***THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD***

[Yaayuh!]

hey guys, i know you lot have been testing bf4 with your systems and optimizing it to get more FPs etc etc.

im getting the game tonight, and i have the rig in my sig.

do you think it will play fine ?
bf3 plays like a charme at 70+ fps
so im hoping bf4 will be around the same ?
i only play at 1366x768 as i play on my 42" tv, and thats its native res

any suggestions for a amd setup will gladly goto use

thanks fella's (ladies if any)

At that resolution you shouldn't have much of a problem with your 7950 .
However, this game is taxing on the CPU and your FX6300 at stock would be the point of concern. Can you overclock it?

 

[Rusty0611]

LOL it's not just me and Greg actually - it was able to be replicated quite easily in BF3 by anyone with triple screens on what running out of VRAM did. Nobody is saying your game runs at single digit FPS continuously. But what is being said is that it hitches down to single digits every couple of seconds. Vega even did a video if you care to check it. It's a completely unique type of slowdown. My page file was on the SSD as well and my memory was already more than fast enough. This is the problem with review sites: a lot if don't actually talk a lot of sense and actually perpetuate nonsense (not just on this subject either). It's all 'might' this and 'might' that which doesn't really mean anything. The 2GB frame buffer would look like the issue indeed but if you look into it more closely it more than likely is to do with the bandwidth. That is the real issue with those cards and that resolution with MSAA.

The difference in minimum FPS is to do with the memory bandwidth, not the memory amount. Unless, as I say, BF4 handles this different to BF3. I doubt it but you never know. At triple screen resolution 7950s scored 27% faster than 680s in BF3 where the 680s were scoring decent frame rates. Memory bandwidth again was the key especially as the 680s were faster at 1080. If I left Aero on then my average FPS would be OK but my monument would be right down low as performance hitched when the VRAM limit was exceeded.

 

[jonnyp1993]

At that resolution you shouldn't have much of a problem with your GPU. However, this game is taxing on the CPU and your FX at stock would be the point of concern. Can you overclock it?

ye, i normally have it @ 4.6, but with the new 7950 in my system and a 500watt psu, it wouldnt clock it as ran out of power lol
im awaiting on a tx850 to come through my door anytime soon so i can clock my cpu back upto 4.6 and see what my new 7950 can do also

also, i am upgrading my tv shortly to a full hd one, so will be heading towards that 1080p res

 

[Rusty0611]

but wouldnt the stutter still be twice as bad with 2 cards running out of memory rather than just a single card running out, like a 690
i dont think kaap testing a 690 is the same as someone on two 680's, nothing is perfect like that, there is going to be differences

and yeh even a ssd/system memory might make a difference

Don't work like that fella .

 

[LtMatt]

LOL it's not just me and Greg actually - it was able to be replicated quite easily in BF3 by anyone with triple screens on what running out of VRAM did. Nobody is saying your game runs at single digit FPS continuously. But what is being said is that it hitches down to single digits every couple of seconds. Vega even did a video if you care to check it. It's a completely unique type of slowdown. My page file was on the SSD as well and my memory was already more than fast enough. This is the problem with review sites: a lot if don't actually talk a lot of sense and actually perpetuate nonsense (not just on this subject either). It's all 'might' this and 'might' that which doesn't really mean anything. The 2GB frame buffer would look like the issue indeed but if you look into it more closely it more than likely is to do with the bandwidth. That is the real issue with those cards and that resolution with MSAA.

The difference in minimum FPS is to do with the memory bandwidth, not the memory amount. Unless, as I say, BF4 handles this different to BF3. I doubt it but you never know. At triple screen resolution 7950s scored 27% faster than 680s in BF3 where the 680s were scoring decent frame rates. Memory bandwidth again was the key especially as the 680s were faster at 1080.

Ever considered that way only affects multi monitor? Cos it doesn't affect single screen like that according to my testing. Yes ive done my own vram testing using settings that exceed the limit. What did i find? Exactly what sweclockers/hardocp/pcper all say. None of your down to single digit fps was the only side effect.

Maybe it depends how far you go over but as ive always said it presents itself in different ways depending on the system itself, the hardware setup and the settings used.

 

[Mei]

Don't work like that fella .

lol im not a fella, and how u know it dont work like that!

 

[Rusty0611]

lol im not a fella, and how u know it dont work like that!

Because that isn't how SLI and memory usage works.

 

[Azrael1]

Hi chaps I have a single 690 so will test it out tommorow when the game gets released. I do normally play online games on high setting, due to growing up with counterstrike. i will try on ultra and tell you what issues I get at 1600p.

