• 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***

My 2500K @4.5 runs it perfectly well and with a decent OC on the 7970, I average between 50-70 or so with it at Ultra and 4xAA going by the test I just did (up to 100+ fps depending on what you're looking at). Of course, Ultra may not even be ultra in the beta... If it isn't, it still looks great to me :)

I don't know if you get the occasional stutter/hiccup that drops it to under 30fps or even single digits for a second or two, but I reckon it's just an issue with the beta seeing as they're completely random and don't often correlate with the amount of action onscreen.

With a single GPU, I'd say that an OC'd i5 is perfectly adequate for BF4. I just hope that they sort out this issue by the time they release the full game.
Click to expand...

From Uncle Petey, so possibly just beta glitches....I implore everyone to wait it out for the full game before binning their current hardware. Hard to base anything fully on a beta.
 
Gregster said:
From Uncle Petey, so possibly just beta glitches....I implore everyone to wait it out for the full game before binning their current hardware. Hard to base anything fully on a beta.
Click to expand...

Agreed this game needs a lot more optimization done. The servers/game itself appear to be very laggy today. Can't see myself playing this too much more now. Would rather wait for a more polished (hopefully :D) final version.
 
LtMatt said:
Ah so its caching map textures that aren't included in the beta? Gotcha. ;) :D
Click to expand...

So why then Matthew do 3GB cards show readings of 2.4GB+ and 2GB cards show 1.8-1.9GB?

You're only seeing one side of it - perhaps caching is the wrong term - but whatever causes cards with more VRAM to use more than cards with less yet both maintain similar framerates.

Saw the same thing across loads of games when comparing 7950 vs 680 and I've told you this loads of times. Stop being a plonker :p. It's a game engine thing - I don't know enough about coding to explain it in detail.
 
Rusty0611 said:
So why then Matthew do 3GB cards show readings of 2.4GB+ and 2GB cards show 1.8-1.9GB?

You're only seeing one side of it - perhaps caching is the wrong term - but whatever causes cards with more VRAM to use more than cards with less yet both maintain similar framerates.

Saw the same thing across loads of games when comparing 7950 vs 680 and I've told you this loads of times. Stop being a plonker :p. It's a game engine thing - I don't know enough about coding to explain it in detail.
Click to expand...

Because 2gb cards can not use more vram than they have present.

Its funny you should mention maintaining identical frame rates because as we saw earlier the only cards that cannot maintain those identical frame rates are 2gb SLI cards. ;)

Ultra 1600p Vram usage around 2.5gb+ vram

7990 minimum frame rate 173% faster than 690 SLI
7970 xfire minimum frame rate 90% faster than 770 SLI


dkzJ00d.jpg


Medium settings 1600p Vram usage under 2gb

690 11% faster minimum frame rate than 7990
770 SLI 5% faster minimum frame rate than 7970 xfire

w95UsXD.jpg

MjFrosty said:
lol here we go
Click to expand...

:D

One reply from me and il leave it at that. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom