By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Battlefield 4 demo ran on an AMD Radeon HD 7990 ‘Malta’ Video Card

Tagged games:

Michael-5 on 28 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

I would argue that PS4 is much more than 9x more powerful than PS3 (RAM, alone, jumped x16). Besides, as always mentioned, launch games won't tell the full story.

9x is the jump based on how much data the system can process. RAM doubles, and only comes in 2/4/8/16/32GB, so they needed to upgrade the RAM 16x because 8x (the step below) would introduce a bottleneck.

Launch games don't do the system justice, and it really depends on where the platform bottlenecks, and what devs do to go around it.

Still if that Battlefield game runs on a PC which is 3x more powerful then the PS4, I think you have an idea of the max setting for PS4 games.

So could anyone answer, was that demo run on a 7900 or a 7990, or even a 7970 Graphics Card? Big difference between the 3.

The demo was running on what they said it was - a 7990 Malta. Regardless, RAM was an example of the bigger pie. Even including the Cell, per clock, the PS4 has more than 9x the power.

I dunno.

Either way, about 9x the power of a PS3, I hope we see better looking games then Killzone: Shadow Fall with that, I hope Sony doesn't reuse PS3 engines for all their PS4 projects. I bet GT6 will push the system, the GT5 engine was designed for PS4 as well.

smbu2000 said:

The demo was run using a 7990, which is much, much more powerful than a 7850.

I didn't know AMD was releasing a 7990. Based on those (leaked) specs it is slightly slower than 2 x 7970 cards in Crossfire, so my 2 x 7970's are slightly more powerful! (yay ;-p )


LOL, that graphics card is also over 3x as powerful as the PS4. I wonder how much "dumbed down" the PS4 game will appear.

Your PC sounds intense, compare it to mine:

Pentium 4 - 2.79 Ghz (Single Core), with 1 GB DDR(1) RAM

Plus it has a 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card

I produce a whopping 40 Gigaflops, and I have a floppy drive. Bet'cha your computer doesn't have that.

Yeeep, Halo 1 works like a charm, on medium.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
Michael-5 on 28 March 2013
HoloDust said:
Captain_Tom said:

This card is 4 times stronger than the one in the PS4.  

The PS4 has a 7850

The 7970 is twice as strong as a 7850.

The 7990 is twice as strong as a 7970.

The PS4 version will look decently worse.  Perhaps this is why they are rumored to be making it in 720p for nextgen.


Actually:

7970 = 1.7x 7850

7990 = 1.6-1.7x 7970

so 2.7-2.9x 7850 in total

I'd say 1080p/30fps with high settings (considering 7850 runs BF3 on ultra with 4xAA and HBAO in 1080p with 30+ fps)

So PS4 can run Battlefield 3 on max settings. LOL

BF4 won't be 1080p on PS4, and I don't think too many games will be considering.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

hinch on 28 March 2013
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

I would argue that PS4 is much more than 9x more powerful than PS3 (RAM, alone, jumped x16). Besides, as always mentioned, launch games won't tell the full story.

9x is the jump based on how much data the system can process. RAM doubles, and only comes in 2/4/8/16/32GB, so they needed to upgrade the RAM 16x because 8x (the step below) would introduce a bottleneck.

Launch games don't do the system justice, and it really depends on where the platform bottlenecks, and what devs do to go around it.

Still if that Battlefield game runs on a PC which is 3x more powerful then the PS4, I think you have an idea of the max setting for PS4 games.

So could anyone answer, was that demo run on a 7900 or a 7990, or even a 7970 Graphics Card? Big difference between the 3.

The demo was running on what they said it was - a 7990 Malta. Regardless, RAM was an example of the bigger pie. Even including the Cell, per clock, the PS4 has more than 9x the power.

I dunno.

Either way, at least 9x the power of a PS3, I hope we see better looking games then Killzone: Shadow Fall with that, I hope Sony doesn't reuse PS3 engines for all their PS4 projects. I bet GT6 will push the system, the GT5 engine was designed for PS4 as well.

smbu2000 said:

The demo was run using a 7990, which is much, much more powerful than a 7850.

I didn't know AMD was releasing a 7990. Based on those (leaked) specs it is slightly slower than 2 x 7970 cards in Crossfire, so my 2 x 7970's are slightly more powerful! (yay ;-p )


LOL, that graphics card is also over 3x as powerful as the PS4. I wonder how much "dumbed down" the PS4 game will appear.

Your PC sounds intense, compare it to mine:

Pentium 4 - 2.79 Ghz (Single Core), with 1 GB DDR(1) RAM

Plus it has a 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card

I produce a whopping 40 Gigaflops, and I have a floppy drive. Bet'cha your computer doesn't have that.

Yeeep, Halo 1 works like a charm, on medium.

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 was running @ 60FPS on the PC demo.



Michael-5 on 28 March 2013
hinch said:

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 is running 60FPS on the PC.

I don't think the computer running the BF4 demo was being used for Facebook, pretty sure it was optimized for the game as well.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

hinch on 28 March 2013
Michael-5 said:
hinch said:

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 is running 60FPS on the PC.

I don't think the computer running the BF4 demo was being used for Facebook, pretty sure it was optimized for the game as well.

Next gen console games will most likely stick to 30FPS.

Edit: Consoles don't have to deal with overheads like on PC - Windows, Direct X. Also devs can extract more performance out of a single spec system.



Around the Network
dahuman on 28 March 2013
hinch said:
Michael-5 said:
hinch said:

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 is running 60FPS on the PC.

I don't think the computer running the BF4 demo was being used for Facebook, pretty sure it was optimized for the game as well.

Next gen console games will most likely stick to 30FPS.

Edit: Consoles don't have to deal with overheads like on PC - Windows, Direct X. Also devs can extract more performance out of single spec system.

It doesn't make up for 4x the performance unfortunately, you are still looking at probably 2x or more in this setup even with the overhead, and that's assuming the drivers suck. It's either 1080p 30FPS or 720p 60FPS at that quality is my prediction, which is fine IMO. People need to be realistic about it and not hype or hope that much.



smbu2000 on 28 March 2013
Michael-5 said:

LOL, that graphics card is also over 3x as powerful as the PS4. I wonder how much "dumbed down" the PS4 game will appear.

Your PC sounds intense, compare it to mine:

Pentium 4 - 2.79 Ghz (Single Core), with 1 GB DDR(1) RAM

Plus it has a 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card

I produce a whopping 40 Gigaflops, and I have a floppy drive. Bet'cha your computer doesn't have that.

Yeeep, Halo 1 works like a charm, on medium.

My old, old computer was running an AMD 64 cpu/Radeon 9800 Pro combo, heh. The 9800 Pro was a good card.

My current system is an i7 2600k (@4.6ghz)/2 x 3GB AMD 7970 in Crossfire.




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"

hinch on 28 March 2013
dahuman said:
hinch said:
Michael-5 said:
hinch said:

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 is running 60FPS on the PC.

I don't think the computer running the BF4 demo was being used for Facebook, pretty sure it was optimized for the game as well.

Next gen console games will most likely stick to 30FPS.

Edit: Consoles don't have to deal with overheads like on PC - Windows, Direct X. Also devs can extract more performance out of single spec system.

It doesn't make up for 4x the performance unfortunately, you are still looking at probably 2x or more in this setup even with the overhead, and that's assuming the drivers suck. It's either 1080p 30FPS or 720p 60FPS at that quality is my prediction, which is fine IMO. People need to be realistic about it and not hype or hope that much.


Thats what I've been saying.. >_>

Just going to leave this here -

You can't just compare hardware 1:1 for the like.



dahuman on 28 March 2013
hinch said:
dahuman said:
hinch said:
Michael-5 said:
hinch said:

PC Hardware =/= Console Hardware. Consoles will always perform better thanks to optimisations. Besides BF4 is running 60FPS on the PC.

I don't think the computer running the BF4 demo was being used for Facebook, pretty sure it was optimized for the game as well.

Next gen console games will most likely stick to 30FPS.

Edit: Consoles don't have to deal with overheads like on PC - Windows, Direct X. Also devs can extract more performance out of single spec system.

It doesn't make up for 4x the performance unfortunately, you are still looking at probably 2x or more in this setup even with the overhead, and that's assuming the drivers suck. It's either 1080p 30FPS or 720p 60FPS at that quality is my prediction, which is fine IMO. People need to be realistic about it and not hype or hope that much.


Thats what I've been saying.. >_>

Just going to leave this here -

You can't just compare hardware 1:1 for the like.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing it out there :)



Captain_Tom on 28 March 2013
enditall727 said:
Captain_Tom said:
superchunk said:
So PS4/neXtBox will look slightly worse than that.

PS360 = min specs no AA or anything else.
next-gen = medium with AA turned on.
PC = well, it equals based on what you got but could be high with everything turned on.

This card is 4 times stronger than the one in the PS4.  

The PS4 has a 7850

The 7970 is twice as strong as a 7850.

The 7990 is twice as strong as a 7970.

 

The PS4 version will look decently worse.  Perhaps this is why they are rumored to be making it in 720p for nextgen.


how much more does it cost if an individual wanted that card in their pc over the 7850?

 

just asking..

Well it isn't officially out yet, but the Jerry-Rigged ones currently cost $900.  It is the strongest card, but my card is $380 and it is probably a little over half as strong and it will probably run BF4 in 1080p, maxed out at 40 FPS.  $900 cards are NOT the norm of PC gaming lol; they just wanted to 100% make sure the game was maxed out in 1080p 60 frames.