• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Battlefield 4 Video Card Performance - AMD Vs Nvidia

MjFrosty said:
Am I missing something? Why no 780Ti? Not giving it the time of day TBH. You've only got to look at the posts in this section on the forum to know that AMD users aren't having a rosy experience too.
Click to expand...

Kyle’s Note: Let’s address the elephant in the room; the lack of the GeForce GTX 780 Ti which we fully reviewed here and here over the last ten days. Yes, we would have very much liked to have included the GTX 780 TI in this article but resources and logistics kept us from that. That said, given the results we saw at 2560x1600 among the high-end card set, we highly doubt that the conclusions we reached would have changed at all considering the much less expensive Radeon R8 290 is our suggested card for BF4 at 2560x1600 resolution.


We have spent a lot of time with BF4 simply learning how to properly test for our readers. We will continue to test BF4 in a multi-player only environment because we understand that is how the huge majority of our readers will be using it. BF4 is being included in our regular testing suite so you will see a lot of coverage going forward. Surely you will see the GTX 780 Ti and BF4 testing here on [H]ard|OCP soon, both at multi-display resolutions and in multi-GPU configurations. We also have some specialty articles focused around BF4 that we will be publishing as well. So stay tuned on that front.)
Click to expand...
 
shankly1985 said:
Isn't this just for terrain decoration? And on mine it was low = ultra.
Click to expand...
Yep, just for terrain decoration so far. But tbh with all the mistakes/issues the game has. I wouldnt be the slightest bit surprised that theyve mixed up other settings.
 
MjFrosty said:
@ Matt. Oh, well that makes it ok then... lol :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dry your eyes mate. I found one for you. ;)

In Hardocp's review the 290x 10 fps faster than the titan. We see the same in this Guru3d review at the same res and same settings so the results must be accurate. Includes a stock and overclocked 780TI bench. :)


OTZK8CC.png
 
I just had a quick look, but could not verify whether this was multi or singleplayer. Most likelt to be single player. According to recent release benchmarks, AMD does better in single player meanwhile Nvidia fairs better in multiplayer.
 
setter said:
I wonder if this was ran before everyone found out that medium is the new ultra.:D
Click to expand...

Thats a good point actually - judging by the thread on the battlefield forums it can even change card to card which setting actually works as what (literally people reporting pulling out one card popping another in and what lod they get for the setting changes) so these (and/or any benchmark that doesn't check that) benchmarks could be completely flawed.


EDIT: Regardless I'd say any benchmarks of BF4 are potentially unreliable at the moment the game is quite broken.
 
Last edited:
The mins for 290 / 290X (X being twice as high) tell me that this is a flawed test, even if it's multi they can find a way to replicate conditions near enough.
 
Orangey said:
The mins for 290 / 290X (X being twice as high) tell me that this is a flawed test, even if it's multi they can find a way to replicate conditions near enough.
Click to expand...

As per my post above IMO the game is too broken to benchmark reliably atm - I can get wildly different performance sometimes between restarts - 2 seperate runs with the same settings of the ingame benchmark (while testing the terrain decoration settings) just now gave me 52 fps first time and 76 fps the second lol.
 
Rroff said:
As per my post above IMO the game is too broken to benchmark reliably atm - I can get wildly different performance sometimes between restarts - 2 seperate runs with the same settings of the ingame benchmark (while testing the terrain decoration settings) just now gave me 52 fps first time and 76 fps the second lol.
Click to expand...

Wow. :eek:
 
Orangey said:
The mins for 290 / 290X (X being twice as high) tell me that this is a flawed test, even if it's multi they can find a way to replicate conditions near enough.
Click to expand...

Indeed that is pretty clear just by looking at the 290x and 290 graphs and the peaks and troughs.

Also who needs a 290 when a 280x gets pretty much the same performance :confused:
 
LtMatt said:
Dry your eyes mate. I found one for you. ;)

In Hardocp's review the 290x 10 fps faster than the titan. We see the same in this Guru3d review at the same res and same settings so the results must be accurate. Includes a stock and overclocked 780TI bench. :)


OTZK8CC.png
Click to expand...

so a 290X vs a 780Ti both at stock the 290X is the faster card?
 
Nice to see the 2gb GTX 690s doing so well at Hi Rez settings.:D

I can not take [H] seriously when my two GTX 690s beat two of my 290Xs @1600p with max settings.

Please don't count the GPUs on the 690s, count the vram lol.:D
 
Is it me but this seems a bit obvious considering the game was built with AMD in mind.

Give 6 months or a year then it will be more open to Nvidia Oh hold on there's Mantel oh well maybe the next Battlefield Nvidia can pay millions to have it optimised.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom