***THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD***

[MyBrainz]

Another thing to note. If you stay on foot you'll have higher minimum fps and averages. If you spend a whole round in a tank (tanking) your fps will be lower on both minimums and averages. If you spend the round chooper whoring, you'll have higher minimum and averages than on the ground or in a tank. Seasoned BF3+BF4 player, knows all the tricks of the trade.

I get into all vehicles.. driving tanks and gunner in a heli.. hey i even go for a little swim to get to the leftovers of the skyscraper

 

[LtMatt]

I get into all vehicles.. driving tanks and gunner in a heli.. hey i even go for a little swim to get to the leftovers of the skyscraper

Yes i wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular when i said that. Just saying that how you play can sometimes make a big difference to the fps you see. I tend to play in a tank mainly, then on foot. I rarely venture into a chopper as i can't fly them. Whenever i do get in a choppa i always end up with the worst pilot who crashes into a building and i end up parachuting out to then die out of bounds.

 

[imginy]

So does this game have a memory leek or does it actually need more than 8gb or ram?

It seems hardocp were making a big deal about it running out of ram on 8gb but surely that is just an error as mine doesn't use half that.

My friend on his 660ti got kicked out of a game last night because he ran out of system memory and had a windows message saying "close down bf4 the free up memory" and this was on 8gb ram.

As it just on nvdia card could it be to do with vram?

 

[Phixsator]

Not much point having that much FPS on a 60 Hz panel. Some people say that even on 60 Hz panels they can discern an increase in smoothness at higher FPS than 60 but I'm doubtful as to it's real term effect. Don't doubt there's something to be gained but I think it's quite minor.

There are 2 sides of the coin. 1 is how it is percieved through your visual the second that most people forget is how it feels through the use of the mouse and here it makes a difference having much higher fps than what a 60hz panel can show. Just because some people cannot see/feel a difference doesnt mean its a placebo effect for those who can. I am myself very sentitive to that sort of thing.

 

[LtMatt]

So does this game have a memory leek or does it actually need more than 8gb or ram?

It seems hardocp were making a big deal about it running out of ram on 8gb but surely that is just an error as mine doesn't use half that.

My friend on his 660ti got kicked out of a game last night because he ran out of system memory and had a windows message saying "close down bf4 the free up memory" and this was on 8gb ram.

As it just on nvdia card could it be to do with vram?

That's what im begging to wonder. I've had the same message. I only have 8gb of ram. I'm currently trying to source some sammy green ram 8gb for a reasonable price.

The game could have a leak though, its possible as its beta. Best to wait for the final build and take it from there.

I found i stopped that message by changing my page file size from 4gigs to auto. On auto it goes up to 9-10gb.

 

[Rusty0611]

I kid myself when I got shot of my ASUS 3D monitor that I wouldn't miss 120hz but I do. IPS is still king for clarity / colour. The screen being able to actually sync 120 frames does make it much, much smoother . Even if the human eye apparently can't tell the difference. Gaming > Science

If you can cope with the abundance of dead pixels and general crappy panel quality that comes with it ¬_¬.

Do what I do: have one of each!

Best of both worlds albeit an expensive option.

 

[Silent_Scone]

So does this game have a memory leek or does it actually need more than 8gb or ram?

It seems hardocp were making a big deal about it running out of ram on 8gb but surely that is just an error as mine doesn't use half that.

My friend on his 660ti got kicked out of a game last night because he ran out of system memory and had a windows message saying "close down bf4 the free up memory" and this was on 8gb ram.

As it just on nvdia card could it be to do with vram?

I'll have another check but I've not personally used more than 3GB system memory whilst playing this (I'll refresh myself later). And that was including all other processes under W7. It's a beta, it's probably just a memory leak. Either that or the VRAM is spilling over some!

 

[Gregster]

Thanks

Just trying to some up which graphics card to get next week.

I think it's going to be either the 780 or 290.

If I was buying today, I would go for the 780 without question but worth waiting it out to see proper bench results for the 290X.

It seems this thread and frankly every thread that has benchmarks in it is either biased/wrong/not long enough/not in a tank/in a tank/looking at the sky/looking at the ground, so can't be used.

 

[LtMatt]

I don't believe you'll find a single card currently (290X or a titan) that in all situations at 1080p or higher at the highest details will be able to keep minimum FPS at 55 or over at all times. Maybe with a more polished game or drivers its possible but not currently. The game is pretty hard on gpu's atm.

 

[MyBrainz]

Yes i wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular when i said that. Just saying that how you play can sometimes make a big difference to the fps you see. I tend to play in a tank mainly, then on foot. I rarely venture into a chopper as i can't fly them. Whenever i do get in a choppa i always end up with the worst pilot who crashes into a building and i end up parachuting out to then die out of bounds.

I know mate.. i was just making sure people know im not one of those roof snipers on top of the highest building camping like a bish lol

And i know what u mean about chopper pilots.. i usually end up with the same but had a few pilots that are really good at flying Hey i'll even sit in a chopper just to do repairs if there isnt a spare gunner seat available

About system RAM.. BF4.exe always uses 2.5GB-2.7GB on my 8GB RAM system. Any chance some of u guys can check what its using? Had nobody verify this for me and i've mentioned the RAM usage a few times now.. cheers

 

[LtMatt]

I know mate.. i was just making sure people know im not one of those roof snipers on top of the highest building camping like a bish lol

And i know what u mean about chopper pilots.. i usually end up with the same but had a few pilots that are really good at flying Hey i'll even sit in a chopper just to do repairs if there isnt a spare gunner seat available

About system RAM.. BF4.exe always uses 2.5GB-2.7GB on my 8GB RAM system. Any chance some of u guys can check what its using? Had nobody verify this for me and i've mentioned the RAM usage a few times now.. cheers

Yes i hate sniping as well. I'd rather be in the thick of the action myself. I've seen BF4 clock up to about 3gb system ram, but to be honest its not something ive done too much monitoring of.

 

[Silent_Scone]

It seems this thread and frankly every thread that has benchmarks in it is either biased/wrong/not long enough/not in a tank/in a tank/looking at the sky/looking at the ground, so can't be used.

lol ^ I witnessed such trickery last night on a Russian server as he decided to quit whilst hovering miles above .

Moments later on some Ukrainian part of the internet...
"Right guyz I've got some numbers here as u can C it runs gr8"

 

[Gregster]

I don't believe you'll find a single card currently (290X or a titan) that in all situations at 1080p or higher at the highest details will be able to keep minimum FPS at 55 or over at all times.

Well my results say different and your opinion is duly noted.

 

[LtMatt]

Well my results say different and your opinion is duly noted.

My lowest mins is 57 and this is with 3, 5 minute tests. Lots going on, with big explosions.

You must have covered a lot of situations in that 5 minute test Greg.

 

[Kaapstad]

Well this is interesting. I'm trying to get my head round these results. I'm looking at H's performance take on Battlefield 4 using a 280X and a 770.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/10/battlefield_4_beta_performance_preview#.Uleqj1A_t1k

Now according to all their benchmarking and tests, the 770 blows the 280X away in pure fps terms with and without AA, at 1080p and 1600p. Yet at the end of it all they say the 280X provides the superior gaming experience.

The thing i don't understand is all other sites ive checked have the 7970/280X trading blows with the 770. Check the link above and see for yourself.

Here are some other results from other sites regarding 7970/770/280X.

Just a guess, I think part of the problem is them and their testing methods.

Because of the CPU workload involved maybe they should have used a highly clocked X79 Hexcore to take the CPU out of the equation. I also think quad channel memory could have made a difference as well (16gb on quad channel has got to be better than 16gb on dual channel).

If they were getting higher fps on the GTX 770 (for whatever reason) this is going to put more strain on an already overworked CPU/Memory which in turn could effect the gaming experience.

I have never had a problem on my GTX 690s with smoothness and gaming experience even when I was playing in windowed mode and only getting fps in the low twenties, having said that I have been using Hexcores @4.9ghz+.

As I say I suspect the problems they have been having could be self inflicted and once solved the 280X may show a big improvement as well.

What I have said above is only my guess and could turn out to be total rubbish, could someone pass the salt please.

 

[LtMatt]

Yeah i dont know either Kaap its a strange one.

 

[Silent_Scone]

To be fair if Greg is running his CPU @ 5Ghz whilst playing this I'd say it's possible to break 60fps minimum. Just...maybe.


It's not completely unbelievable anyway

But on the flip side if you're playing the game just leave Fraps running for the entirety. It's not like it's a hardship lol

Just a guess, I think part of the problem is them and their testing methods.

Because of the CPU workload involved maybe they should have used a highly clocked X79 Hexcore to take the CPU out of the equation. I also think quad channel memory could have made a difference as well (16gb on quad channel has got to be better than 16gb on dual channel).

If they were getting higher fps on the GTX 770 (for whatever reason) this is going to put more strain on an already overworked CPU/Memory which in turn could effect the gaming experience.

I have never had a problem on my GTX 690s with smoothness and gaming experience even when I was playing in windowed mode and only getting fps in the low twenties, having said that I have been using Hexcores @4.9ghz+.

As I say I suspect the problems they have been having could be self inflicted and once solved the 280X may show a big improvement as well.

What I have said above is only my guess and could turn out to be total rubbish, could someone pass the salt please.

It's a turn for the books as a lot of the time the 'smoother' experience is said to be on Nvidia whilst the AMD cards hold the better numbers. I'm not saying that this is always the case but when there have been underlying driver problems it has been. So it's not really that hard to believe that could be the case reversed here considering AMDs involvement (least for a pre gold build).

I've skimmed it, but I'm guessing there is no 280X Crossfire comparisons? As you might find under multi gpu situations their opinion sways maybe. More to the point how many people will be crossing 280s? Quite a few is my guess

 

[LtMatt]

To be fair if Greg is running his CPU @ 5Ghz whilst playing this I'd say it's possible to break 60fps minimum. Just...maybe.


It's not completely unbelievable anyway

But on the flip side if you're playing the game just leave Fraps running for the entirety. It's not like it's a hardship lol

The biggest explosions are all gpu bound so a hyper fast cpu is not going to make a difference in that scenario.

As we can see from the Gamegpu graph a 7990's minimum fps in BF4 are much higher than a titan in BF4. Yet even the 7990 will see that sort of drop during those intense explosions. I find it hard to believe a titan won't see that as well. Of course it will.

I'm sure for 99.9% of the time it will be above that though obviously. But this is worst case scenario here. Your Titan SLI results showed this as well frosty. Yet for the most part you were averaging stonkingly high fps.

 

[MyBrainz]

Yes i hate sniping as well. I'd rather be in the thick of the action myself. I've seen BF4 clock up to about 3gb system ram, but to be honest its not something ive done too much monitoring of.

I only had that 'low memory' message when i hit Fraps for recording.. not had it since i changed my Samsung Magician optimized setting of Virtual Memory..

Inital size : 200MB
Maximum size : 1024MB < I put this up to 2048MB

 

[Rusty0611]

You must have covered a lot of situations in that 5 minute test Greg.

To be fair when has a benchmark ever been standard at over 5 mins?

As long as the run is representative then it's fine. I would say it's almost like taking your heart rate: you could either count for the full 60 seconds (i.e. A whole BF4 round) or you can take a snapshot and extrapolate, so take 15 seconds and multiply by 4.

Sure the 60 seconds (or whole round) method is more accurate but it's also a waste of time when you can condense representative gameplay within those 3-5 minutes. In a 40 minute round of BF3 how much time is spent under fire or in a tank battling? As long as that same proportion of time is translated to the shorted format then it's fine IMO.

You've also got to account for the fact that benching MP is by definition different each time so there will be inaccuracies no matter what you do.