• 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:
So we have Kaap test this @ 1600P and he just loaded it up looked at the sky and quit, so he doesn't count and GameGPU (who are Gods on this forum) tested it @ 1600P but they just blew some stuff up for 40 seconds, so that doesn't count either.

It looks to me like Tonester is getting a copy of BF4 :D

I think the discerning people will at least feel safe with their 2GB cards for now :)
Click to expand...

Gamegpu are good because they test every game that comes up but when you see what they benched regarding BF4 its easy to see that there was no real gameplay testing. Its fine for a rough indication but as we see from the swe clockers results that's real world performance. Testing on an empty server and driving forwards in a tank and shooting the main gun twice is not the same Greg, come on. A 40 second benchmark with no action vs 6 minutes+ of competitive gameplay. Hmm. :D

It was Tone who said he'd buy me a copy if it used more than 2gb and was playable. I never agreed to anything i just gave my prediction and was told i was wrong. I do like to see people keep trying to change the goal posts though. Those swe clockers results at least show what the current situation is and many posts on battlelog only back that up further.

Another thing to consider is a lot of the Ultra options are not working as confirmed by Dice, so it remains to be seen what effect that will have when those are added. Vram usage is already high and possibly about to get higher.

I did ask Kaap to play a full round and run one 690 at the highest settings but he declined. I don't doubt his results but his testing is using 2x690's so its irrelevant.
 
Gregster said:
So we have Kaap test this @ 1600P and he just loaded it up looked at the sky and quit, so he doesn't count and GameGPU (who are Gods on this forum) tested it @ 1600P but they just blew some stuff up for 40 seconds, so that doesn't count either.

It looks to me like Tonester is getting a copy of BF4 :D

I think the discerning people will at least feel safe with their 2GB cards for now :)
Click to expand...

I have had a go in the 64 player games (still getting killed quick) and from what I can see using an overclocked intel hexcore makes a very big difference. Where as using 2gb cards is no problem at all. If people are wondering where to upgrade I think it would be far better to spend the money on the CPU/Mobo rather than worry about how much vram their cards have.
 
Untitled_zps71c8fd7c.png
 
snips86x said:
No!

I'm so so excited to get on the Open Beta tomorrow. Has anyone devised a 'recommended' settings for different HD resolutions? I can't recall seeing anything on this thread!
Click to expand...

There are sooo many other issues, all that's recommended is to see how it plays for you and adjust accordingly.
 
JaseUK said:
cheers

I use MSI Afterburner, which doesn't seem to show any fps whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Afterburner wont work with BF4 as its a 64 bit application. Afterburner will need to support 64 bit to work with it, which sucks.

However RadeonPro overlay works with BF4. ;)
 
LtMatt said:
Gamegpu are good because they test every game that comes up but when you see what they benched regarding BF4 its easy to see that there was no real gameplay testing. Its fine for a rough indication but as we see from the swe clockers results that's real world performance. Testing on an empty server and driving forwards in a tank and shooting the main gun twice is not the same Greg, come on. A 40 second benchmark with no action vs 6 minutes+ of competitive gameplay. Hmm. :D

It was Tone who said he'd buy me a copy if it used more than 2gb and was playable. I never agreed to anything i just gave my prediction and was told i was wrong. I do like to see people keep trying to change the goal posts though. Those swe clockers results at least show what the current situation is and many posts on battlelog only back that up further.

Another thing to consider is a lot of the Ultra options are not working as confirmed by Dice, so it remains to be seen what effect that will have when those are added. Vram usage is already high and possibly about to get higher.

I did ask Kaap to play a full round and run one 690 at the highest settings but he declined. I don't doubt his results but his testing is using 2x690's so its irrelevant.
Click to expand...

As I've already said this whole debate is about memory - the amount of action being undertaken is irrelevant to the amount of memory being used. The 770 is in line with the 7970 GE suggesting that memory is having no impact on performance.

And if you look at the FPS numbers GameGPU are getting, they are broadly in line with what others are getting so they are obviously testing sufficiently even if it doesn't get your seal of approval.

The problem with testing "competitive gameplay" across a number of cards is that by definition it is even more inconsistent than testing Op SB in BF3.
 
Rusty0611 said:
As I've already said this whole debate is about memory - the amount of action being undertaken is irrelevant to the amount of memory being used. The 770 is in line with the 7970 GE suggesting that memory is having no impact on performance.

And if you look at the FPS numbers GameGPU are getting, they are broadly in line with what others are getting so they are obviously testing sufficiently even if it doesn't get your seal of approval.

The problem with testing "competitive gameplay" across a number of cards is that by definition it is even more inconsistent than testing Op SB in BF3.
Click to expand...

If it was irrelevant then the 770 SLI minimums would not be so low and neither would the 690 minimums. After speaking with a 690 user from another forum he confirmed that he also had fps drops that stopped once he removed AA and then he was able to maintain 60 fps give or take. The main thing to note is the drops do not happen instantly. Only as you play the game more and move to different parts of the map. Something that is not going to be picked up in a 40 second bench.
 
Kaapstad said:
I have had a go in the 64 player games (still getting killed quick) and from what I can see using an overclocked intel hexcore makes a very big difference. Where as using 2gb cards is no problem at all. If people are wondering where to upgrade I think it would be far better to spend the money on the CPU/Mobo rather than worry about how much vram their cards have.
Click to expand...

It would be very stupid of DICE to neglete all 2gig card owners surley they need to sell games not hardware!!
 
LtMatt said:
The main thing to note is the drops do not happen instantly. Only as you play the game more and move to different parts of the map. Something that is not going to be picked up in a 40 second bench.
Click to expand...

This is true even my friends single 660ti 1080p is on 1.9gb vram.

I just can't see 2 gig being enough in the full game especially if other maps are bigger and use more vram.
 
imginy said:
This is true even my friends single 660ti 1080p is on 1.9gb vram.

I just can't see 2 gig being enough in the full game especially if other maps are bigger and use more vram.
Click to expand...

This map is pretty small. Its got some big buildings in it with some bland textures but i wouldn't consider it a big map. Bandaar Desert from BF3 is much bigger.
 
Looking at PrecisionX post-session last night, I noticed GPU usage was all over the place on both cards. vRAM usage and clock speed were constant however.

Since running my previous tests (avg 55 over 5 runs with AA) I have been playing without AA, and I think FPS is up by about 10-15 outside. I will do another run at some point, without AA.

It is still jerky however, but without the OSD I can't see what is happening in real-time, which is annoying!
 
Yes it is annoying not being able to monitor with afterburner. Hopefully a new version is released to support 64 bit apps.
 
LtMatt said:
Yes it is annoying not being able to monitor with afterburner. Hopefully a new version is released to support 64 bit apps.
Click to expand...
It is pretty annoying. Im kinda tempted to borrow the monitor from my second system to use it for displaying a few monitoring apps in game. Desk would need a major clearout to make room for it though.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom