Battlefield 4 Beta Performance: 16 Graphics Cards, Benchmarked

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
My system is good to go!


****EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****

Sorry, corvetteguy, you're the first so I'm going to hijack your post to answer some common questions:

- Why didn't you mention mantle?
I probably *should* have mentioned it, but at this point it seems a little early. We don't know that much about it and we don't even know exactly when it arrives. Rest assured, when Mantle is rolled out we will cover it!

- Why did you use a Titan in the CPU tests instead of the dual-GPU 690 or 7990?
Dual-GPU performance can be tricky, and without FCAT working, I didn't want to report potential pie-in-the-sky FRAPS performance that is difficult to verify. Titan is the fastest single GPU card we have.

- Why no FX-6000 CPU?
We benched the FX-4170 and FX-8350. The FX-6000 will be in between, there wasn't a colossal spread so it seems pretty straightforward.

- For the love of everything good and pure, why did you use IE?
Haha! Lots of comments on this. I used it because it was there - remember, we clean install for our benchmarks, so unless the test involves browsers we don't bother investing time installing anything else. For the record I feel dirty and violated having opened the software, but you should all know that my personal PC has both Firefox and Chrome installed. :)

Hope that clarifies things!

- Don Woligroski

****END OF EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
 
Would love to see some more detailed CPU benchmarks on a full 64 man conquest server once the game comes out... from some other data out there it looks possible that BF4 multiplayer is the first game to actually benefit from Hyperthreaded i7s over their i5 counterparts.

In 64 man conquest games, doing a FRAPS benchmark of an entire 30 minute round, I got a minimum framerate of 42, average of 74, and max of 118 on my rig (4.8 GHz 2600k || 780 SLI @ 1100/1500 || 16GB DDR3 2133c11) at 1440p with all settings maxed and 120 fov.

Also interesting to see 2GB cards struggling at high res on this game. I really didn't think we'd see that so soon, given that the 780/Titan/7950/7970 are the only cards yet released with >2GB standard memory.
 
I have an 2500k and an 7870xt (7930). As long as I dont max out AA I tend to be able to play at 45-50 fps with a mix of high/ultra on 1080p/ 24" screen.

But not matter what, each time that main building is blown up I loss at least 5 fps for the rest of the round and have big time fps/lag spikes.

Imo you want an 7970/280x and a quad core to be able to play smooth.

Also, I hear a lot about vram...what is the feed back on 2 gigs vs 3 ?
 
I think they focused too much on the bottom end cards (6450, 210). I think anybody that has less than a 6670 probably won't be buying BF4.

I also wish they tested a Radeon and Geforce card that would be considered equal to see how it performs by brand.
 


Considering that mantle wont be available until December, why would it be mentioned? Especially considering the fact that none of the "new" AMD GPUs were included in the benchmarks...
 


Because the whole purpose is to test the CPU, not the GPU so it wouldn't matter what GPU there was it was to show where the game stands on CPU cores which it looks like 2 cores 4 threads is not enough really.
 
Come on. I have a FX-6100 @ 3.5Ghz and a Radeon 7850 2GB with 4 GB RAM and I get like 17-20 FPS at 1280x720 low detail preset... Its extremely frustrating.
 
lol all that ''hd7990 sucks'' we had few months ago, and look what that thing can do, seems like the higher the ress the better and smooth it goes. i have to systems ATM and i cant even start the game. a i7 3930k + titan sli and a fx 3820 7970 cross both with windows 8 i dont see why i cant start it... it stays on loading screen and then gets stuck. im guessing its my OS? idk.
 


Happy to see low-end cards where tested. This at least gives me an idea on what notebooks are capable of.
 


Don explicitly stated the CPU test was GPU bound on the high end. Why would you create a GPU bottleneck in a CPU test?!?! The only thing it does is artificially limit the i5 and i7 making lesser chips look better in comparison.
 
The CPU tests is interesting. I wonder what exactly is being processed on the CPU that needs so many cores. Is it something that can (and should) be done on the GPU, but is just being done on the CPU for the sake of "MOAR Multithreading" >

Also, where are the Mantle tests ?
 
I can't help but notice that there's no overclocked fx8350 benchmark in the CPU test and that at stock speeds the fx8350 has a better minimum than the i5 2500k. I don't want to allege bias or anything but it seems like the overclocked fx8350 benchmarks would be beneficial for comparison's sake.
 
I am just gonna ask something, and really here me out: Has Tomshardware gotten lazy?

I mean no i7-4770K? No other CPU is overclocked? No FX-6300? Where are the phenoms? I would love to see the new i3-4340 benched because I think it could rival th weaker i5's. Other websites are doing these things, when did it start being ok for TH to stop?
 
Right I was thinking this game is not that intense until I hit the 1080p number, LOL, takes a massive hit. So the minimum card you need to be looking at for low resolution is the HD7750/7770.
Lowest card for 1080p is the HD7950. Good thing that is a hotly contested segment at the moment. LOL

WHY would you use Internet Explorer???

3qfmeo.jpg



 


Have you gotten lazy to read?
The title CLEARLY states 16 Graphics Cards, Benchmarked.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom