[GPU.RU]Battlefield 4 Beta Bench

[Jaydip]

Does the game lower the resolution of textures on the 2gb cards to avoid stutter?

I have doubts about the vram usage reported by osd software.

 

[YBS1]

The game plays well for me with dips only during big explosions happening close to me. Oddly on the Battlefield forums a lot of complaints are fom people with multiple 780s or Titans about terrible 30fps type performance issues. Generally it's people with nvidia cards having issues.

Normally I would guess it is because of the heavy AMD involvement and shens going on, in this case I'm going with CPU killing them as they are usually running an i5. I'm seeing 60% to as high as 90% usage on all 12 threads in the game

Same experience here, game runs fantastic for me with all in game settings maxed out (except motion blur), I forgot to even update to the new BF4 driver beforehand.

Avg: 89.041 - Min: 72 - Max: 124
Can't say if this was in a hectic part of the match or not as I thought I had Fraps set to manually toggle on/off but I had it set for 60 seconds. Didn't think to look at cpu usage.

As for the second part of you comment, judging by a quick browsing of some various forum threads about BF4 beta I'm betting we'll see a lot of crying from both sides of the fence (AMD/nV) blaming drivers for poor performance when it very well could be the cpu.

 

[AtenRa]

With a single GPU and the FX8350, i get the same CPU Utilization as in BF3. The BF4 Beta it seams to me that only uses up to 6 cores/threads.

Also, i dont have any problems with the GTX480 using the latest beta driver 331.40 on Win 8 64bit.

 

[StrangerGuy]

BF4 Beta reminds me a lot of the BF3 beta. crap graphics, buggy, heavier resource usage, etc. I'm confident that BF4 will be solid and a kick ass game like BF3 became shortly after release. Really hoping the CPU usage is a whole lot less in the finalized release, GPU I can handle since you can just turn down settings.

Yeah it looks like complete ass. I understand betas aren't stable or exactly well optimized but the graphics is...ugh. We spend mucho money on hardware and we get this kind of crap in return.

 

[3DVagabond]

Yeah it looks like complete ass. I understand betas aren't stable or exactly well optimized but the graphics is...ugh. We spend mucho money on hardware and we get this kind of crap in return.

I don't think those are the final textures and the advanced lighting features are turned off. Both of those can make a big difference.

 

[vincedea]

How's a 560 ti going to do with this game at 1200 medium to high settings?

 

[AtenRa]

How's a 560 ti going to do with this game at 1200 medium to high settings?

If you want to keep 60 fps, medium will be the highest you will go. Also, your CPU will be a huge bottleneck.

 

[SPBHM]

this game have the same CPU performance in medium or ultra?
or does it scale back some CPU bound things?

 

[boxleitnerb]

It seems to happen in a lot of games. The gap between the 7970GE and 780 closes as the resolution increases. It's too consistent to be a driver issue. I suspect it's an efficiency issue; AMD's rasterizers and ROPs are probably hitting higher efficiency levels at greater resolutions (where triangles cover larger fractions of their rasterization tiles).

That's exactly it. AMD cards cannot fully utilize their raw power at lower resolutions (or with SGSSAA). At higher resolutions, this is issue is less prominent or not a problem at all depending on the game.

7970 GE: 4300 GFLOPs@1050 MHz
780: 4156 GFLOPs@902 MHz

Under normal circumstances one would expect these cards to be quite close. I suspect Hawaii will remedy that, putting it on par with NV cards at the same GFLOPs.

 

[Techhog]

Maybe I should consider getting an 8350 instead...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Maybe I should consider getting an 8350 instead...

You want lower performance?

 

[Erenhardt]

How's a 560 ti going to do with this game at 1200 medium to high settings?

560Ti at 1200MHz should play the game on high... GZ on the Golden 560Ti!
Sorry, could not resist!

 

[AtenRa]

You want lower performance?

So tipical of you, why didnt you also quote the other graphs ???

This is a BETA, i would wait until the officially game release to draw any conclusions of the performance of both the CPUs and GPUs. Also, new drivers will have a big inpact in performance so keep an eye on them.

 

[Gideon]

Yeah it looks like complete ass. I understand betas aren't stable or exactly well optimized but the graphics is...ugh. We spend mucho money on hardware and we get this kind of crap in return.

Yeah, but the same was true about and Crysis 3 beta. In fact people on this very forum were willing to write down the entire game because of that. Luckily it turned out to not be the case in the end

 

[ShintaiDK]

So tipical of you, why didnt you also quote the other graphs ???

Because his signature says 4670K/HD7950 coming soon. And both graph shows you have to be a fanboy to even consider an AMD CPU for this game. And BF4 is the best case scenario for AMD. Meaning its a hopeless CPU for gaming overall.

And if you are so righteous, why do YOU post a graph missing both 3rd and 4th generation core CPUs. So typical of you? Yes? :hmm:

 

[Haserath]

So tipical of you, why didnt you also quote the other graphs ???

This is a BETA, i would wait until the officially game release to draw any conclusions of the performance of both the CPUs and GPUs. Also, new drivers will have a big inpact in performance so keep an eye on them.

They all show the 4670k doing better than the 8350.

The 2500k clocked the same is roughly equal if not a little bit faster than the FX.

 

[AtenRa]

And if you are so righteous, why do YOU post a graph missing both 3rd and 4th generation core CPUs. So typical of you? Yes? :hmm:

Unlike you, i have posted both graphs

 

[AtenRa]

They all show the 4670k doing better than the 8350.

The 2500k clocked the same is roughly equal if not a little bit faster than the FX.

He deliberately only posted one graph, he could state from the start that the game is on BETA and making any hardware purchase dicisions now is not the best of time.

 

[Gikaseixas]

4670k OC max FPS - 71.5
FX 8350 OC max FPS - 68.0

3.5 FPS delta, i say FX 8350 is putting a good show here and the picture might change in favor of one or another once BF4 is launched. Guys stop fighting for little details

 

[Erenhardt]

4670k OC max FPS - 71.5
FX 8350 OC max FPS - 68.0

3.5 FPS delta, i say FX 8350 is putting a good show here and the picture might change in favor of one or another once BF4 is launched. Guys stop fighting for little details

Fx8350 - $200 (100%)
4670k - $240 (120%)

Fx8350 -58,5 (100%) OC: 65/68 fps (100/105%)
4670k - 63 (108%) OC: 71,5 fps(110%)

Easy pick. Intel have everything higher than FX! Price included! Clearly a better choice!

 

[Techhog]

Yay, fanboy wars! >_> I shouldn't have said anything lol. Sorry for what I've started!

 

[Erenhardt]

Yay, fanboy wars! >_> I shouldn't have said anything lol. Sorry for what I've started!

It is OK.

You and ShintaiDK made the best purchase decision you possibly could.

 

[Arkaign]

Huh? i5 is still around 25% faster than FX6300. And that is a 2 gen old i5. Not sure if a Haswell i5 is faster, but I would think a few percent at least.

Yes, but that's due to the huge IPC lead Intel has.

The i5 normally doesn't lose to the 8350 in gaming. In this case, it's pretty strange. I mean the oc'd i5 should be fairly close, but in virtually all other games, a stock i5 is at least even with the 8350, and once oc'd should blow it away. But due to BF4 using 8 threads well, the i5 loses ground. After all, 4.5-4.6Ghz is doable with the 8350 on good air cooling, so OC them both to common high OC, and the picture doesn't change a whole lot.

We will have to wait for more competent benches though for sure to know the whole story. For now it looks like i7 probably helps with BF4 quite a lot by getting it to 8T.

 

[powruser]

Runs pretty smoothly for me. Tried it out on my new Asus HD 7970 DirectCU II (1050/6000, GHz Edition clock speeds) and ran smoothly at 1200p/ultra settings. Had FRAPS running and mostly stayed at a 50-80 fps. Haven't tried the latest beta driver, this was on the 13.9 WHQL driver. Not as smooth as Battlefield 3 of course, but I'm sure DICE will optimize the engine as time goes on. It is only a beta after all.

 

[Achilles97]

2500k @ 4.5ghz
8 gigs ram
770 with 2gb vram

1920x1080
Ultra everything
Motion Blur off
HBAO
MSAA 4x
FXAA low

The game ran smooth and was at 60fps most of the time except I would get a few seconds of massive fps stutter when I would move into a new area. Looking at my Afterburner metrics, this is because of a bottleneck with my 2gb of vram. I wish I sprung for the 4gb version of the card.