Battlefield 4 Beta Performance: 16 Graphics Cards, Benchmarked

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anthraxian

Honorable
Oct 15, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
I have an i7 960@3.2gz, MSI GTX680 and 8g ram. I was running around 50fps but dipping into the low 20s. My video card died from one of the fans going out - so I took the opportunity to upgrade to a GTX 780. I also upped my system ram to 16gb. Now running at 80+ high side, but never dips below mid 30s. The worst part is when the building comes down the entire map is covered in fine particles - that's whats killing the fps on most machines. I am happy with my system as is, as I am not some super-human that can detect frame rates faster than 30 FPS. Seems smooth to me - all on ultra of course.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


You are not going to bottleneck a 7770 with that cpu. GPU is actually the bottleneck here. 7770 is just slightly weaker than one of my HD 5850's.

If that i5 2500 is in a P67 board, you can raise the multiplier to its max turbo multiplier and get a bit more speed out of it.
 

Vegeta100

Honorable
Oct 16, 2013
6
0
10,510
0
my specs:
CPU: AMD A10-6800K APU

Motherboard: MSI FM2-A85XMA-E35

Memory: 8gb 1866 Performance Memory

Tower: Fractal Arc Midi R2 Case

Power Supply: Fractal Tesla R2 650W

SSD: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 2.5″ 60GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive

DVD Burner: LG 24X DVD Burner

OS: Windows 8 64-BIT

HardDrive: Seagate Barracuda 1TB

Keyboard88: Logiteck K120

Mouse: Logitech g600

HeadSet: Plantronics GameCom 780


what video card do i need to run bf4???
 

timmmay82

Honorable
Oct 16, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
I didn't have any problem playing the beta at 2560x1440 mix of medium/high detail on my i5/8gb/660ti PC.

The engine doesn't seem any more demanding than Frostbite 2, so its pretty efficient. It had to be with the next-gen consoles not being all that powerful, and x86, making porting/tweaking pretty simple. No longer does the engine need to be customized for multiple CPU architectures!
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


That is entirely based on what resolution and settings you expect to play on. I would probably want, at a very minimum, an HD 7770. 1080p with some of the eye candy turned off should be possible.
 

MEC-777

Honorable
Jun 27, 2013
342
0
10,860
27
Interesting that my 7950 with an i5-4570 delivers +10 fps more than what was shown in this testing.

Why they used a Sandy i5 instead of an Ivy or Haswell in this test, I don't understand. Since this is supposed to be a test of GPU performance, you'd want to remove as much of the CPU bottle neck as possible, no?

I have nothing against the Sandy i5's and I know they are still very capable CPU's, but they are aging and they are not as powerful as the latest generation (comparing at stock clocks). Considering my Haswell i5 hovers around 80-90% usage +/- running this beta with 64 players, I can see how a Sandy i5 might be hitting it limits and restricting some of the GPU's to a degree.

I would have done the test with either an Ivy or Haswell i7 or FX-8350 which we know can all run this game without reaching max usage, thus allowing for a more accurate test of the GPU's in question.

Just my two cents. :)
 

Scotty_Leon

Honorable
Oct 18, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
I have an i7, 2600k, 8gb ram with a gtx 580. I game at 1400p. 27' korean monitor. I was getting bout 30-40 fps. WHich Video card could I get that would give me around 60 fps with my setup?
 




R9 290X / GTX Titan / GTX780 probably the only single cards that could do this.
 

anthonyla65

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2010
45
0
18,540
2
I think quite a few people still run Phenom II X4's and X6's so it would've been cool if that was included. Also it'd be interesting to see how dual cores performance in this such as the Pentiums and how they fare against the FX4170/FX4300.

But overall a good performance review. Looks like I'm gonna have to upgrade my HD5670 now. A HD7870 or GTX660 is to be ordered!
 

kviksand81

Honorable
Jan 5, 2013
59
0
10,640
2
Regarding CPU Benchmarks: Do I sense Tom's Hardware Intel fan-boyism...?

Claiming that AMD doesn't fare as well as the Core i5s and i7s is a bit of a misconception...

1.) The Core i5-2500K on top is overclocked by 900 MHz while the others fare @ stock speed, so let's disregard that one for a moment...

2.) The stock speed i5-2500K scores the highest average FPS but also the largest delta between avg. and min. score (20.3 FPS)

3.) The Core i7-3960X is not exactly your good performance/$ average everyday CPU, but does score a significantly lower delta between avg. and min. score (12.6 FPS) and doesn't bottom out below 60 FPS which is much sought after for "perfect performance"

4.) The FX-8350, which is comparably a bargain against the i7-3960X, scores a delta between avg. and min. of just 10.9 FPS!!! However, it does bottom out below 60 FPS, but not by a high margin.

