• 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.

BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured

One of the benchmarks showing multiplayer performance shows the AMD FX 8350 doing 'OK' when paired with a GTX 780 but when paired with a 290X performance is terrible. We're talking 20 fps less. Don't know how accurate the benchmarks are but there's definitely something odd going on.

http://m.pclab.pl/art55318-4.html
 
Just had a quick blast now on the spec in sig, albeit the cpu was at stock. Ultra custom preset with x4 msaa, stock sli gtx 670's. It played really nicely. No stuttering, card use only maxed at 89% which is to be expected with the cpu at stock.
 
setter said:
Just had a quick blast now on the spec in sig, albeit the cpu was at stock. Ultra custom preset with x4 msaa, stock sli gtx 670's. It played really nicely. No stuttering, card use only maxed at 89% which is to be expected with the cpu at stock.
Click to expand...

Big Hint : Thread title " BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured " ...

You should now know what you need to post ;)

<blink>*waiting*</blink> _ :D
 
Subliminal Aura said:
Big Hint : Thread title " BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured " ...

You should now know what you need to post ;)

<blink>*waiting*</blink> _ :D
Click to expand...
Yep, ive got to get my cpu oc in place again. Im waiting on some new 2400mhz ram, (rma replacement). Once thats sorted ill be clocking the cpu again and maybe try a mild oc on the gpu's. They bench fine at +80/+600. Only cause thats the limit of my weakest card. The good one will do +130/+770 at a breeze on its own.
 
Gazb said:
One of the benchmarks showing multiplayer performance shows the AMD FX 8350 doing 'OK' when paired with a GTX 780 but when paired with a 290X performance is terrible. We're talking 20 fps less. Don't know how accurate the benchmarks are but there's definitely something odd going on.

http://m.pclab.pl/art55318-4.html
Click to expand...

Those results seem a bit fishy for sure. Why would the R290X be comfortably ahead in single player then just tank in multi? Granted I don't read Polish but I think I'll wait for more reputable numbers.
 
I would be careful about pclab as they seem to get weirdly low results with AMD CPUs at times,which can be contradicted by other reviews(CPU throttling?). In their article where they tested the BF4 Beta,their results were using a small domination map which could only support upto 32 players and no vehicles,and not the significantly larger conquest maps with upto 64 players and vehicles:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35563228&postcount=45

Both GameGPU and pcgameshardware,will test multiplayer maps at some point so I would wait for their articles to get a better view of performance in this case. If they roughly agree with what pclab then the results can be taken at face value.
 
Last edited:
Sweclockers has tested the R9 290X in BF4 MP using the same map:

http://translate.google.com/transla...7810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead

Interestingly at Ultra settings at 2560X1440 and 1920X1080,the FX8350 is within 10% of the Core i5 4670K. However,if you drop the settings down to medium,it appears the CPU loading profile changes,and appears less multi-threaded it seems.

However,the results seem to contradict the pclab review,as at Ultra settings with an R9 290X the FX8350 and Core i5 4670K are reasonably close.
 
Last edited:
Cant believe that is the only bench going, many will be playing BF4 right now so expecting some better benchmarks coming in.
 
rolypolyman said:
Thanks ALXAndy you have convinced me! :D
Click to expand...

It's a mistake to go from an i5 2500K to an FX83.

Titan will get beaten by tons of dual GPU set ups, you're probably scoring higher with your 7950 Crossfire than that high end system, ALX will post higher Physics scores than you (Due to the 8 cores).

AM3+ is dead, 1155 is dead.
The AM3+ has the less performance potential (As the i7 3770K is better)

Overclock your i5 2500K more too, you've probably got between 400 and 600MHZ left in it.

If you want the threads, at least wait until AM3+'s successor.
 
This is kind of funny, for years we have had performance crippled by software with poor multi-threading support, now it appears we have software crippled by poor support per thread lol (What I'm saying is that from the look of that they have put so much emphasis on making it use as many available threads as possible that what it does with each thread has ended up inefficient and poor). Could this mark the dawn of a "just add cores" mentality as opposed to the "all about the MHz mentality of yore"?

It would be quite funny to see where a 8C16T 2.5GHz Xeon would place on that chart lol.
 
Maybe this is why a certain manufacturer's mainstream CPU's only have 4 very powerful cores; you do not lose performance in poorly threaded applications, but do not run out of it either on high-threaded apps due to HT. (Or even without HT).

As opposed to having 8 poorly performing cores that only perform is the application is threaded enough.

.. Set me on fire now :o
 
ubersonic said:
This is kind of funny, for years we have had performance crippled by software with poor multi-threading support, now it appears we have software crippled by poor support per thread lol (What I'm saying is that from the look of that they have put so much emphasis on making it use as many available threads as possible that what it does with each thread has ended up inefficient and poor). Could this mark the dawn of a "just add cores" mentality as opposed to the "all about the MHz mentality of yore"?

It would be quite funny to see where a 8C16T 2.5GHz Xeon would place on that chart lol.
Click to expand...

To continue chasing energy efficiency, it surely will be about many cores. I wouldn't be shocked if we eventually see asymmetric core structures - with one or two "big" cores supported by lots of smaller cores (in some ways, I guess the heterogeneous computing idea AMD is working towards sort of fits this system - a big iGP core and smaller CPU cores)
 
Last edited:
Would the performance difference be noticeable enough for it to be worth it? I have a GTX760 and the change shouldn't cost me too much with being able to sell my old parts I would like to play on Ultra at 1920x1080

Will I need new RAM or will my current RAM work? Sorry I'm out of touch and don't have the time to read into things as much as I used to, the Toms Hardware Gaming CPU Hierarchy chart shows my current CPU and FX's as all in the same tier but the chart on page 1 of this thread shows quite a difference in BF4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom