• 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***

Gregster said:
One thing people are misunderstanding is that running out of vram will result in minimums of 1fps. This is while it waits for system ram to kick in. I have run out of VRAM on a 560Ti and on my 680's at 5760x1080 and trust me, you know when you have run out of VRAM, as it is like being at your nan's and her showing you photo's of people she can't remember :D
Click to expand...

This!

I ran out on Skyrim with the HD packs with my old GTX 295. It wasn't a slight dip.. it goes from playable to 0 in a blink of an eye.

I'll see how I get on with my 670 sli setup. I wont upgrade for this title alone, should other next gen titles do the same I'll upgrade to the 8 Series or investigate the new AMD gear.
 
Rusty0611 said:
I was on about in general not specifically BF4.

You're not on steady ground here :D.



Why are you going to talk about more things you don't understand?
Click to expand...



I thought that's what you were doing. It's not even not understanding it - it's the most simple concept mate. Don't get all defensive over it :/

It is all controlled by the driver - and said driver is not going to allocate memory that your video card does-not have. The proof is in the pudding but sadly the pudding mostly consists of people saying "runs ok for me"

You need to see it running side by side and that's the only way you'd ever end this once and for all.
 
Last edited:
Drneb said:
This!

I ran out on Skyrim with the HD packs with my old GTX 295. It wasn't a slight dip.. it goes from playable to 0 in a blink of an eye.

I'll see how I get on with my 670 sli setup. I wont upgrade for this title alone, should other next gen titles do the same I'll upgrade to the 8 Series or investigate the new AMD gear.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that the gtx295 would tank straight away as it has no where near enough memory for a highly modded skyrim. With gtx770 and all the other 2gb cards in bf4 it looks as though 2gb is being breached slightly so it won't show up as a slide show more like dips in fps .
 
sand_dune said:
Things you have to do when you don't have a good job.
Click to expand...

That's quite an obnoxious and childish thing to say :(

Anyhow, does anyone know if BF4 will be implementing DX11.2's tiled resources feature? I thought that would help alleviate the need for copious amounts of VRAM since can palm textures off to system RAM, or did I get the premise of this feature wrong?
 
Temps are similar to BF3. Maybe 1-2c lower for cpu and gpu than bf3. Thing is i got higher fps in bf3 so that could be why.
 
LtMatt said:
Temps are similar to BF3. Maybe 1-2c lower for cpu and gpu than bf3. Thing is i got higher fps in bf3 so that could be why.
Click to expand...

Mine much higher on this BF3 GPU's max would hit 65c but I cant remember if I used to play with Vsync on lol
With BF4 I haven't been using vsync going to play fgor bit now with it on.
 
hyperseven said:
Anyhow, does anyone know if BF4 will be implementing DX11.2's tiled resources feature? I thought that would help alleviate the need for copious amounts of VRAM since can palm textures off to system RAM, or did I get the premise of this feature wrong?
Click to expand...

Correct that is being implemented however it will only be available on dx11.2 ala Windows 8.1. AMD are releasing a driver update i believe to add support for this feature. I believe its already built in to the 290 pro/X though. Not sure what Nvidia are doing about tiled resources or if they support it or not sorry.
 
teppic said:
More memory:

41vKVZx.jpg.png
Click to expand...

I see lots of people posting this graph, but not the one from the same site showing UQ (presumably Ultra Quality) 2560x1600 with 4x MSAA.

The graph shows a 7990 getting 39/60 (min/avg) and a 690 getting 34/53.
Now are we saying that 39fps is fine but 34fps is being caused by VRAM limits?
Also the 690 is getting 53fps avg and I believe Tone specified 60 +\- 5 as a playable fps. So in this instance not only is the 690 seemingly not suffering much because of VRAM compared to the 7990 but it also shows that the card doesn't have enough power.
 
MjFrosty said:
I thought that's what you were doing. It's not even not understanding it - it's the most simple concept mate. Don't get all defensive over it :/

It is all controlled by the driver - and said driver is not going to allocate memory that your video card does-not have. The proof is in the pudding but sadly the pudding mostly consists of people saying "runs ok for me"

You need to see it running side by side and that's the only way you'd ever end this once and for all.
Click to expand...

Why would I get defensive - I have a 3GB card and have used nVidia and AMD over the last generation over extended periods of time.

You're completely missing the point - look at Vega's video, he tests settings up to the 2048MB limit and then exceeds it. It was a superb piece of testing.

Oh and did I mention I tested 7950 CF vs 680 SLI? Saw higher usage on the 7950s immediately after loading into games. Sometimes not a lot but in BF3 it was a few hundred MB different.
 
Rusty0611 said:
Oh and did I mention I tested 7950 CF vs 680 SLI? Saw higher usage on the 7950s immediately after loading into games. Sometimes not a lot but in BF3 it was a few hundred MB different.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean the 7950 is suddenly caching stuff it doesn't need. That was long before AMD did the memory manage re-write. Since they did that for GCN their memory footprint has decreased and more often than not is lower than Nvidia's now, though they're pretty much identical generally speaking.

http://techreport.com/news/24136/dr...e-radeon-frame-latencies-in-series-of-updates
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
Why would I get defensive - I have a 3GB card and have used nVidia and AMD over the last generation over extended periods of time.

You're completely missing the point - look at Vega's video, he tests settings up to the 2048MB limit and then exceeds it. It was a superb piece of testing.

Oh and did I mention I tested 7950 CF vs 680 SLI? Saw higher usage on the 7950s immediately after loading into games. Sometimes not a lot but in BF3 it was a few hundred MB different.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware the point you are making is that the findings are too inconclusive or insignificant to indicate lack of memory. Originally you were quick to point out that if you do happen to run out of VRAM - the game will come to a stand still. That just simply isn't true, and it is in fairness a lot to do with the game itself. There isn't any 'failsafe' management as such by default in DX so it's down to the drivers and the game engine. I'd imagine the FrostBite 3.0 engine is a great example of working magic everything considered. So you'll probably find that it's removing higher quality textures (not necessarily textures) where you're unlikely to notice them at draw distance - where as older games used to just chuck it all in resulting in catastrophic melt down (as you described). The game is managing what it has to work with, but at a small cost of performance.
 
Last edited:
GoogalyMoogaly said:
I see lots of people posting this graph, but not the one from the same site showing UQ (presumably Ultra Quality) 2560x1600 with 4x MSAA.

The graph shows a 7990 getting 39/60 (min/avg) and a 690 getting 34/53.
Now are we saying that 39fps is fine but 34fps is being caused by VRAM limits?
Also the 690 is getting 53fps avg and I believe Tone specified 60 +\- 5 as a playable fps. So in this instance not only is the 690 seemingly not suffering much because of VRAM compared to the 7990 but it also shows that the card doesn't have enough power.
Click to expand...

Do you mean this graph?

FbfcZko.jpg


I think you could argue that 60fps average is playable, at least for the 7990. I get more than that with my clocked 7950's and that's definitely playable. So its definitely playable on two cards at these high details. Single card? Definitely not but performance will only get better come final release.

That said, have you seen what part of the game they benched? A 40 second benchmark in an empty server. No explosions, no action, nothing. The tank fires two rounds i believe and that's it. Now if you check the benchmarks i posted earlier, they are taken from 8 minutes of intensive gameplay. ;)


 
LtMatt said:
That doesn't mean the 7950 is suddenly caching stuff it doesn't need. That was long before AMD did the memory manage re-write. Since they did that for GCN their memory footprint has decreased and more often than not is lower than Nvidia's now, thought they're pretty much identical generally speaking.

http://techreport.com/news/24136/dr...e-radeon-frame-latencies-in-series-of-updates
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter - cards with more VRAM still use a lot more VRAM that what is actually required to maintain its framerate. It wasn't margin of error differences I found, they were extremely noticeable.

Edit: noticeable as is the figures rather than the experience :p

MjFrosty said:
As far as I'm aware the point you are making is that the findings are too inconclusive or insignificant to indicate lack of memory. Originally you were quick to point out that if you do happen to run out of VRAM - the game will come to a stand still. That just simply isn't true, and it is in fairness a lot to do with the game itself. There isn't any 'failsafe' management as such by default in DX so it's down to the drivers and the game engine. I'd imagine the FrostBite 3.0 engine is a great example of working magic everything considered. So you'll probably find that it's removing higher quality textures where you're unlikely to notice them at draw distance - where as older games used to just chuck it all in resulting in catastrophic melt down (as you described). The game is managing what it has to work with, but at a small cost of performance.
Click to expand...

Go and watch the Vega video... You see, you've given no technical explanation there. You're just making it up based on what you think is happening.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom