I, too, would joyously embrace another WW2-themed Battlefield title. I haven't played 1942 in many moons but the magic of that game has stayed with me, and as someone else has said on this board, WW2 shooters are more engaging than all of this modern poppycock. You still get your guns, your tanks, your planes, etc, but in my opinion a far more intriguing setting/historical context and what I thought were more epic battles.
It may be the WW2 buff in me surfacing, but there's just something about storming the beaches of Normandy or plowing through the Ardennes in a Tiger that can't be beat.
I had my fingers crossed that the latest edition of the BF series would be another WWII setting. I agree with the magic of BF 1942, I would be ecstatic to see it make a come back with the new and improved technology!
What's better? Battlefield 4 on PS4 or on a PC with a GTX 660 TI+ 3GB graphics card?
I would say it depends, but likely the 660Ti will eke out a PS4, esp with 3GB of dedicated VRAM. Hard to say though as we haven't seen a PS4 in action. Your CPU would play a factor as well.
This is assuming all settings are equal (resolution, AA, AF, tessellation settings, etc).
Also, you won't have to play with a controller on a PC (though some still do).
A card that is a waste of money, since a 780 delivers 3%-12% less performance, but costs $330-$430 less.
For the money of a titan, you would be better spent SLIing two 770s (which would very much beat a Titan) and save $200-$300.
EDIT: Peep them SLI 770s putting the hurt on a TITAN (and a single 780)
Ya I realize that, I was pretty tempted to drop the money on a Titan when it first came out but I wanted to see what the performance of the 700 series was like before I did. Pretty good decision on my part, I'm probably going to buy a single 770 to replace my dual GTX 460's for now and put in a second if I ever feel the need
Yeah the 6970 is abooout the same as the 7870 on the table above, though the 7870 performs a fair bit better in some random games.
Their BF3 (and presumably BF4) performance is more or less the same.
cool beans.
I read an article about shoddy thermal paste application on these run of cards from the factory. Mine is banshee and runs 2 screens on hdmi at around 64 degrees F. Tomorrow i'm going to open 'er up and re-apply, see if I can get my temps down and performance up.
I read an article about shoddy thermal paste application on these run of cards from the factory. Mine is banshee and runs 2 screens on hdmi at around 64 degrees F. Tomorrow i'm going to open 'er up and re-apply, see if I can get my temps down and performance up.
Eh, 64 degrees F? That's hella low. My 680 SLIs run at 78 degrees C (EVGA Classified) and 82 degrees C (ASUS DirectCUII) in FurMark. Even if yours is at 64 degrees C it's still quite low. GPUs can handle much higher temps than CPUs.
Yeah my 670 GTXs Asus DCUII seem to run about 70-80 full tilt, but I haven't put my sides back on my case. Two cards definitely do crank out the heat tho, I can't believe how much it heated up my office.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Eh, 64 degrees F? That's hella low. My 680 SLIs run at 78 degrees C (EVGA Classified) and 82 degrees C (ASUS DirectCUII) in FurMark. Even if yours is at 64 degrees C it's still quite low. GPUs can handle much higher temps than CPUs.
That is just running windows from startup.
Company of Heroes can get me up to 90+ if it wasn't for my dope-ass fans and relatively ventilated case.
Fallout New Vegas doesn't really bring up past 72-74, but some stuff just bury my card. Makes me think there is bad paste/contact problems.
I'm talking windowed 1080p on 1 of 2 24'' monitors.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 06-24-2013 at 09:51 PM.
