• 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.

gamegpuBattlefield 4 Benchmarks

C

csbin

Senior member
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-test-gpu.html


1080p

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-1920.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-1920_msaa.jpg



2560x1600

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-2560.jpg



http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-2560_msaa.jpg



4K UHD^_^


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-3840.jpg
 
Kenmitch said:
Guess I'll be the 1st to say it....No r290x included seems to make it a dated effort.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about that site but they don't appear to be dedicated to hardware reviews. They just test game performance and post news updates about new products.

Is that how it appears to anyone else?
 
They are using 120 FOV no wonder this bench look so bad, I personally prefer 90 over 120 the screen looks very stretched 120 FOV is better for those who run multi-display setups
 
There is something very wrong with these benchmarks. I run a 780@ 1440p on ultra with 110% scaling, and my numbers look more like the 780 SLI numbers at 1600p. Sure, my 780 is OC'd, but this is waaaaaaaay off. I can do 150% scaling at 1080p, MSAA included, and never see anything less than 60.
 
Anything higher than 1080p looks like my card would be kind of lagging. Minimum 25 or so fps and max 42.. Looks like that's with 8 more gb of ram than I have too. I want to see better reviews though, and maybe some benches with anyone that has a 290x.
 
sze5003 said:
Anything higher than 1080p looks like my card would be kind of lagging. Minimum 25 or so fps and max 42.. Looks like that's with 8 more gb of ram than I have too. I want to see better reviews though, and maybe some benches with anyone that has a 290x.
Click to expand...

These benchmarks are incredibly innacurate, you can expect quite a bit higher than what these say.
 
I'm debating weather to buy it for pc as well as ps4. Might as well since I can see for myself how it runs. Yea these can't be accurate, are they even using the same engine as bf3 for pc ?
 
gamegpu.ru take a while to add new hardware. They still have a 2600k rather than upgrading to a 4770k and while the GPUs have been updated with Titan they haven't yet got any of the 200 series cards and I suspect we'll only see that in a few months time. But what these guys do, no one else does it. They test CPU dependence at real game settings with a high end card (Titan) and they test a big variety of games on every darn game and have results out for games surprisingly quickly. I can't fault what they do because its such a useful site.
 
BF4 brought my gtx 480's to their knees using the auto setting. I had to use the GeForce experience settings to make it playable.
 
I would not be playing at 2560 but looks like this game favors the 780. I would probably set it to ultra minus the msaa. Maybe use fxaa. Is 30fps considered standard playable on the pc? I know most console games if they at least run on 30fps the average person won't really notice.

Sometime this summer I'm going to have to update my mobo and cpu, add more ram, hopefully before that I'll have a non reference 290x as well.
 
I guess you didn't see the benchmarks above your post which includes the 290x?

Are those accurate? The 290x is smoking the titan and 780. Those are some huge differences by the 290x!
 
wand3r3r said:
I guess you didn't see the benchmarks above your post which includes the 290x?

Are those accurate? The 290x is smoking the titan and 780. Those are some huge differences by the 290x!
Click to expand...

The only place I saw the 290X lose to Titan and GTX 780 was multiplayer, but that seems to be a bug on AMD drivers.

Either that or some funking testing.
 
Last edited:
wand3r3r said:
I guess you didn't see the benchmarks above your post which includes the 290x?

Are those accurate? The 290x is smoking the titan and 780. Those are some huge differences by the 290x!
Click to expand...

Yea I missed the first one. That looks pretty good for a reference 290x. Definately will want me one.
 
GaiaHunter said:
The only place I saw the 290X lose to Titan and GTX 780 was multiplayer, but that seems to be a bug on AMD drivers.

Either that or some funking testing.
Click to expand...

that test everywhere in single says uber mode winning....

then mutliplayer there is no uber mode tested? yea - but its being used to say 290X can't handle multiplayer - which isn't the case.

These numbers will change over the next couple months; both 780 and 290X will get faster; and then mantle will hit and we'll see if is as fast as they say 🙂
 
this might be off topic. but i'm playing this game on 3570k + 7870 oc on high setting with ultra textures at 65-80 fps on 1080P and it doesn't feel smooth most of the time. So my question is; would this be a server problem or is there something wrong with my setup( drivers/ bios ect)
 
Silverforce11 said:
Man.. even at 1080p, seeing the likes of gtx680/770 and 7970 have such low min fps is really disheartening..

I need an upgrade! Bring on the R290!
Click to expand...

The fps is in the 40's. I may wait until a non reference 290x is out to buy this game. Seems like every year or so if you want good performance you must spend 500 bucks to get smooth gameplay for some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top