This may help people identify what they need or what to expect. Not sure on the authenticity but something to mull over.
?
So hardly any difference between similarly clocked i5's/i7s then : /. I thought an i7 was loads faster than an i5 in this?
-
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***
- Thread starter pgi947
- Start date
?
So hardly any difference between similarly clocked i5's/i7s then : /. I thought an i7 was loads faster than an i5 in this?
Hopefully will get better but I'm not sure it will be enough.
bf3 would be up to 75% cpu load (1080p single card 64 players) and this has more going on.
I will be upgrading between now and christmas and passing on the 3570k as a present.
Haswell 4770k I think is next for me.
Would depend how much stuff is going on i5 is great until it bottlenecks
My 780 sli setup isn't bottlenecked. 105fps average at ultra 4xMSAA on 1920x1200. Lowest FPS recorded was 79, max 131... Max gpu loads were 98%, CPU only hit 63%... But I am on Win8 and there is a performance gain to be had from that. If you're on win7, you're better off on 320.xx drivers but still worse than win 8s.
Cheaper to bung in a 3770k, would save the hassle of switching mobo and reinstalling windows etc. Ive owned 3570k, 3770k and now a 4770k. It isnt a big difference over the 3770k.
I'm hitting 45% CPU usage even at 7680x1440, Spec below.
i cant get afterburner to show fps but at 5760x1200 im a steady 60fps with high and ultra settings, below is a pic of my gpu usage at 5760x1200 and the second pic is at 2560x1440p ultra no AA..
At 7680x1440 ultra i hit 4Gb gpu usage then one of my cards fails lol must be the small overclock..
i cant get afterburner to show fps but at 5760x1200 im a steady 60fps with high and ultra settings, below is a pic of my gpu usage at 5760x1200 and the second pic is at 2560x1440p ultra no AA..
At 7680x1440 ultra i hit 4Gb gpu usage then one of my cards fails lol must be the small overclock..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
That's from one 7970 add another and usage will increase.
Just looked and found the beta and the averages are closer but the minimums are off still. And agreed with user reviews every time.
Looks like 2GB is coping just fine to me
LOL oh dear. Now GameGPU will go from hero to zero on here
. Would you look at that - 770 and 7970 producing nigh on identical performance.
This may help people identify what they need or what to expect. Not sure on the authenticity but something to mull over.
almost no difference between any CPU overclocked or otherwise, very different to other slides, it also doesn't seem to fit with the fact that many are reporting very high CPU usage even on very overclocked i5's
LOL oh dear. Now GameGPU will go from hero to zero on here
+1
And scale that GTX 690 result up and you get what I have been getting using two GTX 690s
Minimums in the 60s and average around 100.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Personally I think it will all turn out just fine when the full game's released and one or two driver updates for red and green.
LOL oh dear. Now GameGPU will go from hero to zero on here
+1
And scale that GTX 690 result up and you get what I have been getting using two GTX 690s
Minimums in the 60s and average around 100.
and just for Tonester and Matt
Looks like 2GB is coping just fine to me
I wouldn't get your hopes up too much lads. They did a Kaap with regards to their benching procedure. 40 Second benchmark. Load the game in an empty server, leave base in a tank. Drive forward a few yards, fire gun twice, end benchmark. No action, no explosions, no moving throughout the level nothing.
Where as the other benchmark was at least 6 minutes of proper gameplay footage in a busy server, moving through the map with lots of action.
Hey Matt how is ur 2700K doing with BF4? Cant wait to see how mine does @ 4.5GHz tho i can go higher anyway. I'd like to see how a 5GHz OC does in terms of usage on my system
Does fine mate at 4.8ghz. Cpu performance is not the problem for sure.
Last edited:
lolz^^ ...gm
to be fair they do drive past some fire and get some smoke going with the gun, its not totally useless for a gpu test
the graph above it about the cpu's i question if they did the same tho
You can't really base a bench of a game like Battlefield 4 on something like that though. Anyone who plays the game frequently will know thats in no way an accurate method of checking performance.
Yes makes you wonder, they seem a bit low considering the method they used earlier. You can tell the server is empty because it says waiting for other players to join at the start.
this has been a problem for a long time, most benchmarks and advice given isnt from people that play the game, certainly not in any competitive way
and a multiplayer game like this its hard to have any kind of standard test, way too many variables playing online, you can understand why they try to keep the tests as controlled as possible as thats more "scientific" and their graphs would be a mess otherwise but thats not "real world"
unless they play it and get in the action they have no idea what copes and what doesnt
i find opinions of people that play the games i like more valuable than graphs
anyway thats my morning rant
i guess its okay aslong as they dont advise what people to buy from their tests
this has been a problem for a long time, most benchmarks and advice given isnt from people that play the game, certainly not in any competitive way
and a multiplayer game like this its hard to have any kind of standard test, way too many variables playing online, you can understand why they try to keep the tests as controlled as possible as thats more "scientific" and their graphs would be a mess otherwise but thats not "real world"
unless they play it and get in the action they have no idea what copes and what doesnt
i find opinions of people that play the games i like more valuable than graphs
anyway thats my morning rant
i guess its okay aslong as they dont advise what people to buy from their tests
Sounds more like common sense than a rant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,235
- Location
- North East England
So how many times do we have to ask EA/Dice to give us a benchmark tool? Loads of other titles manage it and its hardly any great effort on their behalf.
Agreed. One can only hope they do this time. I'm pretty sure Battlefield 3 had a built in benchmark, but it was removed on final release.
But but if they included the bench tool in bf3 we wouldn't have gotten to enjoy operation sword breaker a 100 times over
I swear to god if I find even a hint of that damn mission in bf4 someone at dice is going to get a slap.
Well the FPS readings suggest sufficient load to test. Also it doesn't matter what they were doing with regards to the memory used and its supposed impact on performance. That would have been constant either way so you can surmise that 2GB isn't having any impact. Other than the memory bandwidth perhaps.