• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 4 Alpha benchmarks

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NUSNA_Moebius said:
And in the process shat all over PC gamers who are perfectly fine with a non-flashy HUD and actually relying on their wits to survive. The HUD symbology on numerous occasions has actually made target engagement more difficult since it's blocking parts of the screen.

Oh and I also hope DICE goes for much more realistic velocity & ballistic profiles this time around.
Click to expand...

as someone who plays on the console currently there are aspects of the HUD that totally suck when sitting 10 feet from the TV as well
 
Anubis said:
im at work so there is no way for me to go digging but at e3 they said it would be running 1080/60
Click to expand...

I did a search came up with no quote from devs about it at all. I did find a confirmation of 64 players and 60fps but no resolution info. I am just curious but I will be on PC anyway so I have no personal interest in the console version.
 
Well.. hope I7 3930K with 870 will give me constant 60 fps :$ don^t like dula gpu setups ...


Seems like game is unoptimized but don't forget it's alpha ... anyway ... game don't looks much better then BF3 and should be like 20-30% more demanding ... not 50-60%...
 
Graphics seem to warrant the increase so far from all the demos, next is to see how much can be optimized before release.
 
Alpha isn't even a game. Core functionality is being built and tested. It's pointless to analyze performance in any way, shape, or form.
 
Despoiler said:
Alpha isn't even a game. Core functionality is being built and tested. It's pointless to analyze performance in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Core functionality was done a long time ago. If they are just now developing core functionality a few months before launch they are in seriously bad shape.
 
Stuka87 said:
Core functionality was done a long time ago. If they are just now developing core functionality a few months before launch they are in seriously bad shape.
Click to expand...

Umm these are *alpha* benchmarks hence the stage that core functionality is being built and tested.
 
The game is in alpha, with missing assets, no engine optimizations, and no driver optimizations. These numbers don't mean much to me right now.
 
My concern was CPU, but that requirement seems the same as BF3. What has me worried is the stupid insane GPU power needed. I have a lot of GPU headroom in BF3 and thought for sure i'd be fine in BF4, but the jury is out on that one for now.
Regarding Vram usage and people saying "the game uses more than it needs derp" you are wrong. People said that about BF3 and GTX 570's, and guess what? My FPS with 570's was great at 1080p, until it wasn't. Vram would texture thrash and cause FPS to tank to 30 and it stuck there until I looked at the empty sky and then it would go back to 60. Play some more and tank back to 30 for a bit etc etc. Switched to 670's and problem perfectly solved with no dips or strange issues.
I am thinking 2gb cards will not max this game due to both GPU and Vram lacking. 780's in SLI for 1080p = moonbogg is waiting for next gen cause SCREW $1,300!
 
moonbogg said:
My concern was CPU, but that requirement seems the same as BF3. What has me worried is the stupid insane GPU power needed. I have a lot of GPU headroom in BF3 and thought for sure i'd be fine in BF4, but the jury is out on that one for now.
Regarding Vram usage and people saying "the game uses more than it needs derp" you are wrong. People said that about BF3 and GTX 570's, and guess what? My FPS with 570's was great at 1080p, until it wasn't. Vram would texture thrash and cause FPS to tank to 30 and it stuck there until I looked at the empty sky and then it would go back to 60. Play some more and tank back to 30 for a bit etc etc. Switched to 670's and problem perfectly solved with no dips or strange issues.
I am thinking 2gb cards will not max this game due to both GPU and Vram lacking. 780's in SLI for 1080p = moonbogg is waiting for next gen cause SCREW $1,300!
Click to expand...

I think that is a wise decision this game isn't too far from BF3. I would wait to see what the next gen has to offer.
 
RussianSensation said:
What's scary is that BF4 doesn't have mind-blowing graphics but the performance in the alpha is horrible. The textures are still awful. It's basically BF3.5 that needs $1300 of GPUs to max out at 1600P. I am not sure that's anything to be proud of for us PC gamers. :hmm
Click to expand...

while i agree with you that bf4's graphics aren't mind blowing (though still very nice), i'll have to disagree with you about the textures. outside of the particle/explosion effects, the textures are the only thing which impressed me.

have you seen the reveal 17 minute gameplay footage? here's direct-feed footage running at 4k downsampled to 1080p on a pair of 7990's. textures look pretty great to me -- a huge upgrade over the textures in bf3.

download link 2.2 GB

https://mega.co.nz/#!lJ4U1SiS!QUjb7EUuICwXi_G0io8J3yPRF0NjnGEKdlcyEI9apCo


a few screen captures

bf310.jpg


bf410.jpg


69056_bf4_5.png



my biggest gripe with bf4 is that they're using that horrible deferred msaa again.
 
Despoiler said:
Umm these are *alpha* benchmarks hence the stage that core functionality is being built and tested.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

By the time a product goes to alpha, all core functionality should be 100% finished. This is per most software development lifecycle guidelines that development teams should follow, including the one I am a part of.

When the project is promoted to alpha, all core functionality is finished. But there can still be dev tasks that need to be completed. By the time beta rolls out, this is when you start testing for a GA candidate. Most likely be plenty of bug fixes, but all features for that iteration should be finished. Any unfinished features should be pushed to the next iteration.
 
My first impression of Frostbite 3 was a "meh... more of the same".

I changed my mind after seeing the physics effects though. I dig the destructible environment, swaying tree and the realistic water.

The system req is worrying but I am hoping for some bad ass optimizations from all sides : the graphic card driver, the Frostbite 3 engineers and BF4 developers. the device driver.
FB3 will be used in many EA games so it cant be -that- demanding.
Imagine a new Dragon Age in Frostbite 3 .. :drool:
 
Last edited:
Anubis said:
as someone who plays on the console currently there are aspects of the HUD that totally suck when sitting 10 feet from the TV as well
Click to expand...

Yup, console gamers need to be told what to do and where to go. I prefer BF2's HUD system, it's much cleaner and you couldn't just call out targets and have them labeled on the screen, they're only on the mini map.
 
The benchmarks seem not too different from BF3, do they?

1080p gaming is fine for me.

I can manage high settings with an i5 CPU, 4GB RAM, Radeon 5950 at 1080p, no AA. I'm sure that I can manage the same with BF4.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top