Share
I think its still processing. That could explain the less than perfect quality. Its a bit better now than when i last checked.
-
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.
***THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD***
- Thread starter pgi947
- Start date
I think its still processing. That could explain the less than perfect quality. Its a bit better now than when i last checked.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,756
- Location
- West End, Southampton
its because you didn't mimic my settings I screenshot..you needed to have used the Lagarinth codec as shown, recorded at 30fps and changed the mode to YV12 from the dropdown box..but all a learning curve.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
What i don't understand is the file i uploaded to youtube the quality was good. But now its like 640x320.
Click the cog bottom right of the video, change to the highest?
Unless the video is still doing its thing, inwhat case reload the video in 5 or so mins.
Jesus look at the gpu usage dropping down to 75%. Cpu bottlenecking like a beeatch. Must be because i was recording i guess?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I notice, a lot of you guys game with only 70FOV? Why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,756
- Location
- West End, Southampton
LT likes his metal hehe
Nicely played though Sir
Nicely played though Sir
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,756
- Location
- West End, Southampton
85 for me Tone, that's my sweetspot...
What im actually surprised at is how many of you use high antialising post, looks to blurry for me personally
What im actually surprised at is how many of you use high antialising post, looks to blurry for me personally
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I only used high because that's full Ultra, i really dont have my details high at all
Highest is Medium.110FOV feels the best imo, depends on the game though.
I notice, a lot of you guys game with only 70FOV? Why?
I use 82 when i play at 1440p Tone. But for 1080p i kept with what everyone else was using in this thread, 70. I quite like 75 FOV for 1080p.
Looking back at my video im shocked at how all my dips in fps are caused by my cpu/drop in gpu usage. I saw it down below 80% for both gpu's on many occasions. This is on W8, 11.1, and with my cpu at 4.9ghz. That's crazy.
On 1440p its pretty much 99% constant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,096
- Location
- London
I found 90 pretty good for 1080p. No fishbowling that I can see.
Does your usage jump up at 1440 Matt?
Does your usage jump up at 1440 Matt?
Cool vid Matt.. hope i dont bump into u anytime soon lol
Add me on Battlelog, LtMatt81. Always looking for new friendly recruits with voice comms at 247.
http://www.cq247.co.uk/
Small improvement with the latest patch to the averages, taken over a full round, although I did have a couple of brief pauses which I haven't had before now accounting for the low min. Max VRAM usage 2982MB. As you can see frame rate is better at the start of the round before the skyscraper comes down.
Is the voice thing in BF4 actually working or do u use something else? I switched it off in the audio settings
I could here people talking but I couldn't see any settings to configure my mic?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,284
- Location
- Cornwall
One thing I've been wondering since BF3 (since we've mentioned FOV), if you're doing Nvidia Surround (I guess Eyefinity is the same) the side screen seem to stretch the image quite a bit in my experience. Does changing FOV affect this in any way?
My theory is that with a FOV of 90, 3 screens would give you 270º vision, which is silly, so I thought they'd limit the total to say 180º. So would a FOV of say 70-75 cause much less stretching on the side monitors as you're only then trying to do 210º-225º?
My theory is that with a FOV of 90, 3 screens would give you 270º vision, which is silly, so I thought they'd limit the total to say 180º. So would a FOV of say 70-75 cause much less stretching on the side monitors as you're only then trying to do 210º-225º?