• 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***

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.
Click to expand...

tommybhoy said:
Been playing around with Skyrim mods and all was good until I installed the Texture Pack Combiner, some stuttering started.
Click to expand...

Different setups-maybe page file setups result in different scenarios as my fps didn't hit zero, it didn't, it bounced up and down from 60fps to ~15 fps or so when it ran out of vram.

Either way you look at it, 2GB at the very least is perilously close to running out@2560 and the full fat title hasn't released yet.

More assets are inbound, no one knows if the full ultra settings are actually applying yet or auto downsampling is occurring afaik.

High tesselation/advanced lighting/weather??? might still have a role to play.

Gregster said:
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...

+1

Or basing a purchasing decision on beta status.
 
Gregster said:
Thanks for the info and I am assuming others are getting the same Ash. When you run AB, does it show your CPU usage across all 4 cores at over 80%? I am guessing this is why your GPU usage is so low.
Click to expand...

Yes AB showing all cores (4) to be well over 90% AB was showing GPU usage to be as low as 24% :-0
 
Rusty0611 said:
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



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.
Click to expand...

Call DICE and ask them why said example only uses 1900MB and this one 2300MB, don't mention vega video, then report back and apologise. :p

Where is this bloody video anyway...might as well entertain it. ^_^
 
As has been said several times in this thread, it's nigh on impossible to predict how the final game will run just looking at data from a single map from an early beta. As per tommybhoy's post above, goodness knows what's still to be put in in terms of graphical updates or tweaks as well as performance improvements and bug fixes. Not to mention the improvements that will (more than likely) be made to drivers from both sides following such a massive release as this. This is THE game of 2013, guys.

And as for the people who are saying "Oh dear, not getting 120FPS solid in this unoptimised beta, better buy another 780..." Wow, just wow.

Anyway, keep your findings coming, guys. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it at the weekend!
 
MjFrosty said:
Call DICE and ask them why said example only uses 1900MB and this one 2300MB, don't mention vega video, then report back and apologise. :p

Where is this bloody video anyway...might as well entertain it. ^_^
Click to expand...

I would if it was just DICE games mate but noticed it on all the ones I checked in. :p
 
There isn't a definitive answer in that case as every engine is different in how it handles video memory mate. The only reason it's not falling on it's arse is because the engine isn't prehistoric and is able to cache without spilling over into system memory.

I only know Java and some .NET so excuse me for being vague but seriously - grasp this. PLEAAASE! lol
 
120hz @60fps Locked

Here one for you guys

1080p @120hz bf4 video res setting and I locked the frame rate down to 60fps with RadeonPro.
So my screen is refreshing at 120hz but my game is a solid 60fps and guess what it feels and play much smoother. What gives??

So my real question is when I bought the 120hz monitor I was under the impression to get the 120hz real effect I would need 120fps this doesn't seem to be the case here. Setting the game to 60hz @60fps I right away notice the difference choppy/bit slow vs game 120hz @60fps

This normal?
 
ashmanuk67 said:
well for me it runs like poo

NVIDIA Drivers 331.40 running SLI GTX770

Max memory used was 1918,
GPU load average is 30%
CPU usage was high 90's
FPS seems to hover around 40-50

I had to turn down some settings but still very laggy did not seem to make much difference.

I know we are playing beta but seems to highlight my lack of CPU threads.

Not playable at all for me i hope Nvidia can sort out much better drivers on release.
Click to expand...

That may even be a bottleneck, what cpu you using?
 
I don't need to grasp anything. I experienced it first hand (extra VRAM being used on larger capacity cards and true VRAM related slowdowns).

Vega's video was in BF3 so it isn't exactly an ancient game engine. In fact it's probably remarkably similar to FB 3.0.
 
shankly1985 said:
Hows people temps running CPU & GPU?

Mine is after about one hour game time
CPU
65c
66c
66c
62c

GPU
77c
74c
Click to expand...

My 770's was some of the lowest temps I've had? but then my GPU usage was around 25-40% lol so yea low temps
I have not checked CPU temps yet but the i5 2500k is working overtime.
 
LtMatt said:
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. ;)


Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the one.
So in their 40 second video with not much happening the 690 couldn't get more than 53fps max but in the 8 minute video it got 66fps?
It doesn't mention on the swe graphs so are you sure those graphs were done using 4x MSAA?
 
My 670 @ 1200mhz is coping fairly well at 1440p all high except textures on ultra.

Seeing it drop down to the mid 40's during heavy action once the skyscrapers been taken down. Probably averages at around 55 fps.

Am slightly CPU limited at 4ghz though. Dropping down to 80% gpu usage at times.
 
Last edited:
Bah trying to hold off building a new rig until Maxwell but this thread is making me want to go blow a load of money on a new setup :(
 
ashmanuk67 said:
Hi Shankly no Vsync was off in game and also in Nvida control panel.

Is this a strange thing or just a bottleneck??
Click to expand...

When I had my i52500k my two 7950's wouldn't get full use. I sold it on and got i7 2600k and now both the GPU's get full load and better performance.

So sadly yes it looks like a Bottleneck with Sli amd i5 :(
 
Interesting watching the vega video. What i took from that was when the vram limit is reached gpu usage tanks resulting in massive frame drops. Now at some points the frame rates were only going down to 20-30 which is what we are seeing in bf4. Could it be that when vram is only being breached for a split second the gpu usage falls slightly less resulting in drops in fps to 20-30. At some points the fps are in single digits which could mean a prolonged amount of time over the 2gb limit resulting in even less gpu usage and bigger drops in fps. If in bf4 the vram usage is only being breached slightly every now and then this could explain why the fps is not hitting single digits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom