Anyone with a 780 get Ultra 60+fps on BF4?

[RipGroove]

I tried an EVGA 780 Classified in my rig (spec below) and was only seeing an average of 50fps on both Ultra and High with 2x AA at 1080p. CPU usage showed 50% in game and GPU usage only ever got to 60% MAX in game also?!

I tried several driver versions doing a clean sweep in between and clean installations also and even tried a new PSU in case the GPU was not getting what it needed. I've had the GPU tested by the shop who sold it to me and on benchmarks it comes out fine so this must be a BF4 thing? (It ran BF3 with a constant 80-120fps just fine, is this low for a 780 or OK?)

Win7 Ultimate
AMD 8350 4.3GHz (8-Core)
EVGA 780 Classified 3GB (No OC, and no plans to)
16GB Corsair RAM
Corsair TX750 PSU
Samsung SSD

Now I also tried all the small BF4 tweaks that are popular at the moment, unparked cores, uninstalling NVidia 3D, reinstalling DX etc etc etc to no avail.

Worth noting that my 650ti runs fine and reaches 99% usage as expected in BF4 so I figured there was something wrong with my 780 as even EVGA's Precision X software showed the voltage as zero while in game?! (even with K-Boost off). But the shop I bought it from tested it twice and said theres nothing wrong with it. The fact that this runs fine points me back to GPU, but as said this has been tested so I'm torn between the cause of this?

I don't think the CPU was bottlenecking as it was only seeing 50% usage and it seems fine in other peoples rigs so its more than capable and I also don't think Windows 8 would improve things by 30fps.

So anyone here seeing 80+ fps on Ultra at 1080p with a single 780 Classified? I'm after a single quiet card that can max out BF4 and NEVER drop below 60fps, do I really need to get a 780ti? Cause I think that would be overkill for a single 1080p display!

If the Classified should do the trick then i'll go ahead and order a replacement, I've just been put off by the first one.

I have asked this same question on the BF4 forums and so far the general feeling is that a 780 Classified should be seeing 80+fps on Ultra (2xAA) on a single 1080p monitor, thoughts?

 

[ZionZA]

A single GTX 780 is faster than 2 GTX 660's in SLI. I have 2 660's and get 70-90fps in battlefield 4 on ultra. Does your game run at max 50fps the whole time? And yes some people have seen performance gains in windows 8 of up to 30fps. Although highly unlikely for most people. But with your card that is actually a possibility. Anyway.

I have seen some people have issues with bf4 using that same CPU. Dont know if it is the CPU but I doubt it.
Battlefield 4 is rather buggy so keep that in mind
Make sure Vsync is off.
in battlefield 4 press ~ to bring up the console and then type "gametime.maxvariablefps" and see what value it gives you. You can change that value by adding the value you want at the end of the command (example: gametime.maxvariablefps 120)

 

[ZionZA]

I don't have a 780, but this site tested a bunch of GPUs on an overclocked 3970X rig with 16 GB 2133 RAM. They did two main tests: one without AA and one with 4x MSAA.

and? lol

 

[azzazel_99]

Every issue I have seen people have is on bf4. This game was designed to run on windows 8 and will run better on windows 8. I know because I saw a huge difference once I moved to 8. This game was and is optimized to run on the new operating system. Since I moved to win 8 I get 75+ fps on my gtx560ti classified edition with all high settings and dynamic lighting on medium with no AA and at 1080p. Before windows 8 I was barely seeing 50+ on all high. Anyways just my suggestion also make sure your bios is up to date and see what the gpu utilization is when running heaven or something.

 

[RipGroove]

It was averaging around 47fps and spiking between 40-80fps. I had vsync off. I think the CPU problems with BF4 are mainly 6+ cores (like mine) and the way both Win7 and BF4 deal with it. It was unplayable for me to start with until I unparked my cores, so now that's done it should be OK. Also I know BF4 is buggy as hell that's why I'm looking for anyone else with a 780 to compare.

 

[ZionZA]

It was averaging around 47fps and spiking between 40-80fps. I had vsync off. I think the CPU problems with BF4 are mainly 6+ cores (like mine) and the way both Win7 and BF4 deal with it. It was unplayable for me to start with until I unparked my cores, so now that's done it should be OK. Also I know BF4 is buggy as hell that's why I'm looking for anyone else with a 780 to compare.

Sbtw. You didnt by any chance up the Resolution scaling past 100%?

 

[RipGroove]

Every issue I have seen people have is on bf4. This game was designed to run on windows 8 and will run better on windows 8. I know because I saw a huge difference once I moved to 8. This game was and is optimized to run on the new operating system. Since I moved to win 8 I get 75+ fps on my gtx560ti classified edition with all high settings and dynamic lighting on medium with no AA and at 1080p. Before windows 8 I was barely seeing 50+ on all high. Anyways just my suggestion also make sure your bios is up to date and see what the gpu utilization is when running heaven or something.

Win8 will definatley be the next step once I get a GPU that 'should' run BF4. BIOS is up to date and so far on benchmarks it seems OK, a few people have commented that my score is slightly low but i'm not too concerned as its not really low.

If I know the 780 Classified should so what I want then I'll order one and work on getting Win8 and/or work through any other issues I get along the way. At least i'll know for sure before I start that the hardware I have 'should' get me what I want.

 

[RipGroove]

It was averaging around 47fps and spiking between 40-80fps. I had vsync off. I think the CPU problems with BF4 are mainly 6+ cores (like mine) and the way both Win7 and BF4 deal with it. It was unplayable for me to start with until I unparked my cores, so now that's done it should be OK. Also I know BF4 is buggy as hell that's why I'm looking for anyone else with a 780 to compare.

Sbtw. You didnt by any chance up the Resolution scaling past 100%?

lol no, it would barely run on 100%!

 

[RipGroove]

I don't have a 780, but this site tested a bunch of GPUs on an overclocked 3970X rig with 16 GB 2133 RAM. They did two main tests: one without AA and one with 4x MSAA. Without AA, the 780 got 77 FPS on average. With 4x MSAA it got 61 FPS average. Of course, CPU plays a big factor in these numbers.

Another site tested a 780 in 1920x1200 with 4x MSAA and it only got 47 FPS.

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

 

[ZionZA]

New bf4 patch improves fps

 

[ZionZA]

I don't have a 780, but this site tested a bunch of GPUs on an overclocked 3970X rig with 16 GB 2133 RAM. They did two main tests: one without AA and one with 4x MSAA.

and? lol

Refresh the page and see my first comment. Was adding links. But as you can see, unless you have a super high end CPU, you will probably won't... if you want to play with AA on.

I did lol. Anyway. I have to agree yeah. I had an i7 930 and battlefield 4 was giving this thing a run for its money

 

[RipGroove]

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

Pretty sure as I've been looking for advice on a single card option. In my case even in HIGH with AA off I was still only just seeing 60-80fps on my 780 Classified, which according to anyone I talk to was way off what it should be.

 

[ZionZA]

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

But, yeah, I am assuming that these are both the day one version of the game. The second chart even says "version 1.0". You'll have to wait for official reviews on post-patch frame rates, but I doubt they will double from a simple patch unless the game was that bad at release.

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

Pretty sure as I've been looking for advice on a single card option. In my case even in HIGH with AA off I was still only just seeing 60-80fps on my 780 Classified, which according to anyone I talk to was way off what it should be.

The reason for the limitation on the fps with 2 780's are because of the CPU. Two 780's with enough CPU power would output 120+ easily. Two 660's do 90fps easily. Also make sure these so called people who were talking were using windows 8.

 

[RipGroove]

No OC at all and temps were fine. Just for some reason GPU usage was 50-60% only.

 

[RipGroove]

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

But, yeah, I am assuming that these are both the day one version of the game. The second chart even says "version 1.0". You'll have to wait for official reviews on post-patch frame rates, but I doubt they will double from a simple patch unless the game was that bad at release.

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

Pretty sure as I've been looking for advice on a single card option. In my case even in HIGH with AA off I was still only just seeing 60-80fps on my 780 Classified, which according to anyone I talk to was way off what it should be.

The reason for the limitation on the fps with 2 780's are because of the CPU. Two 780's with enough CPU power would output 120+ easily. Two 660's do 90fps easily. Also make sure these so called people who were talking were using windows 8.

I had one 780 and Win7 so...

 

[ZionZA]

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

But, yeah, I am assuming that these are both the day one version of the game. The second chart even says "version 1.0". You'll have to wait for official reviews on post-patch frame rates, but I doubt they will double from a simple patch unless the game was that bad at release.

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

Pretty sure as I've been looking for advice on a single card option. In my case even in HIGH with AA off I was still only just seeing 60-80fps on my 780 Classified, which according to anyone I talk to was way off what it should be.

The reason for the limitation on the fps with 2 780's are because of the CPU. Two 780's with enough CPU power would output 120+ easily. Two 660's do 90fps easily. Also make sure these so called people who were talking were using windows 8.

I had one 780 and Win7 so...

So get windows 8 and one 780 should give 90fps on ultra (aslong as the CPU does its job well enough) Which could be a problem with AMD. Who knows.

 

[RipGroove]

If you want those frame rates, you will probably have to get a Sandy or Ivy Bridge-E 6-core CPU with a 2011 X79 motherboard that supports PCI-E 3.0... and overclock the crap out of it. The motherboard they used in the first review costs $365 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130626 and the 3970X is a $1k CPU. That, and they overclocked the 3970X to 4.9 GHz or 1.5 GHz over the stock clock speed. And they still could only get those frame rates with AA off. Sure, a patch will probably raise the FPS a bit but I doubt that it will be that dramatic. Even the difference between Beta and Retail 1.0 wasn't that dramatic.

That doesn't explain how plenty of BF4 forum members are seeing 80-120fps on lesser specs than those ^^. I keep hearing 'yeah a 780 should easily get 80+ fps on full Ultra' but from what you're saying it ain't so. So now I dunno.

 

[RipGroove]

If I can't get Ultra 60+fps with a 780 Classified and can only get it at HIGH then I may as well stick to the MED settings 80+fps that I get now with my 650ti. As theres no point spending £450 to go from MED to HIGH.

 

[ZionZA]

If you want those frame rates, you will probably have to get a Sandy or Ivy Bridge-E 6-core CPU with a 2011 X79 motherboard that supports PCI-E 3.0... and overclock the crap out of it. The motherboard they used in the first review costs $365 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130626 and the 3970X is a $1k CPU. That, and they overclocked the 3970X to 4.9 GHz or 1.5 GHz over the stock clock speed. And they still could only get those frame rates with AA off. Sure, a patch will probably raise the FPS a bit but I doubt that it will be that dramatic. Even the difference between Beta and Retail 1.0 wasn't that dramatic.

That doesn't explain how plenty of BF4 forum members are seeing 80-120fps on lesser specs than those ^^. I keep hearing 'yeah a 780 should easily get 80+ fps on full Ultra' but from what you're saying it ain't so. So now I dunno.

I dont agree with this. I had a i7 930 overclocked to 4ghz. running two 660's and I was getting 90fps on ultra with 4xmsaa. This game either fluctuates like mad over different systems or something is off on those benchmarks.

 

[ZionZA]

If I can't get Ultra 60+fps with a 780 Classified and can only get it at HIGH then I may as well stick to the MED settings 80+fps that I get now with my 650ti. As theres no point spending £450 to go from MED to HIGH.

I honestly don't think the card is the problem here.

 

[RipGroove]

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

But, yeah, I am assuming that these are both the day one version of the game. The second chart even says "version 1.0". You'll have to wait for official reviews on post-patch frame rates, but I doubt they will double from a simple patch unless the game was that bad at release.

Those benchmarks seem to disagree with what people have experienced, are they old, pre patch or old drivers maybe? From what I hear the 780 should be sitting between 80-120fps Ultra (2xAA)

Are you sure those people weren't talking about a 780 SLI setup? And even then, 2x 780s in SLI aren't getting near 120 FPS unless you turn AA completely off.

Pretty sure as I've been looking for advice on a single card option. In my case even in HIGH with AA off I was still only just seeing 60-80fps on my 780 Classified, which according to anyone I talk to was way off what it should be.

The reason for the limitation on the fps with 2 780's are because of the CPU. Two 780's with enough CPU power would output 120+ easily. Two 660's do 90fps easily. Also make sure these so called people who were talking were using windows 8.

I had one 780 and Win7 so...

So get windows 8 and one 780 should give 90fps on ultra (aslong as the CPU does its job well enough) Which could be a problem with AMD. Who knows.

Win8 is starting to look like it might be the factor here. I just wanted some confirmation that the hardware I have should do it before ordering a 780.

 

[RipGroove]

So, AMD8350 + 1x 780 classified @ 1080p = never dropping below 60fps on Ultra?

Who knows? Either way my only other option would be hardware change to 780ti or r9 290x or whatever its called.

Or software change to Win8 and hope BF4 and drivers get better.

 

[RipGroove]

So, AMD8350 + 1x 780 classified @ 1080p = never dropping below 60fps on Ultra?

Who knows? Either way my only other option would be hardware change to 780ti or r9 290x or whatever its called.

Or software change to Win8 and hope BF4 and drivers get better.

I really thought a 780ti or 290x would both have been overkill for single 1080p display.

 

[ZionZA]

If you want those frame rates, you will probably have to get a Sandy or Ivy Bridge-E 6-core CPU with a 2011 X79 motherboard that supports PCI-E 3.0... and overclock the crap out of it. The motherboard they used in the first review costs $365 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130626 and the 3970X is a $1k CPU. That, and they overclocked the 3970X to 4.9 GHz or 1.5 GHz over the stock clock speed. And they still could only get those frame rates with AA off. Sure, a patch will probably raise the FPS a bit but I doubt that it will be that dramatic. Even the difference between Beta and Retail 1.0 wasn't that dramatic.

That doesn't explain how plenty of BF4 forum members are seeing 80-120fps on lesser specs than those ^^. I keep hearing 'yeah a 780 should easily get 80+ fps on full Ultra' but from what you're saying it ain't so. So now I dunno.

I dont agree with this. I had a i7 930 overclocked to 4ghz. running two 660's and I was getting 90fps on ultra with 4xmsaa. This game either fluctuates like mad over different systems or something is off on those benchmarks.

Two separate sites were off? Maybe the patch will improve FPS by 50% (on 4x MSAA from 61 FPS to 90 FPS). That would just mean that the day one retail version was absolute crap and Frostbite 3 is still in development.

I honestly don't know. But I promise you that this is the FPS I was getting. Which is why its weird for me to see those benchmarks.
I'm running 2 Gigabyte GTX 660 OC cards. i7 930 on a Gigabyte x58a-UD3R Motherboard overclocked to 4Ghz.
The average usage on both cards were around 60-79%. CPU usage with the Overclock was 70%. This was on windows 8. HT on etc. This was on multiplayer 60-62 man maps. Memory usage was around 2.5 to 3gb for the game alone. I did however suffer from usage drops due to the 660's having an actual VRAM limit around 1.5gb. Cards are 2gb but because of the 192bit the memory management is actually only effective up to 1584 or something vram. The other 512 then has a reduced bandwidth etc. Anandtech did a review on these cards etc. Anyway. Point is its weird to see these benchmarks and performance. Maybe they haven't sorted out all the issues in the drivers with the new cards for Battlefield 4.

On low - medium settings I was hitting 220fps .

Anyway. I will say this. Battlefield 4 is one of the biggest disappointments due to bugs and performance issues. I've stopped playing till they sort out all these issues and I hope they do.

 

[ZionZA]

So, AMD8350 + 1x 780 classified @ 1080p = never dropping below 60fps on Ultra?

Who knows? Either way my only other option would be hardware change to 780ti or r9 290x or whatever its called.

Or software change to Win8 and hope BF4 and drivers get better.

I really thought a 780ti or 290x would both have been overkill for single 1080p display.

If you have Crysis 3 or can borrow it from a friend just to see how it runs try that. If Crysis 3 runs fine on ultra (which it should) then I have a feeling its Battlefield 4 being the problem and not your PC.