5.) The 2 CPUs at the bottom doesn't fare too well. The intel gets the better of the AMD by a good margin but comparatively it also has a greater delta between min. and avg FPS (12.7 vs. 9.5). From the perspective that above 40 FPS is playable without any significant issues as such, the AMD does reasonably well. The intel gets the better by attaining an avg. FPS of 61.7 vs 51.5 and considering the cost, the intel does the better job here, although it would have been more interesting with a comparison with the newer AMD FX-4350 which comes at the same clockspeed as the 4170 but should in general achieve better performance according to CPU World and at a slightly lower cost.

- This microprocessor is 5% faster in single-threaded applications.

- In multi-threaded tasks, the processor has 7% better performance.

- In memory-intensive programs, the CPU is 6% faster.
Graphics performance of the microprocessor is higher.

- The CPU supports F16C instructions, that appeared in modern processors not too far ago. These extensions are not broadly supported by applications yet, however their support should improve in future programs.

- The AMD FX-4350 microprocessor incorporates FMA3 instruction set extension. Only AMD CPUs have this technology, thus it probably will not get broad support from software vendors.

-The processor has 5% better price/performance ratio.
And take a peek at CPU World comments on AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-3220:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

This just adds to the tab...!

Returning to the hi-flyers (i5-2500K, i7-3960X and the FX-8350) I would any day rate the i7 and FX-8350 higher than the i5 at stock speed due to the lower delta in FPS. If you crank up the speed of those two babies by the same amount as the i5... Where would the i5 @ OC be then? And I predict, that they (i7-3960X and FX-8350) would still hold lower delta values between min. and avg. FPS, it might even decrease further, as is the case with the overclocked i5 vs. stock i5. You may ask why I find the delta interesting: this solely because a lower delta between min. and avg. with more than adequate FPS already, yields the smoother gameplay, i.e. fluctuations isn't that big!

Taking cost of these CPUs into account... The clear winner is the FX-8350. Everybody with a FX990 AM3+ based motherboard can pop this baby in and get flying! Changing CPU in an intel rig = swap everything, bar your GPU!

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/974/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Extreme_Edition_i7-3960X.html

So please... Be fair in your comparison! You disregard by far too many variables here and compare things you really can't compare so bluntly as you do here. You need to assess such scores a bit more carefully!

BR
 

kviksand81

Honorable
Jan 5, 2013
59
0
10,640
2
Regarding CPU Benchmarks: Do I sense Tom's Hardware Intel fan-boyism...?

Claiming that AMD doesn't fare as well as the Core i5s and i7s is a bit of a misconception...

1.) The Core i5-2500K on top is overclocked by 900 MHz while the others fare @ stock speed, so let's disregard that one for a moment...

2.) The stock speed i5-2500K scores the highest average FPS but also the largest delta between avg. and min. score (20.3 FPS)

3.) The Core i7-3960X is not exactly your good performance/$ average everyday CPU, but does score a significantly lower delta between avg. and min. score (12.6 FPS) and doesn't bottom out below 60 FPS which is much sought after for "perfect performance"

4.) The FX-8350, which is comparably a bargain against the i7-3960X, scores a delta between avg. and min. of just 10.9 FPS!!! However, it does bottom out below 60 FPS, but not by a high margin.

5.) The 2 CPUs at the bottom doesn't fare too well. The intel gets the better of the AMD by a good margin but comparatively it also has a greater delta between min. and avg FPS (12.7 vs. 9.5). From the perspective that above 40 FPS is playable without any significant issues as such, the AMD does reasonably well. The intel gets the better by attaining an avg. FPS of 61.7 vs 51.5 and considering the cost, the intel does the better job here, although it would have been more interesting with a comparison with the newer AMD FX-4350 which comes at the same clockspeed as the 4170 but should in general achieve better performance according to CPU World and at a slightly lower cost.

- This microprocessor is 5% faster in single-threaded applications.

- In multi-threaded tasks, the processor has 7% better performance.

- In memory-intensive programs, the CPU is 6% faster.
Graphics performance of the microprocessor is higher.

- The CPU supports F16C instructions, that appeared in modern processors not too far ago. These extensions are not broadly supported by applications yet, however their support should improve in future programs.

- The AMD FX-4350 microprocessor incorporates FMA3 instruction set extension. Only AMD CPUs have this technology, thus it probably will not get broad support from software vendors.

-The processor has 5% better price/performance ratio.
And take a peek at CPU World comments on AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-3220:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

This just adds to the tab...!

Returning to the hi-flyers (i5-2500K, i7-3960X and the FX-8350) I would any day rate the i7 and FX-8350 higher than the i5 at stock speed due to the lower delta in FPS. If you crank up the speed of those two babies by the same amount as the i5... Where would the i5 @ OC be then? And I predict, that they (i7-3960X and FX-8350) would still hold lower delta values between min. and avg. FPS, it might even decrease further, as is the case with the overclocked i5 vs. stock i5. You may ask why I find the delta interesting: this solely because a lower delta between min. and avg. with more than adequate FPS already, yields the smoother gameplay, i.e. fluctuations isn't that big!

Taking cost of these CPUs into account... The clear winner is the FX-8350. Everybody with a FX990 AM3+ based motherboard can pop this baby in and get flying! Changing CPU in an intel rig = swap everything, bar your GPU!

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/974/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Extreme_Edition_i7-3960X.html

So please... Be fair in your comparison! You disregard by far too many variables here and compare things you really can't compare so bluntly as you do here. You need to assess such scores a bit more carefully!

BR
 

kviksand81

Honorable
Jan 5, 2013
59
0
10,640
2
Regarding CPU Benchmarks: Do I sense Tom's Hardware Intel fan-boyism...?

Claiming that AMD doesn't fare as well as the Core i5s and i7s is a bit of a misconception...

1.) The Core i5-2500K on top is overclocked by 900 MHz while the others fare @ stock speed, so let's disregard that one for a moment...

2.) The stock speed i5-2500K scores the highest average FPS but also the largest delta between avg. and min. score (20.3 FPS)

3.) The Core i7-3960X is not exactly your good performance/$ average everyday CPU, but does score a significantly lower delta between avg. and min. score (12.6 FPS) and doesn't bottom out below 60 FPS which is much sought after for "perfect performance"

4.) The FX-8350, which is comparably a bargain against the i7-3960X, scores a delta between avg. and min. of just 10.9 FPS!!! However, it does bottom out below 60 FPS, but not by a high margin.

5.) The 2 CPUs at the bottom doesn't fare too well. The intel gets the better of the AMD by a good margin but comparatively it also has a greater delta between min. and avg FPS (12.7 vs. 9.5). From the perspective that above 40 FPS is playable without any significant issues as such, the AMD does reasonably well. The intel gets the better by attaining an avg. FPS of 61.7 vs 51.5 and considering the cost, the intel does the better job here, although it would have been more interesting with a comparison with the newer AMD FX-4350 which comes at the same clockspeed as the 4170 but should in general achieve better performance according to CPU World and at a slightly lower cost.

- This microprocessor is 5% faster in single-threaded applications.

- In multi-threaded tasks, the processor has 7% better performance.

- In memory-intensive programs, the CPU is 6% faster.
Graphics performance of the microprocessor is higher.

- The CPU supports F16C instructions, that appeared in modern processors not too far ago. These extensions are not broadly supported by applications yet, however their support should improve in future programs.

- The AMD FX-4350 microprocessor incorporates FMA3 instruction set extension. Only AMD CPUs have this technology, thus it probably will not get broad support from software vendors.

-The processor has 5% better price/performance ratio.
And take a peek at CPU World comments on AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-3220:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

This just adds to the tab...!

Returning to the hi-flyers (i5-2500K, i7-3960X and the FX-8350) I would any day rate the i7 and FX-8350 higher than the i5 at stock speed due to the lower delta in FPS. If you crank up the speed of those two babies by the same amount as the i5... Where would the i5 @ OC be then? And I predict, that they (i7-3960X and FX-8350) would still hold lower delta values between min. and avg. FPS, it might even decrease further, as is the case with the overclocked i5 vs. stock i5. You may ask why I find the delta interesting: this solely because a lower delta between min. and avg. with more than adequate FPS already, yields the smoother gameplay, i.e. fluctuations isn't that big!

Taking cost of these CPUs into account... The clear winner is the FX-8350. Everybody with a FX990 AM3+ based motherboard can pop this baby in and get flying! Changing CPU in an intel rig = swap everything, bar your GPU!

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/974/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Extreme_Edition_i7-3960X.html

So please... Be fair in your comparison! You disregard by far too many variables here and compare things you really can't compare so bluntly as you do here. You need to assess such scores a bit more carefully!

BR
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


FX 4300 is close in performance at stock to that of a Phenom II 965, generally.
 

Lee Yong Quan

Honorable
Sep 23, 2013
113
0
10,710
14


IMO i thought that a hd 7750 would be fine and you can do a hybrid cfx. This is only suitable for gaming at below 1080p and at medium to high.
 

xCaRpEDieM

Honorable
Oct 25, 2013
17
0
10,510
0
Why didn't you post results with the 7850 or 650Ti BE? You could have benched only one of these cards at least because it looks like a giant hole missing in the middle of th e high setting benchmark charts.
 

MEC-777

Honorable
Jun 27, 2013
342
0
10,860
27


Grab another 4GB stick and you'll be fine for some time yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS