looks fine with mine too, it looks like you need to replace your cards Greg, they're getting old m8
-
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.
BF Hardline - AMD cards getting panned (not by much)
- Thread starter SiDeards73
- Start date
looks fine with mine too, it looks like you need to replace your cards Greg, they're getting old m8
When you have the links up, I will link them for ya.
Edit:
Sorry, I meant to add this to the other post
... Old age creeping up on me 
Hardly panned. Mr cocky ****
They are claiming that its running in 64bit, i call BS.
There screen shot is how BF4 is looking when in 32 bit mode, no API option. BFH beta had 2 exes just like BF4 has, one for 32bit one for 64bit , BFH beta had the API option in 64bit but not in 32bit, BFH beta2 has only one exe and if it was 64bit then people running a 32bit OS could not run it.
It also made its own x86 folder which indicates 32bit.
__________________
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
These are the frametimes converted to frame rate from the PerfOverlay.FrameFileLogEnable 1 feature of the frostbite engine
1000/(frametimes)= the numbers below
1000/(frametimes)= the numbers below
Last edited:
+1 - Maybe if the AMD cards had 32 Terrabytes of Vram they might catch up ?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
The 4K results are odd I know but GPU usage for the GTX970 in SLI was roughly 65-70% (bug maybe?) while the Crossfire R9-290s where up in the high 90s.
I know as fact that a few people posting in here would be calling foul play if it was an nVidia sponsored title... But I am not getting involved in that crap and it is pretty evident that AMD are dropping off when it comes to driver support and clearly this Beta is no different.
Nik, Do you have frametimes done as well? You have shown FPS bud, which is good work but the debate is about frame times.
interesting to note that the RAM used with the 970 is quite low...and it's a higher setting than 1080p
......
Also interesting to see that they only tested the 980 and 290x at 4K. I would have thought the 970 could have ran that test since it is 'supposed' to be faster than the 290 series.
It has 4GB memory like the other two cards right?....
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
double post edited
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
Thats FPS calculated from Frametimes. Let me do the frametimes in a little.
I call the HardOCP benchmarks fake. You can't change settings only presets.
Ultra = 4xMSAA
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
Last edited:
Mine were.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
Might be an error on my side
Its a BS benchmark review by one review site and everybody is going on about it like its something to be taken seriously.
Move along already people.. jeez.
Ps, did Nvidia pay these guys for this?
Who knows but the problem with all these mainstream review sites is they are a business, some of them quite large with dedicated offices in multiple countries and multiple staff to pay for.
That income comes from the vendors whose hardware they review, be AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Asus, Gigabyte................
Can we really trust them given thats for all we know they could be running a system where what is said about a product and how it results depends on price.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMu2HKTfUAw
I did a performance vid of the beta on my pc see sig at the ultra preset the fps is fine but the frame time is shocking. Saying that my uncle has a pc running sli 980s and he says its also stuttery on his too.
I did a performance vid of the beta on my pc see sig at the ultra preset the fps is fine but the frame time is shocking. Saying that my uncle has a pc running sli 980s and he says its also stuttery on his too.