Soldato
Getting 50+fps with stock CPU and mantle on 14.2 - not bad!
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 fps figures in the second pic look way too low for a 780ti, im getting much better on a bog standard 780 using the same drivers. Im guessing the runs were done with resolution scale turned to 150% or thereabouts.
I questioned it before - with those settings, on a full 64 CQ large server even my min fps are higher than their average - even removing my CPU overclock and limiting my 780 to reference clocks - infact even video recording at the same time only just about drops my min to their average.
I find both sets of benchmarks hes posted seem well off for a 780 or 780ti actual results.
Yes they are lying mate, my stock wf 780 averages 80 fps at 1920x1200, Rroff runs a ghz wf 780 on a 100mhz faster stock boost than my card so his fps are a wee bit higher. From testing bf4 with 150% res scale i know that the figures in that pic are using that setting to skew the results. Bf4 benched at 1920x1200, 150% res scale, all ultra but x2 msaa.What is it that you want me to say, that they are lying?
Do you think they are lying?
What is it that you want me to say, that they are lying?
Do you think they are lying?
Yes they are lying mate, my stock wf 780 averages 80 fps at 1920x1200, Rroff runs a ghz wf 780 on a 100mhz faster stock boost than my card so his fps are a wee bit higher. From testing bf4 with 150% res scale i know that the figures in that pic are using that setting to skew the results. Bf4 benched at 1920x1200, 150% res scale, all ultra but x2 msaa.
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
37612, 600000, 35, 82, 62.687
Those benchmarks are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard/kettle/ashtray on a motorbike.
^^ My point is I can use the settings they supposedly used, on the same maps and try and find the worst possible scenario and I'm still not even close to as low fps as they are getting so whatever is going on something ain't right and I'm not alone in that several people have backed up similiar numbers from their 780s let alone 780tis.
I have to be video capturing in the most active parts of the map to get even close to as low numbers as they have.
For instance if I try to find the most DX inefficent part of siege of shanghai with the settings and res they use on a full 64 player server with a lot of players in that area I don't drop below ~67fps which is still above their average let alone min and my average fps running around the map playing is almost double their average and thats with a 780 albeit a heavily clocked one let alone a 780ti.
Humbug, i wouldnt say i or Rroff are being silly or offensive to you and if it came across that way i apologise. But the fps figures in that graph are way way too low for a gtx 780ti, let alone a gtx 780. The fps figures i posted above were from a run at 1920x1200, ultra and x2 msaa but with 150% res scale. My fps figures doing so are very close to those in that graph. At 100% res scale and x4msaa on ultra with HBAO on, x16af im averaging 80fps on a stock gtx 780 that boosts to a rather poor 1097mhz.
Iirc you have a bloomfield i7 1136 cpu. Ive owned several of those, both clocked pretty highly. 4.2ghz on my old 920, 4.3 on the 930 that i keep as a download box. With the 780 at stock from my rig in sig in the 930 rig, bf4 plays the same. The only way the 930 fell behind was when running multi gpu, (sli 670's) despite it being a dual x16 pcie board compared to dual x8 pcie, the same cards were ran in a 3770k at 4.5ghz, (sold as it wasnt a good clocker) and in my current 4770k setup, which clock for clock is about 300mhz faster than the old ivy chip.After pages and pages of explanations your still not getting it.
"oh its lower than i get on my 780/TI" where you test it i'm sure it is, not where they test it, and not where i tested it. CPU bottlenecks have absolutely nothing to do with what GPU your running, forget the GPU, if you test it in CPU bottleneck parts of the game you might as well be running a 7850 or a GTX 660, you will get the same results that you do on a 780TI
You keep taking about this and that GPU. how much its overclocked.... its irrelevant, you could have it running at 1500Mhz and you will get the same result.
The test is how much does the CPU hold the GPU back, in DX its twice as much as in Mantle, thats why their and my Mantle results are twice that of DX.
This is really basic stuff guys.
I'm literally saying that I can hunt out the worst, CPU bound scenario on that map, I can stay there entirely and benchmark just that bit and I'm still well above their results which is why I question it - using the same supposed settings and so on even with video capturing I'm ~36% higher average fps than they get let alone if I run around a larger scope of the map. And anyone with a properly working 780 based setup on a decent i7 should see the same thing let alone a 780ti.
Fair enough. Tommybhoy made out everything was sorted but thanks for the honest answer
Well BF4 still isn't working correctly for most with Mantle.
Why do you keep banging the drum about a broken Mantle when the majority are enjoying it?
The only poll I know of regarding Mantle:
Lets break it down, 2723 AMD users:
1331 loved it
847 haven't tried it and are waiting on a more refined version
423 went back to DX
121 couldn't install the driver properly
More than a 3:1 ratio of Mantle working for most.
http://www.techpowerup.com/
Refrain from the fud bud.
Not sure how many times I have to say it. I hope Mantle is a success and if it is working well for all, fantastic.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25964819&postcount=185Doesn't matter how many times you say you hope Mantle is a success in one hand when you negate it by stating it doesn't work for most with every other breath, it's fud reporting while not even using mantle:
Well BF4 still isn't working correctly for most with Mantle.
I'm under no illusions some haven't had a far from positive Mantle experience, but it certainly aint the majority with the numbers provided.
Now explain why AMD users are turning settings down, as I thought the idea was to have higher frame rates so you could add to the details?
Obvious answer is it's the minority having problems going by the consensus.
I've never had to turn anything down, I can turn settings up(res scaling) and play on lesser fps than DX and it's still a better experience than DX, it's like a lavish smothering of salty Lurpak-the full flavour you can only taste first hand.
If it is working correctly, then I apologise and good stuff.
You don't need to apologise, just take notice of the positive experiences for a change instead of only absorbing the negatives-which ends up equating to your jelly belly misinforming the masses regarding Mantle.