 2142 on pc, but then Switched to consoles once my pc became outdated and didn't have money at the time to fix it. Played every bf game since on consoles and have always longed for 64 players again. Buying ps4/bf4 day 1. Can NOT wait!

3-4-51836d ago

Yea 64 players on consoles @60 FPS is really the only thing that truly matters.

Graphics will be better, so it doesn't matter how much because Current BF3/ xbox 360/Ps3 graphics are just fine as they are now.

It's literally going to be everything we have now, but slightly upgraded in almost every way.

This gen is about increasing all the small things.

It's going to take 2-4 years before people realize how next gen the PS4/xb1 can be.

TheKingWilliamV1836d ago

This isn't News this is TMZ

porkChop1836d ago

It's not listed as news, is it?

Evilsnuggle1835d ago

All the news the xoxo boiz don't like is TMZ. The fact that PS4 GPU is more powerful than xbone and PS4 has superior memory system bandwidth and is easy to program are fact not rumors. Even MicroSCAM said their drivers are not done.

Jazz41081835d ago (Edited 1835d ago )

I really think alot of people are going to be surprised how close both of the consoles are but I guess its okay to take rumors as facts if thats the kind of life you lead. I will enjoy both systems just like the current gen. I should add nice work to the person that went to the trouble to show this to everyone as this is not a easy thing to show and they are able to get there point across very nicely so kudos.

JsonHenry1836d ago

Just sit further away from your TV and you won't notice. If this was the way it was on my PC monitor though I would be upset. There is a huge loss of clarity.

Trekster_Gamer1836d ago

Part II of a useless article. How about we compare when the game releases??

My guess you won't be able to tell the difference, Xbox One / PS4 will look the same... Wii-u inferior and PC with a good gaming rig will look the best.

I'm more interested in how well it plays and the unique features each system brings.

Abriael1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

"My guess you won't be able to tell the difference, Xbox One / PS4 will look the same"

Someone missed the part of the article that says that it's not a comparison between Xbox One and PS4, but between 720p and 900p. DICE already said they're targeting the same resolution on both consoles. We just don't know which one.

tracyllrkn1836d ago

I don't think the game is coming to the Wii U.

xKugo1836d ago

Still don't understand why these systems aren't running the game at 1080p/60fps. Really are going to be missing out when the game launches; the beta on PC is already better than the PS4& Xbox One version will ever be. Sad...

Abriael1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

It also takes a PC that costs twice as much to run better than what the PS4 and Xbox version will ever be.

A 400 bucks PC might run the game with the native resolution downsized to 25%, which looks like ass :D

It won't even get near to 720p.

They're consoles. They're not designed to beat high end PCs. People should simply stop expecting them to.

ProjectVulcan1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

The fact is brand new console hardware isn't capable of doing the game in 1080p it seems, but a reasonable gaming PC is.

The next gen consoles are comparable to medium settings apparently.

On BF4 beta benches I have seen, a Radeon 7870 can do high @ 1080p and average pretty much 60FPS.

Thats a $170 card and thats on the beta, if the finished thing with finished drivers doesn't run quite a lot better like BF3 did from its beta to final I'll be surprised....

Not only that 7870 price is probably going to drop a little bit too.

Beating new consoles with PC hardware is getting cheaper. Its not like you'll need an uber machine to comfortably beat the next gen machines at multiformats.

If you don't believe it Abriael then you might want to have a look here:

New benchmarks where the 7870 is averaging.......58.7 at high settings.

The CPU is an overclocked i5 2550k. Its not a 'cheap' processor, but by no means is it the highest end either.

Sure enough a decent PC will cost more than $500, but then it WILL run the game better, and you WON'T need high end, very expensive gear to do it.

Yet as I pointed out, this IS a beta. The finished thing will surely run even faster....

Abriael1836d ago

@vulcanproject: a 7870 will never, ever average 60 FPS even on high at 1800p unless you pair it with a very powerful (and costly) CPU, and even in that case it's doubtful.

even if you count 170 bucks for the card, you have to buy the rest of the PC, and that'll bring you way over 500.

if you want 60 fps on the beta on high, you're looking at a 800 bucks PC, over 1000 if you want ultra.

xKugo1836d ago

Dude, quit posting stupid arguments like" Takes a PC twice as much to run better". No it doesn't, and that really seems to be your only defense. I could build a PC right now for $600 dollars that would crush a PS4 and would run BF4 better than these new consoles would. The parts I would be using would probably be considerably aged, as well. These are BRAND NEW consoles we're talking about here, and they're coming out already outdated and out-classes by a decent gaming PC. They're weak, costly when longevity comes into question, games are expensive and inefficient at what they do best which is to play games. They have lost the advantage they used to have in low resource overhead and the ability to plug and play is now gone because games have been requiring you to install them for quite some time now. The consoles are ass-backwards PC that are inferior to a computer in nearly EVERY SINGLE ASPECT. There is no working around that because it's a fact, just accept it and move on. Stop denying what's right in your face.

4Sh0w1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

XKugo lets assume the only pc I own is 5yrs old budget friendly low spec pc, now I want to buy a pc to play all the latest high end games at 1080p 60fps so please list the price and name these pc hardware I need minus the monitor that the avg joe can buy and build from the ground for under $600? You make it sound so easy so I just want to know what to buy, where to buy it, and how much it will cost me?????

tehnoob31836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )

CPU AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core $109.99
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Micro ATX AM3+ $49.99
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 $59.99
Storage Toshiba 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM $47.50
Video Card HIS Radeon HD 7950 3GB $199.99
Case NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower $35.94
Power Supply Cooler Master 500W ATX12V $42.98
Total is $546.38

This will run BF4 on high/mostly ultra settings at 60 fps.

aceitman1836d ago

to all that complaining about it not being 1080p 60fps , calm down its only the 1st batch of games wait till devs get to utilze the next gen systems with time and experience . im sure the next years games will do that . some already are . game on .

Ulf1836d ago

I agree.

You cannot build an equivalent PC for $400, and have it run the game even close to as well.

PC fanboys are pretty ridiculous.

cunnilumpkin1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )


The Gateway SX2865-UR34 is $299,

add a $100 gpu in it will beat the ps4

this machine with the 560 ti will outperform the ps4 in bf4

ps4 is only doing around 900p at medium settings

this desktop will do 900p at medium and high mixed settings with better anti aliasing

remember, all bf4 needs on pc is;

•Dual core CPU (Intel Core i5 or AMD “Bulldozer”).
•At least 4 GB main system memory
•Graphics card with at least 512 MB of VRAM and support for DirectX 10
•30+ GB of harddrive space
•Windows Vista

this pc is within that and the gpu is well beyond that

SilentNegotiator1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )


That won't run anything unless you add an OS, mouse, and keyboard.

OS: $100
Mouse worth gaming with: $30
keyboard: $15-20


Good luck fitting that card into that tiny tower. More luck to having a Gateway computer last longer than a month.

Einhert1836d ago

Another consolite spreading misinformation, you know absolutely nothing about building a PC if you think it cant be competitively priced for what it can do against a console.

But of course the only advantage to PCs is graphics......yeah sure lets just ignore....

- Better performance
- more game assets can be used, i.e more buildings, more characters on screen, larger scopes of scenery
- unlimited control options from wheels to joysticks
- servers
- mods
- steam platform and its sales
- Exclusive games with longevity and scope you will never find on a peasant box
- indie market that makes AAA quality games for a fraction of the price
- Last true bastion of gaming that requires thought and tactics as well as actual skill
- quicker patch support
- backwards compatibility right up until the beginning of the era
- better sound quality
- better voice chat, console comms are utter poverty
- higher skill ceiling
- RTS games
- MMO games
- MOBA games
- Cheaper games
- Simulator games found nowhere else (lol if you think forza or GT are sims)
- upgradable hardware (completely optional)
- Not tied to one service like poverty xbox live or PSN
- Actually own your hardware unlike consoles
- Free online
- Can fix problems with games if you are not retarded, GOOD luck waiting for a patch to get through MS or Sony certification LOL
- Can fix hardware faults and problems easily, good luck with your PS4 overheating goals of 2013
- Easy transfer of DLC and save files, lol the headache of transferring saves for the mass effect series on poverty xbox
- Long term is actually cheaper than consoles if you are in anyway smarter than the average ham sandwich
- No need to buy into a whole brand new PC at every hardware life cycle
- The platform that innovates and is always pushing the boundaries of what can be done
- Better multiplatform games
- Established digital download scene
- Multitasking potential, able to use steam overlay to browse internet, listen to music on, misc etc etc
- No storage limit, good luck with 500GB hardrives in 2013
- Portability is better than consoles, brb can download games onto another PC from my steam account, brb laptops easier to carry than a peasant box with its controllers and necessary cables
- Able to fine tune your graphics settings and turn off annoying features like motion blur or bloom
- FULL HD resolution, even "next gen" poverty boxes are stuck at 720p LOL
- Complex chat programs available enabling hundreds of players to communicate together, Planetside 2 teamspeak for example
- New innovative tech like the occulus rift, we are approaching VR status while you peasants struggle to reach full HD LOL
- Community sharing available like no other platform, entire steam community network already chits on PS4 & Xbones meager offerings
- It can do everything a console can except better
- It can do so much more than just play games, brb limitless tasks beyond gaming
- Better build quality than poverty boxes
- Can capture video direct on the PC for making videos, can edit the videos with multiple types of software
- It is THE media hub

But Yeah I digress, the only clear reason to play PC is clearly superior graphics...................

Abriael1836d ago (Edited 1836d ago )


someone forgot the operating system, the disc drive, a decent CPU cooler because otherwise that processor will cook,especially in that case. keyboard, mouse etc, and that's easily another 200+ bucks if you choose crappy parts.

PS: using a micro ATX motherboard in that case is laughable.

Easy to downplay the cost of a gaming PC if you don't count parts of it.

And if you expect that PC to run the game at stable 60 FPS even just at high settings, you're delusive. It'll be good if it holds stable 30-45

@Einhert: consolite? lol. I build my own gaming PCs (and more for friends) probably since before you knew you could game on PC. I'm just not a blind fanboy.

Kleptic1836d ago


current benchmarks show you better go no less than a 7970 to take on ultra at 1080 60 least in the games current state (mantle could help that considerably, though) least assuming you want MSAA fully enabled and everything...

100% maxed out on every single setting a stock 7970 with mid range I5 iirc was at just above 60 fps average, with mins in the upper 40's...with nearly 100% gpu load, so it wasn't bottlenecked by the cpu...

and with the 280x coming, that 7970 only adds 40 or 50 bucks to your build...or for around $100 more you could get a ghz edition, or a new R9 280x...which are overclocked, and notably faster, than a stock 7970...

either way...the 7950 probably won't be pulling off ultra at 1080 at a framerate you'd want for least from what tom's beta benches showed a few days ago...

5eriously1835d ago (Edited 1835d ago )

Gawd these PC trolls are so irritating, self centred and illiterate!

I have a PC but still prefers to use my consoles for gaming for many reasons but the main reason is to play the console AAA exclusives.

You are so bloody tiring. Why not spend the time here trolling playing games on your wonderful PC, that is IF you own one. The reality is that most people talk about something they desire but cannot own or get mostly because they do not have the money because they waste to much time posting BS garbage instead of earning by doing a job..

Like ol fatboy limp pumpkin just post the same text day in and day out on any PS4/eXB0Ne article. Nothing new nothing interesting just PC trolling.

TedCruzsTaint1835d ago (Edited 1835d ago )

It's the issue of having brand new consoles, out of the gate, showing limitations.
These are pieces of hardware that people are stuck to for many years to come.
You can argue PC parts cost all you want, it's just part of the platform as a whole. At the end of the day, you are only tied to the performance you are willing to pay for. In a lot of ways, this is a plus. I know it feels so to me.

Cryptcuzz1835d ago


Dude, quit posting stupid arguments like" Takes a PC twice as much to run better"

Abriael is right, it does cost more to build a PC that would be able to run this game the way it is now.

Did you read the part where he says:

"They're consoles. They're not designed to beat high end PCs. People should simply stop expecting them to"

If you want next gen consoles to have equivalent GPU's like the more recent ones released in the past year or so, ask the manufacturers to sell them to console makers at a much lower cost that wouldn't give consumers another $600 or more price tag.

Hey, I'd love for next gen consoles to have the latest and greatest GPU's in them, but it is not hard to comprehend it costs $$$ for everyone involved.

Latest GPU tech is not at the point where they can be made to run at low enough temperatures to be considered to be in a console. So console makers would have to design a solution for this. What would it be? Bigger, louder, faster running fans? Bigger heat sinks? Liquid cooled? How loud would it be? How much power would a console like that use? Higher chance of failure.

Would you like that?

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 1835d ago
iPad1836d ago

Consoles have to be profitable.

The average consumer is not going to be a $800 console even if it's on par with a high-end PC.

jcnba281836d ago

What do you think of the steam machines?

Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.