Battlefield 4 benchmarking

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

Battlefield 4 benchmarking

Postposted on Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:38 pm

DPete27 wrote:
CT_Messiah wrote:I would like to play next-gen games like BF4 and whatnot on ultra settings, but from what my friends, who are self proclaimed "PC Gaming Gurus" tell me, that's really just not possible for below $2,000.00

The R9 290X churns out 67fps @ 1080p, Ultra Settings, 4x MSAA. I'd say that's silky smooth. I agree with others here that the R9 290 will be plenty and save you some $ to put into an Intel i5 / i7.

My dear naive friend, you should not believe any garbage benchmark that ANY commercial site may post, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a multiplayer-oriented game :P I just played for a little bit (not a full round) on a 64-person server, Hainan Resort map, and used the "benchmark" function of FRAPS. Here is what I got when running on Ultra settings at 1080p with my 290x, running the latest beta drivers:

2013-11-01 20:11:33 - bf4
Frames: 75946 - Time: 980047ms - Avg: 77.492 - Min: 31 - Max: 122

Notice the "Min" result :wink: Did the game had an overall "smooth" feel? Subjectively - "yes", it was perfectly "smooth", but that's not the point I am trying to make here :wink:
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1741
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

New PC Build. Looking for opinions

Postposted on Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:04 pm

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:40 am

Re: New PC Build. Looking for opinions

Postposted on Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:00 pm

JohnC wrote:
DPete27 wrote:
CT_Messiah wrote:I would like to play next-gen games like BF4 and whatnot on ultra settings, but from what my friends, who are self proclaimed "PC Gaming Gurus" tell me, that's really just not possible for below $2,000.00

The R9 290X churns out 67fps @ 1080p, Ultra Settings, 4x MSAA. I'd say that's silky smooth. I agree with others here that the R9 290 will be plenty and save you some $ to put into an Intel i5 / i7.

My dear naive friend, you should not believe any garbage benchmark that ANY commercial site may post, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a multiplayer-oriented game :P I just played for a little bit (not a full round) on a 64-person server, Hainan Resort map, and used the "benchmark" function of FRAPS. Here is what I got when running on Ultra settings at 1080p with my 290x, running the latest beta drivers...

1) I don't appreciate being called naïve just because I had to dig for one of the few BF4 benchmarks run on a 290x. Unfortunately I don't have a 290x, I was just trying to be helpful in the absence of any first-hand experience being offered at the time of my post.
2) I should have known better than to have used the word "smooth" in the TR forums when only referencing a benchmark with average FPS. My mistake.
3) Online gameplay is terribly inconsistent. There are so many outside factors that can mess with your gameplay experience / frame rates. On a 64 player map, your chances of getting one person that lags the whole thing up are tremendous. That, and those 64 player maps quickly become CPU-limited.
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Graphmaster Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:50 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

New PC Build. Looking for opinions

Postposted on Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:31 am

Near as I can tell, HardOCP does the 'best' job of comparing multi-player GPU performance, but as stated already, it's a haphazard process at best.

And yeah, CPU limitations are king- now that BF4 servers are getting populated and I've started digging into performance settings, I'm finding that my CPU just may not be up to the task. The GPU's can hit a solid 60 with settings on High or Ultra, 2xMSAA, but it looks like my 2GB/card of VRAM isn't enough, and I see strong 'pauses' when being shot at or dying. I'll keep pounding on it for sure, but until then, I have two recommendations:

1. Get GPUs with 3GB to 4GB of VRAM or more. More preferably, but such cards don't really exist for consumers yet.
2. Get an Intel K-series CPU with at least four cores and Hyper-Threading. As JohnC said, we're at that point where Hyper-Threading is actually worth the price; it's a performance multiplier.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4694
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:41 pm

Re: New PC Build. Looking for opinions

Postposted on Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:48 am

DPete27 wrote:1) I don't appreciate being called naïve just because I had to dig for one of the few BF4 benchmarks run on a 290x. Unfortunately I don't have a 290x, I was just trying to be helpful in the absence of any first-hand experience being offered at the time of my post.
2) I should have known better than to have used the word "smooth" in the TR forums when only referencing a benchmark with average FPS. My mistake.
3) Online gameplay is terribly inconsistent. There are so many outside factors that can mess with your gameplay experience / frame rates. On a 64 player map, your chances of getting one person that lags the whole thing up are tremendous. That, and those 64 player maps quickly become CPU-limited.


Oh, there are plenty of BF4 benchmarks including the ones using 290x - Guru3D, Gamegpu.ru, plus lots of them at Overclock.net forums :wink: Doesn't mean that people interested in BF4 should rely on ANY of them, though... Unless they are only interested in single-player, which would be a huge waste of money :wink: Like you yourself have said - online gameplay is inconsistent, different maps and game modes will show different performance, same goes for in-game settings. Not many people are even aware that "Ultra" is not the "highest" setting - there is also a way to use "Supersampling" by jacking up the "Resolution Scale" setting (it defaults at "100%"), and with this setting maxed out + "Ultra" setting = very, very low FPS during online play even at 1080p resolution and using cards like Titan or 290x... Though even without "Supersampling" and only using 4x MSAA the game looks good enough for majority of people.
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1741
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

Re: Battlefield 4 benchmarking

Postposted on Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:02 am

I have split this discussion from a first-time forum participant's system build thread and I have moved it out of the System Builders Anonymous forum.

JustAnEngineer, SBA forum moderator
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15131
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie


Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Hsldn and 12 guests