THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD

Nickolp1974 · 7 Nov 2013 at 13:28

here's Golums Railway with same settings

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
52445, 437766, 79, 202, 119.801

that Average is looking good for 120hz, and that max of 202 certainly has a nice RING to it,

Gregster · 7 Nov 2013 at 13:29

Shocking Nick, shocking.

Nickolp1974 · 7 Nov 2013 at 13:34

Nickolp1974 · 7 Nov 2013 at 13:47

so if uksoldierboy is running 1080p, lets compare (if on 1440p, i'm changing card

)

290X
Paracel Storm
2013-11-06 16:14:36 - bf4
Frames: 147921 - Time: 1577141ms - Avg: 93.791 - Min: 63 - Max: 192
Golmud Railway
2013-11-06 21:29:57 - bf4
Frames: 89474 - Time: 988094ms - Avg: 112.552 - Min: 50 - Max: 154

and my 780 Ltg

Parcel storm
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
119156, 1235360, 57, 199, 96.454
Golmud railway
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
52445, 437766, 79, 202, 119.801

so to sum up, NVIDIA ftw

4770@ 4.4GHz

Yaayuh! · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:06

Taxi for Nick.

humbug · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:17

Nickolp1974 said:
so if uksoldierboy is running 1080p, lets compare (if on 1440p, i'm changing card )

290X
Paracel Storm
2013-11-06 16:14:36 - bf4
Frames: 147921 - Time: 1577141ms - Avg: 93.791 - Min: 63 - Max: 192
Golmud Railway
2013-11-06 21:29:57 - bf4
Frames: 89474 - Time: 988094ms - Avg: 112.552 - Min: 50 - Max: 154

and my 780 Ltg

Parcel storm
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
119156, 1235360, 57, 199, 96.454
Golmud railway
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
52445, 437766, 79, 202, 119.801

so to sum up, NVIDIA ftw

4770@ 4.4GHz

I think he's taking the ####, ran the 290X on full Ultra and the 780 on minimum.

Gregster · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:19

Nickolp1974 said:
so if uksoldierboy is running 1080p, lets compare (if on 1440p, i'm changing card )

290X
Paracel Storm
2013-11-06 16:14:36 - bf4
Frames: 147921 - Time: 1577141ms - Avg: 93.791 - Min: 63 - Max: 192
Golmud Railway
2013-11-06 21:29:57 - bf4
Frames: 89474 - Time: 988094ms - Avg: 112.552 - Min: 50 - Max: 154

and my 780 Ltg

Parcel storm
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
119156, 1235360, 57, 199, 96.454
Golmud railway
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
52445, 437766, 79, 202, 119.801

so to sum up, NVIDIA ftw

4770@ 4.4GHz

And that is why I spam the servers with AMD suck

Yaayuh! · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:21

Gregster said:
And that is why I spam the servers with AMD suck

Not a word of a lie, he actually does. Makes me chuckle

humbug · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:22

Rossi~ said:
Not a word of a lie, he actually does. Makes me chuckle

oh i can believe it.

Uncle Petey · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:25

I too have witnessed this blasphemy.

Nickolp1974 · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:30

humbug said:
I think he's taking the ####, ran the 290X on full Ultra and the 780 on minimum.

joking aside, NO full ultra @1080, think uksoldier runs at 1100mhz and i was at 1280mhz, cos thats THE WAY ITS MEANT TO BE PLAYED, "cool" and quiet

Silent_Scone · 7 Nov 2013 at 15:56

Woot

. Only 2X MSAA? This is unacceptable.

uksoldierboy · 7 Nov 2013 at 16:59

Nickolp1974 said:
heres parcel force at same settings

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
119156, 1235360, 57, 199, 96.454

@uk solider , are yours at 1080p and at what clocks??

Sorry been out all day,

Yeah pal @1080p, full ultra, clocks are 1100/1400, 90FOV, plenty more left in the tank, just need AB support for voltages.

Tonester0011 · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:03

Gregster said:
And that is why I spam the servers with AMD suck

Rossi~ said:
Not a word of a lie, he actually does. Makes me chuckle

Nobody bites though, when i've been in games with Greg and he's spamming the chat with AMD hate everyone agrees lol

Gregster said:
Is anyone else suffering with stutter/lag/judder. It isn't horrendous but it isn't good either.

Yes, a lot. Certain servers are fine, others are terrible. The bad servers are even worse if you get into a jet...really really **** then. Like a slideshow almost.

Gregster · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:04

lol and true

AssaTM · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:11

I'm looking to get a 780/780Ti, the problem is im looking to go to a fov of 85/90, if I do that now on my 670 on high the frames noticably dip, im worried it'l be the same on ultra with the 780/Ti

Tonester0011 · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:13

AssaTM said:
I'm looking to get a 780/780Ti, the problem is im looking to go to a fov of 85/90, if I do that now on my 670 on high the frames noticably dip, im worried it'l be the same on ultra with the 780/Ti

Nope mate, i rock 110 FOV and get rock solid frames (only benched on ultra, but play on low) currently using a normal 780

@1080 btw

AssaTM · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:24

Tonester0011 said:
Nope mate, i rock 110 FOV and get rock solid frames (only benched on ultra, but play on low) currently using a normal 780

@1080 btw

ahh that is excellent to hear

and to be fair I just put my 670 on full ultra with 90 fov and obviously it dipped to 45 sometimes but for a lot of the time it hovered around 60 quite happily, so im wondering is a Ti worth it (obviously it's not really worth it for it's price at all, but ignoring price) is it really worth it over a normal 780 Windforce for this game at 1080, after that im starting to think no, but I dont want it to dip below 60 if preferable

Tonester0011 · 7 Nov 2013 at 17:33

If you're only playing @1080 a normal 780 will be ample, the minimums on BF4 are more likely to do with your CPU than anything.

I think i was get 112avg framerate on one map online, cant remember what one though (different maps, different FPS etc etc)

Jono8 · 7 Nov 2013 at 18:25

Running beautifully with these new drivers. I will get some fraps benches up later. Just did a quick run of Paracel storm and seemed to be over 100fps most of the time. GPU usage at ~85-90% on both cards. Not too shabby.

Also, It would appear Siege of Shanghai is perhaps the most demanding map?

Competitor rules

***THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD***

THE BF4 BENCHMARKS THREAD