Nvidia GPUs for BF4 with Ultra settings at 3k Resolution

[UaVaj]

NOTE:
was getting considerable stutter (especially when panning with mouse) while the fps counter was showing 60+ constant. thought it was micro stutter, however frame analysis show less than 1.5ms variance. so micro stutter ruled out.

culprit is - perfoverlay.drawfps 1 is NOT gpu fps. it is cpu fps. as in how many frames the cpu is sending to the gpu. not how many frames the gpu is actually rendering.
some of you might want to recheck your bf4 fps claim again.



ISSUE:
currently running i7-3770k at 4.7GHz with 680 4gb x3 stock.
reading are from perfoverlay.drawgraph 1 with frametime (ms) translated.
this shows a serious gpu bottleneck.

bf4 ultra setting at 3k resolution (6000x1080)
cpu fps is 61 (43% cpu usage)
gpu fps is 21 (all gpu is peg at 99%)

bf4 high setting at 3k resolution
cpu fps is 86 (50% cpu usage)
gpu fps is 31 (all gpu peg at 97%)



OPTIONS:
simply want to play bf4 with ultra setting at 3k resolution with 65fps+ average n 45fps absolute minimum (55fps minimum be ideal).
1. will 780ti 6gb x3 handle this task?

if not.
2. will 780ti 6gb x4 handle this task?

if above fails. will settle for 1.8k resolution (2560x1440)
3. will a single 780ti 3gb handle this task?

if not.
4. will 780ti 3gb x2 handle this task?


HOUSEKEEPING:
This is NOT a HOW MUCH VRAM discussion. If you want to discuss VRAM for BF4. Click on thread below instead.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366404

 

[UaVaj]

unable to upload the single 3k screenshot.
here are cut out to show the preeminent info.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Two or three GTX 780 ti 3GB (or 6 GB if you believe that it will gives you a boost, I expect a max of 5% boost from the 3gb version)

You don't need more than 3 for 6000x1080.

GTX 680 don't cut it for that resolution. Even if you have 4GB version, you are still stuck with a 256bit bus, which is quite poor for high resolutions.

SOURCE: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

I have 1440p monitors and the GTX 680 is by far the worst card I have used on 1440p monitors. On the other end, I had two non-ti GTX 780 and they were freakin awsome.

Good luck in making a choice.

(I vote for 3 x GTX 780ti 3gb)

 

[RaulF]

Sorry, Karlitos but at that res if he wants to max out everything and have all the AA turn up 3GB is not enough.

Go for the 6GB card OP. I think you will need at least two Ti's at those rez. Sorry but only way to know is to try it.

Good luck.

 

[Majcric]

I vote 2 780ti 6gb. (check results, then maybe add a third) But the last I heard BF4 is buggy and not very respresentive how a GPU will perform. In a nutshell, BF4 might still play like shi with any hardware upgrade out there. This will be subjective of course depending on the/an individuals expectations.

 

[blackened23]

Not sure if I missed it, are you using resolution scale? If you are, that will cause you hit a VRAM wall in surround because it is OGSSAA.

MSAA 8X + SSAA both use a ton of VRAM, more than is really necessary. If there's a VRAM issue, it is normally caused by MSAA or SSAA. Resolution is OGSSAA, which is the most demanding form of SSAA in terms of VRAM use; you can use more than 3GB alone with AA alone with OGSSAA depending on your settings.

I've used various forms of SSAA at 1600p and much to my amusement I found that some SSAA settings alone use more than 2GB of VRAM. It's quite funny. Then I can swap to FXAA and that uses zero VRAM. But i'm not sure this is your issue, but , throwing that out there. Sometimes hitting a VRAM wall will cause odd performance anomalies and/or a crashing of the game outright. SSAA can definitely cause you to hit a VRAM wall whether you have a 3, 4, or 6GB card if you set it really high.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Not sure if I missed it, are you using resolution scale? If you are, that will cause you hit a VRAM wall in surround because it is OGSSAA.

MSAA 8X + SSAA both use a ton of VRAM, more than is really necessary. If there's a VRAM issue, it is normally caused by MSAA or SSAA. Resolution is OGSSAA, which is the most demanding form of SSAA in terms of VRAM use; you can use more than 3GB alone with AA alone with OGSSAA depending on your settings.

I've used various forms of SSAA at 1600p and much to my amusement I found that some SSAA settings alone use more than 2GB of VRAM. It's quite funny. Then I can swap to FXAA and that uses zero VRAM. But i'm not sure this is your issue, but , throwing that out there. Sometimes hitting a VRAM wall will cause odd performance anomalies and/or a crashing of the game outright. SSAA can definitely cause you to hit a VRAM wall whether you have a 3, 4, or 6GB card if you set it really high.

This is very true. I use 8044x1440 Resolution and even with Quad R9 290x or Quad HD 7970, you can performance decrease even at low Anti-Aliasing.

In my opinion, like blackened23 said, you will hit a VRAM wall even with 6GB card.

