• 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.

Win8.1 BF4 performance

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Still we have to wait for further optimalisation in drv 14.16 is the start ;-) so we have to wait a while for 14.2 -> better opt. in HD7xxx and 280X
 
The whole problem with the benchmarks comparing Windows 8.1 to Windows 7, is that they took place shortly after the launch of BF4, where the drivers were not properly optimized and the game itself was in a bad state.

It wasn't until the 331.93 drivers that NVidia really started to catch up and overtake AMD in performance, and now with the latest beta 334.64 driver and many patch releases, NVidia has a large lead on AMD in the Direct3D path.

I bet that if HardOCP or some other site benchmarked Windows 8.1 vs Windows 7 again, the performance would likely be higher.
 
Last edited:
Problem was they benched with a single GPU at 1600p with MSAA too. They need to test either SLI/CFX or use lower settings - to expose CPU bound gains.
 
So to sum this have we ever came to conclusion if battlefield performs better on windows 8/8.1 vs windows 7, regardless of the GPU?
 
Carfax83 said:
If BF4 implemented DX11 multithreading, you could see similar performance increases, although probably not as high.

Also, who on Earth would pair high end GPUs like that with such a low end CPU?

Answer, no one. That pairing superficially makes Mantle look better than it is.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Nvidia possibly has more polished drivers for BF4 and that's the only reason they are leading now. Its a matter of time for AMD to catch up (looking at recent benches *if real* the performance difference is in no way related to HW difference).
Also mantle ENABLES the ability to maintain good CPU performance despite of high draw calls and driver overhead, we can expect games with more detail, more objects (an example is RTS games with high unit count). That cant be done with directx without losing performance (maybe on future versions on DX and OpenGL this gets fixed).
 
This game runs so well on everything that nothing at this point can be a game changer anymore. I got friends on 5870's running the game at 100fps at medium settings. I'm declaring this game good and will move on to the next big game for the performance debate.
 
biostud said:
Old news:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ows_7_vs_81_performance_review/4#.Uu99s7SwRrk


results when not in Beta:
13849867120D7cnkMfuM_4_2.gif
Click to expand...

Hey biostud.
I was wondering about your opinion on the older i5 750. I also have a i5 750 , I see you are using a 7990 with yours. How does your 750 do with the 7990? Does it bottleneck at all? I am asking because I am thinking about upgrading to a FX-8320 CPU. I recently got a R9 270 and I have not noticed anything except that my rig is now much better with games since I got the new R9 270. But before I got the card everyone told me my i5 750 would bottleneck it. Is the old 750 really that weak? or is it just false info? I do want something that I know will still be near the top 3 years from now. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
P39Airacobra said:
Hey biostud.
I was wondering about your opinion on the older i5 750. I also have a i5 750 , I see you are using a 7990 with yours. How does your 750 do with the 7990? Does it bottleneck at all? I am asking because I am thinking about upgrading to a FX-8320 CPU. I recently got a R9 270 and I have not noticed anything except that my rig is now much better with games since I got the new R9 270. But before I got the card everyone told me my i5 750 would bottleneck it. Is the old 750 really that weak? or is it just false info? I do want something that I know will still be near the top 3 years from now. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Depending on the situation. For most games it's fine. I also run 2560x1440 which stresses the videocard more than 1920x1080 and my CPU is over clocked to 3.8Ghz which helps a lot. I actually don't play BF4 that much, and from what I've read the MP may be limited by the CPU. I've run a 8800 GT, GTX 670 and now a 7990 on this CPU, and every time has been a good upgrade.

If I were you I would overclock the 750 and call it a day, I seriously don't think a overclocked i5 750 will be much of a bottleneck for a R9 270.

With that said, I'm planning to upgrade to X99 + Haswell E. Since it's the first time I will get decent performance upgrade on all aspects of the computer.
 
P39Airacobra said:
So basically those people are full of it? The 750 is really not much different gaming wise to others?
Click to expand...

Since I haven't tried a faster CPU and can't say 100 percent, but when I compare my results with different benchmarks made with faster CPU's I get very similar results, maybe 5-10% lower in worst case scenarios. Places where I get lower scores are in CPU heavy applications like 3Dmark physics test. From what I can understand people say their BF4 experience is much better on 64 player maps with a upgraded CPU. Personally I don't think I've had any problems playing a 64 player map on my setup, but once again I can't really say if it feels much better on a newer CPU, since I haven't tried one and I really don't play BF4 at all.

But I'm 99.99% sure that getting a r9 290 + i5-750 will get you much better results than a r9 270 + 8350.

Look at this article
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
 
P39Airacobra said:
So basically those people are full of it? The 750 is really not much different gaming wise to others?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that competitive BF4 gamers don't run max settings. They reduce settings to increase FPS because it gives them a competitive advantage (or slower frame rates create a disadvantage, depending on how you analyze it). This shifts the bottleneck to the CPU. They prefer running 100fps+. This is the situation where a weaker CPU will fail in comparison to a modern i7 quad core O/C'd to +4.5GHz.
 
Or they use more GPU power to maintain those frame rates. You're right though, the end result is the same - CPU bound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top