Associate
speak for yourself!
i want an excuse to buy more graphics cards. pc gaming has stagnated for years due to the 'console effect'
Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~
- Thread starter ~Mike~
- Start date
speak for yourself!
i want an excuse to buy more graphics cards. pc gaming has stagnated for years due to the 'console effect'
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,765
^tHIs game is looking good. but am not sure if be as good as bf2bc2
Looking at some of the alpha screenshots it appears that when a vehicle is locked onto with a missile there's a directional indicator showing where the lock is originating. Could be a good idea stopping people from camping up specific spots if their general position is given away. Going from what I've read it seems that currently stinger hits only do around 32 damage to helicopters.
http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?9806-Indicators-when-locked-on-in-aircraft
http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?9806-Indicators-when-locked-on-in-aircraft
Last edited:
From looking at the weapons list it doesn't seem like the javelin is in this version, the LAW however is, seems to function similar to the AT4 in BC2.
http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread....4-Weapons-and-Gadgets-(Complete-w-Accessories)
Soldato
Hope the lock on indicator is just normal mode and removed in HC. Step too far for my tastes.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
I have seen the Video, I was "lol"-ing at the 30% utilisation - which I honestly think is a load of cobblers at worst, or a very misrepresented statistic at best (i.e. selective/synthetic benchmarking).
I mean....c'mon, how can a game engine only be 30% utilised for its flagship game?
I understand your doubts and would agree but,
If the game engine had all features enabled and demanded far more processing power than modern hardware could muster (for home users back in 2011), they probably had to turn down/off special features in Frsotbite 2. They also had to make the game scale so it could play on dual cores and a range of gpu's. This is very unlikely the case with BF4 almost certainly a quadcore cpu is required as a minimum.
(This might explain why they left so many beloved BF2 features out,full scale destructibility, spectator modes, commander and squad based stuff that people miss)
From my recollection BF3 was one of the first full DX11 FPS games and at launch it was a system killer back then. (It was a challenge to run 60fps in ultra @ 1080+)
If you look at all the extra features of BF4 you can see that far more has been put into graphics rendering, glass, waves, window reflections, weather systems (this takes enormous resource) and all the other stuff. Although Dice have called it FB3, its very likely that the tech already existed and was ready available in the current FB2 version and was held back for marketing and hardware reasons. FB3 is most likely a polished FB2 with features enabled.
Why did Dice leave so many important features out of BF3 that we loved in BF2 and BFBC2?
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
Your points are all valid - but the 30% figure really needs some solid links backing it up.
Considering that they demo'd the BF3 SP demo on a 7990, and that FB3 is "FB2-Plus", it still looks like we are in the ballpark for the current gen. However, there are a lot of additional effects as you suggested, and I would agree that there is the potential for higher GPU/CPU requirements. It is speculation for now though.
You've got the flagship AMD card and you're asking such a question? Do you think they're targeting cards that don't exist yet and if it does, only a tiny group of enthusiasts would buy?
I'm not fully 'in the know' regarding the card and was just looking for a little bit of advice if I was to buy one, that's all.
Soldato
If a rig can run BF3, it will run BF4.
To give you an idea of the power of the Tahiti chip as found in the top HD7000 series ati cards and of course your 7970.
My brother has 2x7950's running in crossfire powering eyeinfinity (3 screens) in battlefield running at greater than 60fps in ULTRA everything turned right up. (1150Mhz Gpu, 1500Mhz Mem) (He actually bought 3 7950 to use with 40 lane pcie x79 board but took one back because it wasnt needed..
)1x7970 overclocked should reach 30-50 fps with 3 screens in bf3!!! (overclocked)
The 7970/7950 are an overclocking delight and the best binned chips can reach 1200Mhz gpu on 1250mv or less in some cases.
He does however have a i7 quad channel hex core sandybridge e, but heres the thing, in battlefield multiplayer in 64 player Talah, he only hits 60% cpu utilisation across all 6 cores, which shows just how brilliant this game scales for multicore none multithreaded cpu's. Battlefield has a higher average and max fps with hyperthreading turned off above 4Ghz cpu clock!! So if you overclock above 4Ghz
contrary to belief turn HT off!!! (HT virtual cores/threads slow the physcial cores down above 4Ghz in bf3 imo)
So battlefield likes physical cores, 4 physical cores with ht on @4.5Ghz has lower fps than 4 physcial cores with ht off @4.5Ghz. Likewise a Hex core i7 is very close to an i7 4 core with ht left on but at 4.5Ghz with Ht off the 6 core is much much faster.
The 2x7950's are 90% Ultilised with V syn on (Recall sandy 6 core hitting 60% across all cores) so there are no bottlenecks.
So if the 6 core sandy scales down with core performance then 4 core i7/i5 with HT off will reach around 90% utilisation if there is a linear relationships at work here with 2 gpu's for instance..
Sorry to go on but we've spent loads of money and time getting things in place for BF4 and Rome 2 and Generals 2 ect...
I have a link here and it kinda backs up our real world game tests in bf3 http://chipreviews.com/main-feature/main-news/frostbite-2s-limit-6-core-performance-in-battlefield-3/
So in conclusion if BF4 is only 30% more demanding to play than BF3 as a guess then a 7970 should still max it out @1080p. But until proper real world bench marks are performed we wont know, especially as driver issues code issues and other things will affect FPS...
My advice is maybe consider a 7950 with the prospect of a second card if you want more power or eyeinfinity in the future. 2Gb cards struggle with 5700x1200 resolution due to memory size and bandwidth limitations.
No hotlinking images - Davey
No hotlinking images - Davey
No hotlinking images - Davey
Last edited:
To give you an idea of the power of the Tahiti chip as found in the top HD7000 series ati cards and of course your 7970.
My brother has 2x7950's running in crossfire powering eyeinfinity (3 screens) in battlefield running at greater than 60fps in ULTRA everything turned right up. (1150Mhz Gpu, 1500Mhz Mem) (He actually bought 3 7950 to use with 40 lane pcie x79 board but took one back because it wasnt needed..
What type of eyefinity resolution is he running?
Hes using 5760x1080p with settings all at ultra. (24" 1080p monitors)
He tried to run initially in ultra with 3x660Ti's and a 3920 i7 and it would crash out because the memory and bandwidth limitations. So he sold that yesterday!!!
He then popped in a 3930 and 3x7950's (But returned One).
So if intel produce's an affordable non Xeon based 8 core i'll be selling my internal organs to buy one!!! haha....
Surprised he gets that kind of performance, I've to lower the res to 4800x900 with most settings on medium to get 80+fps. Prefer it higher than 60 as the dips under 60 make the game feel very sluggish, shoots up well over 100 at times with those settings, mainly in jets.
What are you on about now? I'm pretty sure it was shown a while back that threading in bf3 does help performance especially with multi gpu.