Battlefield 4 Video Card Performance - AMD Vs Nvidia

Jono8 · 18 Nov 2013 at 21:28

Ian Evey said:
Dont know how relevant but OC vs OC from a site i read occasionally.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/powercolor-r9-290x-oc-vs-gtx-780-ti-overclocking-gloves-come/4/

Blimey

Ian Evey · 18 Nov 2013 at 21:55

JediFragger said:
Wow, those results show that the 780Ti is a MONSTER of a card! Pity I can't justify £550+

My £370 s/hand 290X will have to do...

Thats the problem, I think less people will buy the 780Ti as its the same old nvidia milking consumers machine, even though it is faster and cheaper than the overpriced titan.
The standard 780 has had £100+ knocked off and to me thats still overpriced.

With the 290x non ref cards around the corner also, apart from the fastest GPU title theres not much point to the 780Ti at that price to the average gamer.

Silent_Scone · 18 Nov 2013 at 21:56

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.

You've missed the point, I know BF4 favours AMD cards. I've seen it for myself with results from people on here.

That doesn't change the fact that I snort harder through my nose than I would normally when reading OCP testing. You can't bench the Titan and then not the 780Ti. With a lame disclaimer or not.

Jono8 · 18 Nov 2013 at 21:59

MjFrosty said:
That doesn't change the fact that I snort harder through my nose than I would normally when reading OCP testing. You can't bench the Titan and then not the 780Ti. With a lame disclaimer or not.

This. They are probably my least favourite review site.

Orangey · 18 Nov 2013 at 22:13

If they didn't have a 780ti to hand I can see how it would be embarrassing for a big review site, not surprised they would use vague language like "logistics" to excuse themselves.

LtMatt · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:04

Orangey said:
If they didn't have a 780ti to hand I can see how it would be embarrassing for a big review site, not surprised they would use vague language like "logistics" to excuse themselves.

They're probably in Nvidia's bad books because of their previous reviews. The AMD cards all got gold where as the 780TI only got silver as it drew with the 290X on performance but was $150-200 more expensive.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/07/nvidia_geforce_gtx_780_ti_video_card_review/8
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/01/amd_radeon_r9_290x_crossfire_video_card_review/10
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/23/amd_radeon_r9_290x_video_card_review/16
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/04/amd_radeon_r9_290_video_card_review/9
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/7#.Uotv1MTBT_E

Silent_Scone · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:18

However, in every other game we tested the gameplay experience was exactly the same between the GTX 780 Ti and the R9 290X at 2560x1600 resolution. There were some small framerate performance differences, often with the GTX 780 Ti coming out on top. However, we are talking about differences at most of 5%. With a difference that small, it is not noticeable in-game and does not allow one card to offer a better visual quality experience over the other.

lol - now I'm not saying it's 100% cert that they're being given a few friendly massages from AMD. But when you're so quick to say BUT HOWEVER it's hardly noticeable directly after saying it's quicker. That's some mighty fishy pie brewing in my books. Put it as the final words and let the readers decide. Stop trying to buy them over at every turn by counter arguing your own findings.

The first comparison everyone is most curious about is how would the GeForce GTX 780 Ti compare to the AMD Radeon R9 290X. Out of all our games, there was only one game that had a higher playable setting on the GTX 780 Ti, Far Cy 3. However......

However, in every other game we tested the gameplay experience was exactly the same between the GTX 780 Ti and the R9 290X at 2560x1600 resolution

On the efficiency side of things, the victory clearly goes to NVIDIA. If power utilization, noise, and thermals are your highest concern, then there is no other choice right now but GTX 780 or GTX 780 Ti. However, we would like to point out that even in "Quiet Mode" the R9 290X is a huge competitor to the GTX 780.

Silent_Scone · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:25

I just puked in my mouth a little

oldestgregg · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:28

The new Nvidia drivers have some pretty big gains in BF4. Gonna fire it up later and see how big but the driver notes say up to 18%

flopper · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:37

The way hardocp test you can argue with how they test and such but its accurate.
Looking at gameplay experience, no matter what card and brand its the same experience.
some can argue a card is faster etc..but if the gameplay experience dosnt change, it just wont matter.

its like buying a new ssd, its just isnt a difference in actual use.
sure your benchmark might say its way faster but unless you do actually notice difference its just isnt for your use.

reason I bought the 290, fast, value and performance.

gpuerrilla · 19 Nov 2013 at 14:44

Rroff said:
EDIT: Regardless I'd say any benchmarks of BF4 are potentially unreliable at the moment the game is quite broken.

Very broken.

humbug · 19 Nov 2013 at 15:05

AMD should have made the 270X a 7870XT running at 1100Mhz, give the GTX 760 a run for its performance, granted the 270X is £45 cheaper, but there is something missing between the 280X and 270X, its a huge gap thats crying out to be filled for + £25.

TheRealDeal · 19 Nov 2013 at 15:37

humbug said:
AMD should have made the 270X a 7870XT running at 1100Mhz, give the GTX 760 a run for its performance, granted the 270X is £45 cheaper, but there is something missing between the 280X and 270X, its a huge gap thats crying out to be filled for + £25.

I get the feeling amd will fill this gap with a r9 280 non x at some point. Most likely with a 7950 type gpu.

Gregster · 19 Nov 2013 at 17:20

[H] should be embarrassed that they sell their ass to whoever is paying. With BF4 not even giving correct details on ultra, I can't take any bench results serious till the game is fixed and [H] will not be a site I use for comparisons.

I will stick with the trusted OcUK results over some bent site.

Rusty0611 · 19 Nov 2013 at 17:47

I'm confused are we at the point where [H] are hated or loved? It seems to swap over every couple of months on this forum.

Gregster said:
I will stick with the trusted OcUK results over some bent site.

Agreed.

Uncle Petey · 19 Nov 2013 at 17:53

I've always found [H] to be terrible whether they seemed to favour one brand or the other.

I can't remember the actual review, but when they had one card pulling 57fps and the other pulling 61fps, they stated that the one hitting 57fps was 'unplayable' because it didn't hit the magic 60.

Ridiculous.

humbug · 19 Nov 2013 at 18:32

Gregster said:
[H] should be embarrassed that they sell their ass to whoever is paying. With BF4 not even giving correct details on ultra, I can't take any bench results serious till the game is fixed and [H] will not be a site I use for comparisons.

I will stick with the trusted OcUK results over some bent site.

Agreed, yet we don't have a proper BF4 benching thread, any map at any setting with differently over-clocked GPU's is hardly reliable info....

We need a Campaign Map benching methodology.

Gregster · 19 Nov 2013 at 19:13

humbug said:
Agreed, yet we don't have a proper BF4 benching thread, any map at any setting with differently over-clocked GPU's is hardly reliable info....

We need a Campaign Map benching methodology.

Well I did try but one of the mods felt it belonged in the other thread, so merged it.

gpuerrilla · 19 Nov 2013 at 20:10

A dedicated benching thread would be nice, and yes I know the mods merged it I think I read that in about ten different threads now Greg!

JediFragger · 19 Nov 2013 at 20:31

Gregster said:
Well I did try but one of the mods felt it belonged in the other thread, so merged it.

Think of the Kb saved