• 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***

snips86x said:
While this information is helpful to those who want to see performance changes immediately, benching on a beta is not a great way of doing it. Work with what you have and re-asses once the final version has been released. That way you can potentially avoid the need for splashing out shed loads of money for no reason.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty obvious an i5 2500k is a bottleneck for powerful graphics configurations pushing over 60fps in some modern games. This will only become more prevalent over time as better looking and worse running games come out. If you have a single 7970/680 then it isn't a problem as you aren't going to be averaging much more than 60fps anyway at 1080p.

I have the same thing in parts of crisis 3. It has been well documented and benchmarked on that game that i7 can really give better minimum/average framerates in some levels (where there is lots of grass animation for example). In some levels of Crysis 3 my gpu usage drops to about ~70% whilst my 4 2500k cores are at 100%.
 
Jono8 said:
I think it is pretty obvious an i5 2500k is a bottleneck for powerful graphics configurations pushing over 60fps in some modern games. This will only become more prevalent over time as better looking and worse running games come out. If you have a single 7970/680 then it isn't a problem as you aren't going to be averaging much more than 60fps anyway at 1080p.

I have the same thing in parts of crisis 3. It has been well documented and benchmarked on that game that i7 can really give better minimum/average framerates in some levels (where there is lots of grass animation for example). In some levels of Crysis 3 my gpu usage drops to about ~70% whilst my 4 2500k cores are at 100%.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's obvious. My 2500k @ 4.5 has never had an issue before. BF4 is the first game which has actually started chocking it.
 
Jono8 said:
Yes an i5 seems to be fine up until you have a card or cards that can push more than a minimum of mid 50's in my experience.

The game runs beautifully but my gpu usage is only averaging about 75% on both my 670's. When the framerate drops to ~60fps my gpu usage drops to about 60%....

I am pretty sure that with an i7 and my 670's both being used at 100% my minimums would be more like 75/80fps and my average would be nearer 100
Click to expand...

as said many times if you on 2 cards or more then yes i7 is the way on one card there is no difference to a i5.

anyone upgrading before the final game is released needs head testing the stuttering issue isnt a cpu issue like some are saying its a game issue which is nearly sorted.
 
Jono8 said:
I think it is pretty obvious an i5 2500k is a bottleneck for powerful graphics configurations pushing over 60fps in some modern games. This will only become more prevalent over time as better looking and worse running games come out. If you have a single 7970/680 then it isn't a problem as you aren't going to be averaging much more than 60fps anyway at 1080p.

I have the same thing in parts of crisis 3. It has been well documented and benchmarked on that game that i7 can really give better minimum/average framerates in some levels (where there is lots of grass animation for example). In some levels of Crysis 3 my gpu usage drops to about ~70% whilst my 4 2500k cores are at 100%.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
as said many times if you on 2 cards or more then yes i7 is the way on one card there is no difference to a i5.

anyone upgrading before the final game is released needs head testing the stuttering issue isnt a cpu issue like some are saying its a game issue which is nearly sorted.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse there is a difference.... You know... HT???
 
ht makes 99 percent no difference

name games that actually 100 percent make a difference ? there isnt any.

in bf3 as many benchmarked shown it can be worse with ht on as it off.

look at bf4 no difference with ht on or off.
 
Metro 2033 performs much better on an i7, SLI or single card. This game will too. Anyone getting better benchmarks on an i5 compared to i7 is doing so because they're not doing intensive stuff. A game optimised for 8 cores is going to suit an i7, there's no question.
 
Anyone got an early view on how 3-way 680 sli runs?

Very impressed with 2-way.

If the scaling is good, that is my christmas upgrade. Another 680 and a new 1000W PSW to replace my old faithful BeQuiet.
 
teppic said:
Metro 2033 performs much better on an i7, SLI or single card. This game will too. Anyone getting better benchmarks on an i5 compared to i7 is doing so because they're not doing intensive stuff. A game optimised for 8 cores is going to suit an i7, there's no question.
Click to expand...

BF4 being one of those games.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
ht makes 99 percent no difference

name games that actually 100 percent make a difference ? there isnt any.

in bf3 as many benchmarked shown it can be worse with ht on as it off.

look at bf4 no difference with ht on or off.
Click to expand...

This is wrong my crossfire 7950s usage and frame rate was bad with i5 2500k sold it and gone i7 2600k and right away had better usage and frame rate.
 
In what way and have you played the final game?
Nobody is saying that an i7 wouldn't be advantageous.

You were also dead sure that xfire would mandatory for BF4 too, remember? :)
 
Last edited:
Uncle Petey said:
In what way and have you played the final game?

You were also dead sure that xfire would mandatory for BF4 too, remember? :)
Click to expand...

For maxed out I said - I still think so.

It's clear the game will run better on an i7 as the engine is designed to run on 8 cores. That doesn't mean the i5 will be unplayable, but without question the i7 will perform better.
 
Yeah, it will perform better. As you say, this doesn't mean that an i5 will be unplayable or poor.

For full ultra on a 7970 for example, I'd still guesstimate that at worst you'd have to lower AA to x2 at worst.
 
Uncle Petey said:
In what way and have you played the final game?
Nobody is saying that an i7 wouldn't be advantageous.

You were also dead sure that xfire would mandatory for BF4 too, remember? :)
Click to expand...

Playing BF4 maxed out with MSAA x4 and res scale 200% got me 26FPS avarage on a massively overclocked 7970 and 3930k. You REALLY need xfire to play it totally maxed out.
 
Uncle Petey said:
Yeah, it will perform better. As you say, this doesn't mean that an i5 will be unplayable or poor.
Click to expand...

Indeed not. I am debating whether it is worth the money/hassle to change to an i7. Sure my two 670's are not being used at their full potential. But I can live with framerates pretty much always above 60 and in the 50's with lots of action/explosions.

An i5 2500k is still clearly pretty capable at running this at playable framerates but an i7 would clearly give me quite a boost in performance if it can make my GPU's be used at their full potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom