Battlefield 4 CPU performance: Win 7 vs Win 8.1, up to 50% more fps

[pcslookout]

Stuka87 would you like my benchmark scores from Windows 7 64 bit to Windows 8.1 64 bit?

 

[SPBHM]

Based on the fact they are not techreport or AT or THG.
I'm telling you what I see in the game. It's your choice to trust me or not. Means zero difference to me to be honest. I'm GPU bottlenecked, saying it for 100th now... I wish I had bought 7870 buy now, inserted it in my system and comapred the two(on the same patch). Now there is no need, but sooner or later I will buy something in that range and I can come back to this topic and compare with 6870s numbers. According to your "theory" I should be devastatingly bottlenecked with my weakish CPU. I think I wouldn't be bottlenecked nearly as much .

and you used "gamegpu" as a reference

you are GPU bottlenecked for higher settings for sure, but for "ultra low" 1400x900? at 30fps? Ok.

 

[pcslookout]

This is in Windows 7 64 bit without HSBO and with.

2013-10-10 04:13:27 - bf4

Frames: 49010 - Time: 761034ms - Avg: 46.710 - Min: 12 - Max: 59

Frames: 47230 - Time: 730216ms - Avg: 44.189 - Min: 7 - Max: 54



This is Windows 8.1 64 bit without HSBO and with.

2013-10-10 05:27:34 - bf4
Frames: 51583 - Time: 783047ms - Avg: 65.875 - Min: 30 - Max: 109

2013-10-10 09:42:36 - bf4
Frames: 45506 - Time: 714828ms - Avg: 63.660 - Min: 25 - Max: 114

 

[skipsneeky2]

I feel windows 8 could be the pushed upgrade this game requires, you could have dual titans and a highly overclocked 3930k gaming at 1600x900 then suddenly with 8.1 your getting like 30%+ difference in fps.

Difficult choice come January 16th when 8.1 preview expires,go back to windows 7 solely with BF4 and hope BF4 by then somehow runs identical to 8.1 or deal with the lower performance or dish out the money for the os or if i should just continue playing BF3.The final game is gonna have to be epic as i don't care to much about vehicle maps especially the beta map.

 

[inf64]

and you used "gamegpu" as a reference

you are GPU bottlenecked for higher settings for sure, but for "ultra low" 1400x900? at 30fps? Ok.

That was before this patch. Don't you read at all? I posted that after the patch I get 2x better performance (on the same OS and same PC). I don't see how you cannot understand the fact I'm not CPU bottlenecked.

Here you go, THG CPU test in BF4 using Titan.
Lowly FX4170 @ stock (which is basically slower than PD at the same clock even without L3) is scoring ~12fps less than stock 2500K in min. fps. I'd say you wouldn't notice those 12fps since the range they are (40-50) would appear evenly smooth. Reduce some of the settings from Ultra to something lower and you would get even better performance. As can be seen, even 2 module Bulldozer can achieve 40+ min. fps on Ultra if you give it the most powerful single GPU card on the market.

 

[pcslookout]

Not with maximum AA.

 

[Stuka87]

Stuka87 would you like my benchmark scores from Windows 7 64 bit to Windows 8.1 64 bit?

I know 8.1 will run it better than 7 due to DX11.2.

I am more wondering if I am going to get back to BF3 performance with BF4. Currently BF4 runs a lot worse for me. Like nearly half the FPS in some cases.

EDIT: This is with VGA settings at low. My GPU hangs out at like 60% usage with everything on low. My CPU is pegged though.

 

[pcslookout]

I know 8.1 will run it better than 7 due to DX11.2.

I am more wondering if I am going to get back to BF3 performance with BF4. Currently BF4 runs a lot worse for me. Like nearly half the FPS in some cases.

EDIT: This is with VGA settings at low. My GPU hangs out at like 60% usage with everything on low. My CPU is pegged though.

Windows 8.1 has DirectX 11.2 ?

 

[Stuka87]

Windows 8.1 has DirectX 11.2 ?

Yeah, and its an 8.1/XBone exclusive. No reason it cannot run on Windows 7, they just want to try and force people into upgrading. Like they did with Vista and DX10.

 

[pcslookout]

Why do you want BF3 performance? You will never get that with BF4.

 

[pcslookout]

This may be interesting to you but I get double the fps in Simcity 5 as well with Windows 8.1 compared to Windows 7.

I use to get 30 fps now get 55 to 60 fps. I did nothing different. Same ultra quality settings in Simcity 5 with AF enabled.

 

[Stuka87]

Why do you want BF3 performance? You will never get that with BF4.

Well, I know it won't be as good. But it should not require double the CPU power to get like performance. The lowest FPS I ever saw in BF3 was lower 40's. Most of the time I was locked at 60. With the BF4 beta I hit the 20's in 64 man matches.

Now I know my CPU is aging, and it will be replaced in the spring. But it is also way faster than the minimum requirements for the game.

 

[tweakboy]

Its beta, also I dont trust Tom Tom..

 

[SPBHM]

That was before this patch. Don't you read at all? I posted that after the patch I get 2x better performance (on the same OS and same PC). I don't see how you cannot understand the fact I'm not CPU bottlenecked.

Here you go, THG CPU test in BF4 using Titan.
Lowly FX4170 @ stock (which is basically slower than PD at the same clock even without L3) is scoring ~12fps less than stock 2500K in min. fps. I'd say you wouldn't notice those 12fps since the range they are (40-50) would appear evenly smooth. Reduce some of the settings from Ultra to something lower and you would get even better performance. As can be seen, even 2 module Bulldozer can achieve 40+ min. fps on Ultra if you give it the most powerful single GPU card on the market.

I don't see how you cannot understand I was commenting on post #15

so you are using a THG test with a completely different CPU than yours... also from what I played with the i3 (always 64p with heavy action) 49 min looks extremely unrealistic, like if they tested on an empty area

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's generally how they test, dead server running down a small path.

This is on a full server, low settings with 7950 CF @ 1100/1500 i5 is running 4.8GHz Core 4.4GHz Uncore with 2400 Mem 1080p.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6806, 72000, 64, 131, 94.528

 

[pcslookout]

My benchmarks are with full 64 slot servers!

 

[PPB]

That doesn't do anything.

It causes BF4 to crash more than anything. I wouldn't mess with those.

They do something, that something is what I explained.


If you think changing console commands would bork the game, now I understand why so many people dig locked enviorments :thumbsup:

 

[inf64]

I don't see how you cannot understand I was commenting on post #15

so you are using a THG test with a completely different CPU than yours... also from what I played with the i3 (always 64p with heavy action) 49 min looks extremely unrealistic, like if they tested on an empty area

My CPU is actually faster than 4170 in CPU limited games. As can be seen I'm sitting with CPU that is ~5% faster than stock 6800K which in turn means I'm ~6% above stock FX4170. Hardware.fr uses GTX680 in their very CPU limited game benchmarking suite.

BF4 is mainly GPU limited unless you have something like 7950+ (CF/SLI is even more pronounced) in which case the bottleneck is shifted to CPU.

 

[SPBHM]

My CPU is actually faster than 4170 in CPU limited games. As can be seen I'm sitting with CPU that is ~5% faster than stock 6800K which in turn means I'm ~6% above stock FX4170. Hardware.fr uses GTX680 in their very CPU limited game benchmarking suite.

CPU limited games that are not BF4.
hardware.fr test shows the 4300 and 4170 with basically the same result,
PClab test shows 4300 basically the same as 4.5GHz Trinity, so yes, it should be close, but the THG test looks to easy for the CPUs.

still, I think the latest patches really did make a huge difference, playing again it's so much harder to go under 40 here (and again I'm always running to the action and always with full or almost full 64p), and it just feels smooth.

BF4 is mainly GPU limited unless you have something like 7950+ (CF/SLI is even more pronounced) in which case the bottleneck is shifted to CPU.

it is GPU limited at higher settings, again my post was answering your description from post #15, sounded to me like CPU limited gaming, specially because it was without the latest patch right?
which specifically mentions improvements for 6 and 4 core CPUs.

 

[inf64]

It probably was not "CPU limitation" per se but some bug or bad coding. You cannot magically get 50%-100% fps improvement if there was nothing wrong in the code( your hw is still the same).

I think they fixed whatever cpu scheduling bug they had which is really good news. This might have something to do with bf4 being developed with higher core counts in mind or it could have been some debugging code running in the background. Only Dice knows.

I'm happy with my performance now and I won't change anything in the near future. I will buy 7870 next year( or card equivalent to it) and I can compare how much of a bottleneck my CPU really is (or is not).

 

[CHADBOGA]

I will buy 7870 next year( or card equivalent to it) and I can compare how much of a bottleneck my CPU really is (or is not).

You seem determined to be GPU limited at the very least.

7870 performance will be nothing to write home about next year.

 

[inf64]

I will never buy gfx card that costs more than 200 bucks. That's my principle, always was. I think the "equivalent to 7870" card next year should be taken in context of price bracket. It (whatever AMD or NV card it might be) will cost ~200$ but it will likely outperform 7870 by a solid amount.

 

[Stuka87]

I will never buy gfx card that costs more than 200 bucks. That's my principle, always was. I think the "equivalent to 7870" card next year should be taken in context of price bracket. It (whatever AMD or NV card it might be) will cost ~200$ but it will likely outperform 7870 by a solid amount.

You can buy 7950's right now for ~$200 which will outperform a 7870 by a good margin, especially if you OC.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I will never buy gfx card that costs more than 200 bucks. That's my principle, always was. I think the "equivalent to 7870" card next year should be taken in context of price bracket. It (whatever AMD or NV card it might be) will cost ~200$ but it will likely outperform 7870 by a solid amount.

Fair enough.

I'm not keen on spending a fortune either, but when Half Life 3 comes out, I suspect I will want a card at least as powerful as the 7970GE, coz I don't want to run on reduced Graphics goodness.

So if I have to spend $300, so be it.

Certainly will never again fork out $600 to $800, as I did in years gone by.

 

[inf64]

Yeah 600 bucks on a gfx card is just way to much. I always thought that (for me) a 200$ price range fit perfectly. Sure it wouldn't last as long as pricier cards but it wouldn't lose that much of a value from it's inicial price point (unlike those uber high end ones).