Soldato
sort of, I limit the fps to keep heat etc down.
-
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
sort of, I limit the fps to keep heat etc down.
Soldato
690 <3
TBH it's good to see an NV dual GPU card still worth it's weight in gold after 3 months!
TBH it's good to see an NV dual GPU card still worth it's weight in gold after 3 months!
Soldato
Just a quickie, my hardware ([email protected] and CF7970GHZ) are both using about 75% load, is this about right?
7950 and 760 comparison has no logic.
You can compare 760 and 770 they both fall back to similar fps due to similar limiting factor - same amount of Vram.
Caporegime
The 7950 boost will be throttling so it will be running under clocked. That's why 7950 boost benchmark results are pointless. The 760/670 always show up faster.
Strange how this problem you talk of only affects 2gb cards in SLI with grunt to spare, not 3gb cards in SLI huh?
Unfortunately I can not play the game without getting killed in seconds so someone else will have to do the video.
The point is the game runs very well on my GTX 690s but I did need to overclock the CPU to get the best out of them.
I also still have the option to overclock my GTX 690s if needed but the fps were more than enough at stock.
2gb of vram works fine.
I'm sure it does work fine if you stand in an empty street and look at the sky. It a shame you won't play it for a decent amount of time and benchmark/record the results on video using a single 690 & matched settings like swe clockers. I believe you would experience the problem they do if you were to do that. With all due respect they have done proper extensive testing as per the video on their site rather than just a quick load up and check fps and usage and what not. You don't appear to have played a proper round so you can't really check results like that accurately. You need to play the round and be involved a bit more to get a proper feel for performance in a busy 64 man server with explosions/tank battles galore.
Last edited:
Soldato
Get some levoloopy frame rate results in.
Some different results (is this the same sight that did those alpha benches you posted about vram? looks like the same type of graphs)
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-beta-test-gpu.html
Right now having 2GB won't ruin your experience completely. Even if you go all Ultra and possibly 4K, you could still possibly persuade yourself to be pleased. And especially on 1080p there will be a lot of game time where you won't be limited at all. Still doesn't change the fact that it's time to move from 2Gb has come.
Caporegime
I've seen those but you need to look at their benching video. 40 second gameplay, drive a tank from base to the sea wall. Shoot gun twice, end bench. Not demanding at all. Now look at the swe clockers bench video, 8 minutes long, proper gameplay, scaling the map, explosions etc.
The 690 loses a lot in minimum fps going from 1080p to 1600p even in this un-demanding bench from gamegpu.
2gb is fine at 1080p and will be for a little while but above that its better to have more imo.
Last edited:
Soldato
That explains it. You'll naturally have fps dips in the moments when a lot of action happens suddenly!
Soldato
I am rubbish at this game, I keep getting killed without seeing anyone coming.
1600p max settings
2 x GTX 690s @stock
3960X @4.9
Hi Kapstaad,
Thanks for posting your results. I note that the GPU load is the max. My 7990 will max in the 90's, but on average is in the 50% load range. The graphs in GPUz I find are not linear in range and scale well visually and that I reckon your cards are only in the 60% range of usage. I see the same in the GPUz screenies for the titans from another poster where i reckon their cards are only in the 50-60% usage range.
Is there any software/monitor that will give an average GPU load reading.
Don't shoot me down folks, I'm new and stoopid!
No more than the 7990
It does seem to drop a few more when adding 4xAA to the 2560x1600 results, so the vram may come into play there, or simply the memory bandwidth advantage the 7000 series has with AA.
Man of Honour
Unfortunately I don't have the skill or the interest in this type of game to play it very well.
I was also getting good fps in buildings etc and if you remember I stated (in a previous post) the min fps was lower than anything you saw in the pics.
I think the debate was over whether 2gb of vram is enough to play the game not how may GPUs were being used. The other thing to point out is the vram usage per GPU is slightly higher in a 4 way setup than it is on a single GPU, therefore providing a single GPU has enough grunt it should also be ok on the memory front.
The other thing to remember is my cards are running at stock as there is no need to overclock them.
Caporegime
No more than the 7990
It does seem to drop a few more when adding 4xAA to the 2560x1600 results, so the vram may come into play there, or simply the memory bandwidth advantage the 7000 series has with AA.
Yes Jono that was what i meant. I did not include any results without AA in my analysis as what ive been saying from the start about vram was always at highest settings.
Oh I see, I hadn't realised the sweclockers benches were using 4xAA ( where does it say this? I'm probably just blind ( and my Swedish isn't the best
)To be honest I do think that 1600p and 4xAA is pushing it for 2gb cards in this game.
Kaapstad, are you using 4xaa when running your 690's at 1600p?
Caporegime
Oh I see, I hadn't realised the sweclockers benches were using 4xAA ( where does it say this? I'm probably just blind ( and my Swedish isn't the best
To be honest I do think that 1600p and 4xAA is pushing it for 2gb cards in this game.
Kaapstad, are you using 4xaa when running your 690's at 1600p?
Chrome translate comes in handy.
Ultra preset includes the highest possible settings, with x4 AA.
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17679-grafikprestanda-i-battlefield-4-beta/2#pagehead
Right guys been reading past few pages of this thread and this is what I think is what we are saying
1. If gaming at 1080P and you have 2GB of VRAM you can set to Ultra but have MSAA at 2X
2. This game is more CPU intensive than BF3 and so older quad core CPU's are struggling e.g. i5 750
3. If you want to game at resolutions higher than 1080P you need more than 2GB of VRAM
Personally I'm playing at 1080P with everything on High with MSAA at 2X. GPUZ shows 1899MB of VRAM being used. The game runs at an average of 48fps which isn't good enough for me, I demand a solid 60fps. Now Im thinking shall I wait for retail before I go out and upgrade my CPU/Mobo?
1. If gaming at 1080P and you have 2GB of VRAM you can set to Ultra but have MSAA at 2X
2. This game is more CPU intensive than BF3 and so older quad core CPU's are struggling e.g. i5 750
3. If you want to game at resolutions higher than 1080P you need more than 2GB of VRAM
Personally I'm playing at 1080P with everything on High with MSAA at 2X. GPUZ shows 1899MB of VRAM being used. The game runs at an average of 48fps which isn't good enough for me, I demand a solid 60fps. Now Im thinking shall I wait for retail before I go out and upgrade my CPU/Mobo?
Man of Honour