Sometime, especially on 1440p panels, when High AA is used, I don't even see a difference on Quality compared to No AA. The only difference is noticed on FPS hit, unnecessary performance decrease.

 

[desprado]

This is very true. I use 8044x1440 Resolution and even with Quad R9 290x or Quad HD 7970, you can performance decrease even at low Anti-Aliasing.

In my opinion, like blackened23 said, you will hit a VRAM wall even with 6GB card.

Sometime, especially on 1440p panels, when High AA is used, I don't even see a difference on Quality compared to No AA. The only difference is noticed on FPS hit, unnecessary performance decrease.

So true bro.I also dont see difference in AA for example 4 MSAA vs 2 MSAA in BF4 their not much difference on 1440p however 1080p is totally a different story.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The price premium on 6GB is rather low. And since this is an usual case with 3 or 4 cards. Then unless its a short term ownership of the cards, I would get 6GB for the future. Since 3-4 cards actually got the horsepower to drive something that needs 3GB+ down the roads in a couple of years.

Had it been one card I would say 3GB for sure.

 

[blackened23]

Yes, AA is the biggest contributor to VRAM use. That doesn't mean that 6GB doesn't have merit. It may or may not. There's no set answer on this question, anyone stating otherwise is being silly on the issue.. It depends. While 3GB is fine for *me*, that doesn't mean someone else shouldn't use 6GB. Because I don't use SSAA at high resolutions. I don't mod my games to extreme levels. Other people may. And those other people modding their game to extreme levels and want to run 1600p times 3? 6GB would be a good choice. And like shintai said, the 6GB premium for 780/780ti is only 50 bucks. At that price, it's really a no brainer if you want to run super high resolutions with good image quality.

Also, I highly disagree with anyone stating that AA isn't needed at 1440p and above. While I don't use MSAA 8X, I do always use FXAA or 2X MSAA because high resolution does not remove the need for anti aliasing. Just be aware if you do use it, MSAA/SSAA/resolution scale uses VRAM, so you may want to look into shader based AA such as FXAA which will never cause VRAM issues. But make no mistake. 1440p , 1600p, and 4k does not remove the need for AA. I can certainly still see jaggies at 1600p.

ANYWAY. My main point here is that anti aliasing is usually the reason for high VRAM use , and most people do not realize that BF4's resolution scaling is OGSSAA. So if you use that setting, VRAM will become an issue quick because you're using so much SSAA that you're running your VRAM dry. I was simply suggesting to the OP that if he using resolution scaling, that could well be the reason for his hitching. That setting uses a ton of VRAM that may not manifest itself in frametimes; i've seen VRAM issues cause strange performance anomalies in the past I just thought i'd throw that out there. That's all. Hopefully OP can get this issue fixed without problems.

 

[Linkdrive]

A 2GB GTX 680 can run BF3 on Ultra settings with 4xMSAA at 3840x2160 without running out of VRAM. I don't imagine a 3GB card having much issue with BF4 on Ultra and 4xMSAA with triple monitor resolutions (assuming all 3 screens are 1080p) and native rendering resolution.

 

[chimaxi83]

A 2GB GTX 680 can run BF3 on Ultra settings with 4xMSAA at 3840x2160 without running out of VRAM. I don't imagine a 3GB card having much issue with BF4 on Ultra and 4xMSAA with triple monitor resolutions (assuming all 3 screens are 1080p) and native rendering resolution.

Yeah, but then there's that whole 6 frames per second thing.

 

[Linkdrive]

Yeah, but then there's that whole 6 frames per second thing.

Try 25-30 with AO off, and 20-25 with AO on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poRcXXqr5_E
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

 

[wilds]

3 6GB GTX 780's, non ti. The cost of 2 GTX 780 ti's is around $1430 for me, where 3 GTX 780's would be around $1550.

The performance gap between the 780 and 780 ti will probably widen over time, but for now, I don't think it merits the premium.

Looking at BF4 benchmarks, the 7990 is doing really well, even with anti-aliasing. Sounds weird to say it, but maybe you should wait and see how the upcoming AMD R9 295X2(?) performs.

 

[chimaxi83]

Try 25-30 with AO off, and 20-25 with AO on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poRcXXqr5_E
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

Oh, my mistake. I guess I should have explained that "6 frames per second" was just a figurative description for crappy performance. See, around here, 20-30 FPS is horse crap. To top that off, 15 FPS minimums. Why would anybody put themselves through that kind of torture? I don't think the OP is looking for the absolute bare minimum.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Lowest resolution i can max out the 2gb of vram on my 770 in BF4 is 1280x1024 so far.Max out resolution scale to 200% and add in 4x MSAA and i sit at a max of 50fps,average of about 40 and dip as low as 22fps lol and this is on Metro.

Far from enjoyably playable but not to hard to bring a gtx770 to its knees

 

[Linkdrive]

Oh, my mistake. I guess I should have explained that "6 frames per second" was just a figurative description for crappy performance. See, around here, 20-30 FPS is horse crap. To top that off, 15 FPS minimums. Why would anybody put themselves through that kind of torture? I don't think the OP is looking for the absolute bare minimum.

Just because a game doesn't run at 60 FPS doesn't mean there are people who wouldn't find it enjoyable. Running a game at 30 FPS doesn't invalidate playability.

Obviously, if the game is below 30 FPS, then simply reduce the graphics settings a tad. 4xMSAA is not required for good overall immage clarity. In my experience 2xMSAA + FXAA is more than enough, as it subjectively looks better than 4xMSAA while offering much better performance.

But last I checked, this discussion was about VRAM, no? Having more VRAM will not magically give the user better FPS if more VRAM is not required. That said, the argument about FPS is pointless in this sense.

 

[blackened23]

Lowest resolution i can max out the 2gb of vram on my 770 in BF4 is 1280x1024 so far.Max out resolution scale to 200% and add in 4x MSAA and i sit at a max of 50fps,average of about 40 and dip as low as 22fps lol and this is on Metro.

Far from enjoyably playable but not to hard to bring a gtx770 to its knees

Correct. Don't use resolution scale, problem solved.

Resolution scale is OGSSAA which is the most VRAM hogging and GPU intensive form of SSAA in existence. I think there are misconceptions about resolution scale in BF4. If you use it, it will eat up VRAM. 2-3-4-6GB, doens't matter, resolution scale/OGSSAA can and will make all of the above hit a VRAM wall. I think they should have labelled it "OGSSAA" to avoid misconceptions associated with using "resolution scale", but alas DICE didn't do that.

 

[Skurge]

Just because a game doesn't run at 60 FPS doesn't mean there are people who wouldn't find it enjoyable. Running a game at 30 FPS doesn't invalidate playability.

Obviously, if the game is below 30 FPS, then simply reduce the graphics settings a tad. 4xMSAA is not required for good overall immage clarity. In my experience 2xMSAA + FXAA is more than enough, as it subjectively looks better than 4xMSAA while offering much better performance.

But last I checked, this discussion was about VRAM, no? Having more VRAM will not magically give the user better FPS if more VRAM is not required. That said, the argument about FPS is pointless in this sense.

Fair enough, but BF4 is not the type of game you want to be anywhere near 30fps min, let alone average.

 

[Linkdrive]

Fair enough, but BF4 is not the type of game you want to be anywhere near 30fps min, let alone average.

Personally, I have no qualms about playing in the low to mid 30's as long as it does not dip below that and the frame times are low. Most people prefer 45-60 FPS minimum for competitive games, but that's not what this thread is about.

The OP is interested in playing in triple monitor configuration. 3x 1080p screens in Eyefinity/Surround has approximately 25% less screen space than 4k, meaning it will require less to hit that target of 60 FPS. Also, OP is interested in going SLI. In this situation, performance should not be too much of a concern with dual/triple high end GPUs.

 

[RaulF]

A 2GB GTX 680 can run BF3 on Ultra settings with 4xMSAA at 3840x2160 without running out of VRAM. I don't imagine a 3GB card having much issue with BF4 on Ultra and 4xMSAA with triple monitor resolutions (assuming all 3 screens are 1080p) and native rendering resolution.

Bull [crap].

Good luck playing it with the constant hitching you will have.



Callouts and inappropriate language is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.

-Moderator Rvenger

 

[Headfoot]

I run bf4 at 60 fps locked on a single 290 at 1ghz with 3x 1680x1050, ultra MINUS AA except low post. I get reduced to 40-45 fps as soon as I turn on MSAAx2. It seems 3x 680 shouldn't be doing so poorly

 

[UaVaj]

karlitos - thanks for derailing my thread with your notion.

FYI - THIS IS NOT A "HOW MUCH VRAM" DISCUSSION.
appreciate if everyone can leave the vram discussion out.

BF4 with Ultra at 3k needs 3.4GB of vram to prevent any texture swapping.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2366404

if anyone want to continue this discussion vram. please go the thread above.

 

[UaVaj]

everyone thanks for chiming in (karlitos included ).



this thread is about HOW MUCH SHADER is needed to run BF4 with Ultra at 3k with 60fps+ average n 45fps dips.

680 x3 is simply NOT cutting it (unless there is another underlying issue).
680 x3 overclock is equivalent to 780ti x2. so that rules that out.

780ti x3 might be close and 780ti x4 might be barely nose above water.

perhaps BF4 is simply too demanding to be gaming at 3k with ultra.



given the discussion is now moving toward reducing AA to get playable fps.
do note - will quit this hobby before turning down any eye candy. clearly not spending 3k on gpu alone (780ti x4) to play at high setting.

as for trading eye candy.
23" at 1080p = 0.265 ppi verse 27" at 1440p = 0.234 ppi.
if the reduction in pixel pitch can make up for reduce AA (4x msaa down to 2x msaa) while maintaining the same level of eye candy. this may be an alternative. could use an upgrade in monitor size too.

in all honestly. hard to see how 5.5k w/ 2x msaa is any less demanding than 3k w/ 4x msaa.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I was just trying to help mate

My intentions are not as bad as people might think on Anandtech.