• 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 all maxxed out and getting below 100 fps with 1070?

Brazo said:
BF4 is not a game that is affected by CPU. Don't bother quoting me any sources, my i3 gives well over 100fps and even a weak ass AMD 25w quad core 5350 (doesn't get much weaker) managed 45-80 fps depending on settings.
Click to expand...

That's where you couldn't be more wrong. Me switching from a i5 at 4.2 Ghz to a i7 at 4.6 Ghz netted me on average around a extra 20-30 FPS. Was same for GTA too pritty much. I think the CPU does matter.
 
Maybe intel put an extra six cores in my i3 and that's what gives me such great performance on bf4? Bf and BF1 beta. (All same/similar engine)

Silly of me not to notice.

I'm not saying a better CPU won't give you more fps but I'm saying a crap one will still give you plenty, more than enough. So much so I'm saying if an i3 gives 100fps and an i7 140fps then it's not a heavily CPU dependant game like say GTA V.
 
Brazo said:
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Really? This is calling you out.
Click to expand...

Ah this raises one point - AMD GPUs in the game typically less sensitive to CPU than nVidia IIRC - nVidia's DX11 drivers are more CPU heavy especially with the game if people remember they released a major performance update a couple of months after the game release where they hooked many DX11 functions before they hit the driver and hand optimised them for nVidia hardware hence the big lead nVidia pulled off in DX11 but that comes at a cost in CPU.

Most of the people talking about seeing gains from CPU are probably using an i5 or i7 with an nVidia card.
 
Brazo said:
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Really? This is calling you out.
Click to expand...

Check the first page. It says that benchmark was run on the single player game, which a typewriter could run if it had a powerful enough video card. Try joining a 64-player conquest game on one of the vehicle maps and use the performance graph console command, then you'll see what everyone is talking about. I used to be hugely CPU-bound on BF4 using an overclocked core-i7 920 and when I upgraded to an i5 4690K at stock I saw a huge boost to my minimum and average frame rates on the same GPU (a GTX-670 at the time).
 
MattyD242 said:
Check the first page. It says that benchmark was run on the single player game, which a typewriter could run if it had a powerful enough video card. Try joining a 64-player conquest game on one of the vehicle maps and use the performance graph console command, then you'll see what everyone is talking about. I used to be hugely CPU-bound on BF4 using an overclocked core-i7 920 and when I upgraded to an i5 4690K at stock I saw a huge boost to my minimum and average frame rates on the same GPU (a GTX-670 at the time).
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten that aspect - I'd forgotten BF4 had single player at all - many benchmark sites use the opening sequence in the car as its the same each time but its not a CPU heavy bit at all.

I usually jump in an empty siege of shanghai server to judge performance after upgrades or overclocking.
 
I have a 3570K @ 4.5Ghz and a GTX 1080 and played a fair bit of BF4 at max settings 1440p. I mostly stick to a 64 player 60Hz Conquest server that plays all maps. The only time it drops below 100fps and I feel it chugging is when my CPU is at 100% and my GPU use drops to about 60-70%.

I do own a 2600K so can't wait to see if hyperthreading gives me any gains.
 
Disco_P said:
I do own a 2600K so can't wait to see if hyperthreading gives me any gains.
Click to expand...

In BF3 and BF4 I had to turn off hyperthreading in my bios with my old i7 because it caused the frame time to vary and made the game feel chuggy even with reasonable FPS. High clock speed seems to be more important once you have four physical cores.
 
MattyD242 said:
In BF3 and BF4 I had to turn off hyperthreading in my bios with my old i7 because it caused the frame time to vary and made the game feel chuggy even with reasonable FPS. High clock speed seems to be more important once you have four physical cores.
Click to expand...

Doing the disable core parking thing usually sorts that out with BF4 - though I've not tested with more recent versions of the game/drivers what difference there is these days between HT on and off.
 
I was seeing well over 100fps on ultra 1080p settings 64 player maps with a 1060 and an i3 6100,i saw about a 10-15 fps difference when I switched to a skylake 6400 so the i3 plays very well on bf4 multiplayer..very underated cpu.
 
This thread turned into a battlefield on its own.

OP Maybe try turning your scale back to 100% and go from there. Slowly move it up in 5% increments until you get the right balance of speed vs quality.

FWIW My i7 at 4.2 with a 980Ti manages a 1440p at about 80-100 fps at 130%
 
100% is fine with Ultra settings anyway.

Anything above 100% is just some extra level of super-sampling that you probably won't really notice as Ultra settings has 4x MSAA.
 
the problem with any game fps arguement is many dont bench the same thing.

bf4 can be so different on many areas.different maps . online vs single player.also big conquest maps with 64 people makes a lot of difference.

you will do better with a higher clock and more cores.
 
Rroff said:
Doing the disable core parking thing usually sorts that out with BF4 - though I've not tested with more recent versions of the game/drivers what difference there is these days between HT on and off.
Click to expand...

Isn't core parking just a win 7 thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom