• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
RussianSensation said:
When a $1000 GPU can't hit 60 fps at 1080P with MSAA, DICE needs to go back to the drawing board because the graphics are not mind-blowing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. We all know Titan is overpriced, that has nothing to do with performance in general. Imagine all GPU prices were to double overnight for no apparent reason - that wouldn't change the graphics nor the optimizations of the game at all.
It seems you have an agenda here, and that is bringing up Titans price each and every time you post, even if it has no relevance for the topic at hand. At least pretend to be not biased. Titan is overpriced, we get it. No need for you to go about it another 1000 times (unless you get paid each time you mention it - then go on :whiste🙂.
 
His point is valid in that BF4 isn't overly impressive compared to BF3, why is it performing so much worse? Alpha or just lame features that give tiny visual gains for stupid performance hits? We shall see soon.
 
No his point is not valid, since it still hasn't anything to do with price. Price is relative and no indication how a card should perform or how a title should look.
 
It is alpha. There's nothing definitive that can be taken from these figures.

On a different note, I wonder if there will be any GCN friendly features in this one?
 
boxleitnerb said:
Nonsense. Titan is overpriced, we get it. No need for you to go about it another 1000 times (unless you get paid each time you mention it - then go on :whiste🙂.
Click to expand...

My point is valid since as a gamer I now have to go out and spend more than a grand to max this game out and then I am looking at BF3.5 graphics....

NV's flagship GPU and price shouldn't be be discussed separately because if someone wants to max out BF4, they would need to go out and spend $1300 on GTX780s. So let's ask DICE why in the world does a game with this level of graphics needs $1,300 of GPUs to max out but it's nowhere near the best looking game on the PC.

My point is not directed at the Titan specifically. Substitute Titan with GTX780 SLI, HD7990, GTX690, HD7970GE CF, GTX680 SLI. My statement still stands - BF4's performance is atrocious vs. the level of graphics improvement over BF3. I am sorry that you seem to be seeing an agenda in my posts and missing the big picture. The developers should actually look at the price of modern GPUs and see it as a red flag that their game runs like garbage on a $650 flagship NV GPU. Ignore the price if you want and ask yourself why this game needs 2 flagship NV GPUs of this generation to hit 60 fps with MSAA at 1600p?

boxleitnerb said:
Price is relative and no indication how a card should perform or how a title should look.
Click to expand...

All of these are inter-related. If an expensive GPU setup (8800GTX SLI) runs the most beautiful game at that time (Crysis 1) like crap, it's understandable. If an expensive GPU setup (780SLI/7990/690, etc.) runs a game that looks barely better than BF3 like crap, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

I remember when toyota brought up how ugly the textures in BF3 were and BF fans defended the game despite him being correct. I see the same thing when people take it personally when their favourite FPS game is criticized.
 
Last edited:
Why do you mention the Titan specifically, then? Makes no sense.
And as was stated earlier - this is ALPHA. To complain about performance for an alpha makes no sense whatsoever and only goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
RussianSensation said:
My point is valid since as a gamer I now have to go out and spend more than a grand to max this game out and then I am looking at BF3.5 graphics....

NV's flagship GPU and price shouldn't be be discussed separately because if someone wants to max out BF4, they would need to go out and spend $1300 on GTX780s. So let's ask DICE why in the world does a game with this level of graphics needs $1,300 of GPUs to max out?

It has nothing to do with the Titan. Substitute Titan with GTX780 SLI, HD7990, GTX690, HD7970GE CF, GTX680 SLI. My statement still stands - BF4's performance is atrocious vs. the level of graphics improvement over BF3. I am sorry that you seem to be seeing an agenda in my posts and missing the big picture. The developers should actually look at the price of modern GPUs and see it as a red flag that their game runs like garbage on a $650 flagship NV GPU. Ignore the price if you want and ask yourself why this game needs 2 flagship NV GPUs of this generation to hit 60 fps with MSAA at 1600p?
Click to expand...

I don't think needing 2xFlagship GPU's to do 60fps @ 2560*1600 w/MSAA is all that outlandish (IQ will get better and optimizations should as well). The fact those 2 GPU's will set you back $1300 is what's outlandish. You don't need an agenda to find that ridiculous.
 
boxleitnerb said:
To complain about performance for an alpha makes no sense whatsoever and only goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

🙄 Then the entire thread makes no sense whatsoever because if you say the benchmarks from Alpha are meaningless, all discussions that follow wrt performance and GPU standings are meaningless too. So what's the point of this thread exactly if you get all defense that performance in Alpha is horrible and then go ahead and imply these benches are worthless anyway when I pointed out that DICE better optimize the performance of their engine because it's unrealistic that 2 flagship NV GPUs are needed to max this game out given its level of graphics. Keep focusing on the Titan's price and missing the entire point being made that the game is in a poor optimization state at this time. You seem to get very defensive every time the Titan is brought up. Let me guess you own 1 or 2?
 
Last edited:
Ask the OP what's the point of his thread, not me.
I'm not defensive, I just have a problem with you using this topic to include your agenda. At least you have admitted your mistake and included more setups. Still, your argument is flawed since any $800 CF/SLI setup will easily do 60 fps and more. So you intentionally picked the worst example, ignoring the rest.
 
Last edited:
boxleitnerb said:
Still, your argument is flawed since any $800 CF/SLI setup will easily do 60 fps and more. So you intentionally picked the worst example, ignoring the rest.
Click to expand...

In the future, hopefully. Right now GTX770 can't even get 30 fps.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battlefield 4 Alpha/test/bf4 2560 4x.jpg

I didn't ignore the rest considering from the beginning I mentioned how awful the performance is and listed various GPUs in Post #48 to show that:

@ 1080P with MSAA
7970GE = 37, GTX770 = 43, GTX780 = 53 and $1000 Titan = 54!
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
lol not this again. the amount of vram being allocated does not mean that is how much that is "needed". just use some common sense here as you can see cards with 2gb of vram being faster than their competition with more vram even at 2560.
Click to expand...
Thats my view as well. Ruffled a few feathers when stating as much some time back, that just because mem usage in one card is more than another, doesnt mean its whats actually used. Some said they had issues in Skyrim due to many GBs of texture mods that overwhelmed their GTX 580's, but that may be an isolated case as I dont think the game designers had users in mind adding high res textures on a massive scale. Still have a GTX 275 in an old PC with and was surprised at how well it ran Borderlands 2 without sacrificing too much of the visuals. I recall mem usage reported as less than the cards 768mb while on a 660ti it was over 1500mb. So mem allocation vs actual mem usage may vary depending on the cards mem capacity imo.
 
Don't alphas typically have a bunch of debug stuff running in the background anyway, hench one reason why the multicores show such an increase?
 
sxr7171 said:
They said that about the Xbox 360 and released a token game or 2 to support it.

But this time I think more games will be in 1080p but somehow I doubt any of the big demanding titles will be. Still not powerful enough.

Every time new consoles come out I think everyone gets excited by them and I'm no different. I looked into both of them and and as excited as I am I can't really see why I would buy either. All the good games are coming out on PC anyway. If anything sadly the situation makes a case for buying a Wii U. At least I could play a Mario/Zelda something or another game that I can't play on a PC. Those 3D Mario games are a lot of fun.

Watch Dogs on PC that's what I'm looking forward to.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t16CSZNE4Mw&feature=player_embedded
 
sxr7171 said:
They said that about the Xbox 360 and released a token game or 2 to support it.

But this time I think more games will be in 1080p but somehow I doubt any of the big demanding titles will be. Still not powerful enough.

Every time new consoles come out I think everyone gets excited by them and I'm no different. I looked into both of them and and as excited as I am I can't really see why I would buy either. All the good games are coming out on PC anyway. If anything sadly the situation makes a case for buying a Wii U. At least I could play a Mario/Zelda something or another game that I can't play on a PC. Those 3D Mario games are a lot of fun.

Watch Dogs on PC that's what I'm looking forward to.
Click to expand...

There are always games that don't come to PC. Always have been. That's a different topic entirely though
 
Why on earth does anyone care about FPS in alpha version of a game? They don't even seem to have all the graphic assets finished, let alone any engine optimizations. Come on people, these numbers don't tell ANYTHING.
 
I love gamegpu.ru for their comprehensive test of just about any/every major game, but they're really starting to lag behind with their intel quads. I find it kind of strange they've added a CPU as recent as the 3970X to their tests, but still have yet to add any Ivy parts. Haswell is understandable because it just came out, but I can't help but think a 3770K or 4770K would do just as well if not better than the SB-E chips they have, which doesn't look too good for BF4 in terms of optimization (especially since the 2500K appears to basically be on par with the 8350)

There's clearly some multithread efficiency going on (otherwise the AMD chips would be doing worse), but not as much as I thought/hoped would be there. But then maybe they're too GPU limited throughout most of their tests for the higher core parts to shine through.
 
Octopuss said:
Why on earth does anyone care about FPS in alpha version of a game? They don't even seem to have all the graphic assets finished, let alone any engine optimizations. Come on people, these numbers don't tell ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Because if you were around, the early BF3 benches from this site was spot on. MSAA tanked performance hard, and it did, even years after release.

Again, expect the same for BF4, with crap deferred MSAA that destroys GPUs for next to no visual improvement.

It will be the same: Turn off MSAA, turn of HDAO/HDBAO and you get 60 fps at 1080p on modest GPUs.
 
sxr7171 said:
It's a totally different experience. It's designed for people are sitting 10-15 feet away from their TV.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alpha benches dont mean much. There will be plenty of optimizations on the drivers front by the time its released. Look at Crysis 3 alpha and final performance differences as an example.
 
My point regarding the memory usage was if you want the game to look its best, you want the extra vram. As mentioned in response to my original post, the engine is dynamic. I played BF3 with a 512MB card, and it ran. But the texture quality was crap, and it constantly had "pop-in" issues. Setting texture quality from low to high did not have any effect on my FPS, but the game did not look that much better. Memory usage stayed around 490-495MB.

So I am saying a card with 3GB of vram will have better IQ than one with 1-2GB. Will it be as noticeable as it was for me with a 512MB card? Doubt it. But it will be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top