 

[Yaayuh!]

ye, i normally have it @ 4.6, but with the new 7950 in my system and a 500watt psu, it wouldnt clock it as ran out of power lol
im awaiting on a tx850 to come through my door anytime soon so i can clock my cpu back upto 4.6 and see what my new 7950 can do also

also, i am upgrading my tv shortly to a full hd one, so will be heading towards that 1080p res

If clocked at 4.6GHz then play away
When you upgrade your TV and play at 1080p you will suffer a performance hit. I 'm not entirely sure how much, but you'll be fine i'm sure. Worst case scenario, you change a couple of settings to High and AA to 2x...

 

[Rusty0611]

Ever considered that way only affects multi monitor? Cos it doesn't affect single screen like that according to my testing. Yes ive done my own vram testing using settings that exceed the limit. What did i find? Exactly what sweclockers/hardocp/pcper all say. None of your down to single digit fps was the only side effect.

Maybe it depends how far you go over but as ive always said it presents itself in different ways depending on the system itself, the hardware setup and the settings used.

What situation have you tested it in then? Care to share you results? It's a very unique scenario where you've got a lack of VRAM but excess raw GPU grunt to push otherwise acceptable frame rates. And that is the key.

Nothing to do with the amount exceeded by as if you watch Vega's video you'll see it occur as soon as he runs out of VRAM.

Doubt it only affects triple screen. Can't see any potential theory for that.

 

[jonnyp1993]

If clocked at 4.6GHz then play away
When you upgrade your TV and play at 1080p you will suffer a performance hit. I 'm not entirely sure how much, but you'll be fine i'm sure. Worst case scenario, you change a couple of settings to High and AA to 2x...

i will report back tonight to see how it plays at stock speeds.
i hope i dont have to take too much of a hit

thanks rossi

 

[Mei]

Because that isn't how SLI and memory usage works.

so you know for fact that two 680's act exactly the same as a 690 when they run out of memory? the symptoms are identical, i find this hard to believe

its not the same so its not a fair comparison in my mind, my non fella mind

 

[LtMatt]

Hi chaps I have a single 690 so will test it out tommorow when the game gets released. I do normally play online games on high setting, due to growing up with counterstrike. i will try on ultra and tell you what issues I get at 1600p.

Thanks. Use fraps benchmarking feature and benchmark the whole round. Pick a busy 64 man server, conquest large and use the following settings, Ultra preset with x4 AA and a FOV of at least 82 or higher.

 

[Rusty0611]

So people have to change their FOV as well now?

so you know for fact that two 680's act exactly the same as a 690 when they run out of memory? the symptoms are identical, i find this hard to believe

its not the same so its not a fair comparison in my mind, my non fella mind

The memory situation is the same it's just the physical location is one card or two.

 

[LtMatt]

So people have to change their FOV as well now?

Wider FOV, more pixels on screen, harder on the GPU. If you play at 1600P and 70 FOV there is something wrong with you. Yes Kaap ran 70FOV at 1600P, i remember it well.

I'm trying to get him to at least match the settings i use for a comparison.
I use 82FOV at 1440p. 1600P i'd think you'd want 85 minimum unless you like looking down a slim corridor all day.

 

[Yaayuh!]

So people have to change their FOV as well now?

I run 90, always 90. Any lower and you have a clear disadvantage in close quarters and it doesn't look right IMO.
Any higher though and it looks weird and distorted.

I think 90 is most people's preference.

Thanks. Use fraps benchmarking feature and benchmark the whole round. Pick a busy 64 man server, conquest large and use the following settings, Ultra preset with x4 AA and a FOV of at least 82 or higher.

I say run it at 90 tbh

 

[LtMatt]

I run 90, always 90. Any lower and you have a clear disadvantage in close quarters and it doesn't look right IMO.
Any higher though and it looks weird and distorted.

I think 90 is most people's preference.



I say run it at 90 tbh

I found 90 a bit wide, but i know a lot of people use it. I've used 82 what seems like forever so i guess ive just got used to it. I originally worked it out using a FOV calculator based on my res and it said 82.5 was ideal for 1440p. 90 is fine by me though.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I found 90 a bit wide, but i know a lot of people use it. I've used 82 what seems like forever so i guess ive just got used to it. I originally worked it out using a FOV calculator based on my res and it said 82.5 was ideal for 1440p. 90 is fine by me though.

I might try 82, i've not tried it as old games never gave me the option and chose 70, 80, 90, 100 and picked 90 lol.

 

[Rusty0611]

Dunno what mine is. Not default but not that wide. Fishbowl .

I'm pro as well. Not as pro as that lad in the 780Ti thread though.

I say in jest although my aim is better than Matthew's.

 

[Mei]

So people have to change their FOV as well now?



The memory situation is the same it's just the physical location is one card or two.

sure but why would it not take a extra ms or 2 to ditch some textures with it being on 2 cards, why is that not possible in your mind
the stutter or performance loss could be sightly different
it doesnt handle memory in exactly the same way, its not the same as testing two 680's or any two 2gb cards

same is identical, thats not identical ><