Battlefield 4 Alpha benchmarks

[cmdrdredd]

The new ones will be 1080p. Right? And of course no MSAA.

I'd like to play Crysis 3 with 8x MSAA, but it's just not in the cards for me. So I happily play it with 2x SMAA.

I'm doing okay with that limitation.

It's confirmed Battlefield 4 720p @60FPS on XB1 and PS4

http://wccftech.com/battlefield-4-s...5-game-details-leaked-arriving-november-2013/

 

[sxr7171]

It's confirmed Battlefield 4 720p @60FPS on XB1 and PS4

http://wccftech.com/battlefield-4-s...5-game-details-leaked-arriving-november-2013/

Wow. Consoles having a hard time shaking that 720p monkey off their backs.

Looks like the Crysis meme is due to be replaced with a Battlefield meme.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wow. Consoles having a hard time shaking that 720p monkey off their backs.

Looks like the Crysis meme is due to be replaced with a Battlefield meme.

They do get 64 player servers though. It's a step in the right direction. I knew ahead of time that the hardware choice would not be enough for full 1080p at 60fps.

 

[toyota]

It's confirmed Battlefield 4 720p @60FPS on XB1 and PS4

http://wccftech.com/battlefield-4-s...5-game-details-leaked-arriving-november-2013/

but wait, the consoles are soooo powerful...

 

[Durvelle27]

They do get 64 player servers though. It's a step in the right direction. I knew ahead of time that the hardware choice would not be enough for full 1080p at 60fps.

all games won't be 720@60 some will be 1080@60

 

[nitromullet]

They do get 64 player servers though. It's a step in the right direction. I knew ahead of time that the hardware choice would not be enough for full 1080p at 60fps.

Yeah, the hardware seemed a little weak for 1080p... Shame though, considering there won't be another console upgrade for a while. So far this generation of consoles has had more things to be disappointed about than excited IMO.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah, the hardware seemed a little weak for 1080p... Shame though, considering there won't be another console upgrade for a while. So far this generation of consoles has had more things to be disappointed about than excited IMO.

Nah...cause the hardware will translate to easy PC ports. No reason for companies to neglect anymore. I still buy em but I pick and choose my games.

 

[Makaveli]

Wait a min I thought this was suppose to be destroying currents gpu's do to console optimizations....

 

[cmdrdredd]

all games won't be 720@60 some will be 1080@60

Some will be 1080p@30fps though which is even worse. Thief for example

 

[Durvelle27]

Some will be 1080p@30fps though which is even worse. Thief for example

not for regular consumers :|. Rumors say DriveClub might be at 1080@60

 

[cmdrdredd]

not for regular consumers :|. Rumors say DriveClub might be at 1080@60

That's one game...Thief is one game. Thief dev said that 30fps is enough. I disagree but that's why I also have a PC without those restrictions.

Not every game will run at the same framerate with the same level of visuals. It's up to each developer to make it work. There is no driver team to help you.

 

[Blitzvogel]

720p? I'm surprised that they would forgo resolution for FPS like that. BF3 certainly benefits the player when played at 1080p. Picking out and engaging targets is easier and more accurate. As long as 30 FPS is maintained, it would've been fine.

 

[sxr7171]

all games won't be 720@60 some will be 1080@60

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.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Wait a min I thought this was suppose to be destroying currents gpu's do to console optimizations....

HSA HUMA Gigglehurtz aren't in full effect yet.

720p? I'm surprised that they would forgo resolution for FPS like that. BF3 certainly benefits the player when played at 1080p. Picking out and engaging targets is easier and more accurate. As long as 30 FPS is maintained, it would've been fine.

It's a console, they'll have aim assist for the crappy controls and resolution.

 

[Blitzvogel]

HSA HUMA Gigglehurtz aren't in full effect yet.



It's a console, they'll have aim assist for the crappy controls and resolution.

True, but even still the higher resolution is good for getting a better tactical grasp of the situation, but perhaps that's why DICE employed such an obnoxious HUD with annoyingly large glowing symbology both on screen and on the minimap.

 

[sxr7171]

True, but even still the higher resolution is good for getting a better tactical grasp of the situation, but perhaps that's why DICE employed such an obnoxious HUD with annoyingly large glowing symbology both on screen and on the minimap.

It's a totally different experience. It's designed for people are sitting 10-15 feet away from their TV.

 

[frozentundra123456]

47/59 vs 57/70, just for 2 extra cores and an extra slab of cache. That is a pretty clear indicator that moar cores is a good idea, alpha or no.

I just dont see it quite so clearly that way. For one the clockspeeds are different, but if you compare 2500k to 3930k, which is closest in clockspeed, the difference in ave fps is only about 7.5 percent and about 5 percent in min fps. And if you compare HT 2600k tp 3930k, the difference is probably within the margin of error. Granted 3970k is 10 percent faster, but it has more cache and slightly faster clocks as well.

If you go to the article itself and look at the cpu thread usage for the 3970x, only 4 real cores are loaded above 40 percent, along with one virtual core. Actually, the core usage looks strange, in that one real core is not loaded at all and another is only 23%, while a virtual core is loaded nearly 50 percent.

BTW, as an aside, this site always mystifies me, in that they seem to have so many games to test but are still using SB for the intel processors. Not that it would make much difference, but for a scientific comparison one should compare the latest processors from each manufacturer. And actually over the two generations from SB to Haswell, you might see a moderately improved performance.

 

[jpeyton]

Looks like I'll be safe with 7970GE CF.

 

[SPBHM]

Wow. Consoles having a hard time shaking that 720p monkey off their backs.

Looks like the Crysis meme is due to be replaced with a Battlefield meme.

but 60FPS, to run BF4 at 60FPS 1080P doesn't look easy judging by the tests posted here...

for a first person shooter 720P 60Hz makes more sense than 1080P 30Hz imo.

 

[toyota]

at just 1280x720, a gtx660 will be able to run the game at 60fps on the same or better settings so where is galego now with all his talk?

 

[zlejedi]

That optimised for radeons because of consoles effect.

 

[hawtdawg]

Well I guess I better start saving for another 780 or 2

 

[RussianSensation]

Titan is already old and a hexa core is fairly mandatory . . .

3930K is beating 2600K by 1 fps average and 3 fps min, and 3960X is beating it by just 7 fps avg / 8 fps min. Now substitute 2600K with 4770K and you'll make up most of those frames back. The benchmarks actually show that hexacores continue to be a waste of $ for games and BF4 alpha isn't changing that perception.

If you look at core loading, the 6-core is nowhere near utilized efficiently.

but wait, the consoles are soooo powerful...

On the flip side, all those with 2560x1440/1600 monitors who want to use MSAA, will need GTX780 SLI ($1300 setup) to hit 60 fps. So while PC gaming will come out ahead, it'll cost substantially more to have a superior gaming experience than a $400 PS4. Even if the game is at 720P @ 60 fps, on a 65 inch 1080P plasma 9-10 feet away, it's very difficult to resolve the difference between 720P and 1080P, but the immersion factor of gaming on a huge monitor has its perks too. 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:

@ 1080P with MSAA
7970GE = 37, GTX770 = 43, GTX780 = 53 and $1000 Titan = $54!

The optimization of the engine vs. graphics is very poor imo. 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.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Much like Crysis 3, I expect we'll see a different product at release vs what is being show in a multiplayer alpha.

 

[hawtdawg]

The optimization of the engine vs. graphics is very poor imo. 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.

dude this game is in alpha stage on top of the fact that AMD and Nvidia have done 0 driver optimizations for it. Within a month or 2 of the game being released, I bet framerates will be up a good 30% from these numbers.