BATTLEFIELD 4 MULTIPLAYER benchmarks are out, FX cpus better than all i5s and i7s

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gabriel1987

Honorable
Nov 4, 2013
32
0
10,530
As you can see in multiplayer FX CPUs are better than even the expensive i7 4770k , FX CPUs seem to have won the battle, both single player and multiplayer......we are waiting for that game as well... we chose hardware pal, because it altogether loves Intel, so no one can nag about its being biased
BF4 MULTILAYER: http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/
BF4 SINGLE PLAYER
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/ this was one of the most cpu dependant levels of single player campaign
good luck everyone
 
Solution
jaguarskx
The title of this thread is actually very misleading and biased.

BATTLEFIELD 4 MULTIPLAYER benchmarks are out, FX cpus better than all i5s and i7s

Below is one of the benchmarks from the link. There are actual several benchmarks and I will likely make several posts, one for each of the results for ultra and high settings during the course of the day (maybe 2 days) since I need to focus on work and got other things to do. I will basically compare the FX-8350 to the i5-4670k.

In the charts below for the GTX 660 @ 2560x1440 Ultra Settings for Win 7, both the FX-8350 gets 39 FPS, but the i5-4670k gets 40 FPS. Both gets the same average FPS of 34, but the FX-8350 is provide 29 FPS vs 27 FPS minimum FPS. Overall...
Sort by date Sort by votes
I7 2600K = FX 8350 (one has 1 more avg the other has 1 more max fps so thats equal) < I7 4770k

Well nice to see that 2 years after Sandy, AMD CPU department has closed the gap. Oh wait, there is Haswell now.

Anyway I was expecting AMD GPUs to be a lot better here. Guess new drivers will fix that.

P.S I do not support Intel, NVidia or AMD, I get what is best for me. (P.S2 I am Intel CPU and AMD GPU fan)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ah my bad, gtk too. Regardless I'm surprised that a FX 6300 could outperform an 8350. And by that margin. I know the site says that it was optimised for it, but I'm still not convinced.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If buying new, I still wouldn't buy a haswell. I would save $150 or so and buy an FX 8320 and use the extra $150 towards a faster GPU. FX 8320 will match and FX 8350 in speed. If I were rich and could afford the best of the best, I still wouldn't buy haswell. I would jump up to ivy-e. :lol: Haswell doesn't really impress me at all. I would only consider one if the price was equal to ivy and I absolutely had to go Intel. Only system that I own that has to be Intel is my file server since I use the Intel motherboard raid for my Raid 5. If my gaming rig crashed, I would just pick up an FX 8320 motherboard combo at microcenter. It would be $50 cheaper than another 3570k combo and $75 cheaper than 4670k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Tomshardware had done it in beta...This is not the beta, is the final release, no flame wars please...this thread is only for information.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yes I've been informed of that. That title isn't accurate though since the FX's don't win in every test. You could possibly alter it to avoid a flame war haha. It'll be interesting to see any new benchmarks that arise and whether or not they agree with these. I'm guessing these high res benches won't apply to everyone like 1920x1080s would. Looking forward to it. If you find any more could you post them here?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Sorry but your anology is void here, in sinle player fx 8350 outperformed i5 4670k and in multiplayer even fx 6350 is better than i7-4770k I dont see where your anology came from pal :lol: but thanks anyhow
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You would spend less now but more in the long run if you went with ivy bridge instead of Haswell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

It seems we should get used to it I have heard the same story about Call of duty ghost Those involved in testing have rumored that fx 8350 outperforms i5 4670k by 7-8 fps ...anyhow the new generation has already kicked off, and that's just the beginning!!! That is not the first game altogether, MOH Warfighter, Call of duty black ops 2, crysis 3, bf3, bf4 in all these games atleast fx 8350 outperforms at least i5 3570k...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


So say your benchmarks are valid... You can tell absolutely no different with just the naked eye. Imo stats can say one thing but If you can tell no difference when playing then I don't see why people make a fuss over it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I edited my post just a little too late, I added some stuff. w/e

I hope so since I have the 8320 but I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes 😉 I wonder if nextgen games really are going further towards more multi-threading... slightly off topic but the only game I'm even looking forward to is GTA V and I don't think it's even been announced officially for PC yet :??:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



I really hope they release it for pc....oh Rockstar :kaola: ....I am really angry with them
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


As long as it's not the mess that GTA IV was I'm fine with it. 😛
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Agreed. It's funny how there were some intel fans boasting about these kind of stats on some other games not too long ago though. Not sure, not that it matters anyway, a few fans don't represent all and I don't want to accuse someone of something they didn't do. W/e, fans exist on both sides and everyone wants the best for their money. As you said, if you can't see the difference and they perform well then everything's fine. Realistic tests > seeing if something performs better on low settings at 800x600 just for bragging rights lol. Not sure what to make of these recent benches by hardwarepal, hopefully we see more from different places soon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The title of this thread is actually very misleading and biased.

BATTLEFIELD 4 MULTIPLAYER benchmarks are out, FX cpus better than all i5s and i7s

Below is one of the benchmarks from the link. There are actual several benchmarks and I will likely make several posts, one for each of the results for ultra and high settings during the course of the day (maybe 2 days) since I need to focus on work and got other things to do. I will basically compare the FX-8350 to the i5-4670k.

In the charts below for the GTX 660 @ 2560x1440 Ultra Settings for Win 7, both the FX-8350 gets 39 FPS, but the i5-4670k gets 40 FPS. Both gets the same average FPS of 34, but the FX-8350 is provide 29 FPS vs 27 FPS minimum FPS. Overall, equal performance. The FX-4300 seems to come out marginally ahead of the FX-8350. Looking at Win 8 the results are nearly identical. The FX-8350 get 1 more FPS in minimum FPS. The i5-4670k loses 1 FPS for average FPS. Overall, equal performance.

With the Radeon HD 7870 GPU, things are a little different. Using Win 7 the max FPS for the FX-8350 is 40 while the i5-4670k gets only 36. Average FPS, the FX-8350 get 32 while the i5-4670k gets 31. Minimum FPS, the FX-8350 gets 22 while the i5-4670 manages a bit more at 25. Overall, both are equal since the average FPS is nearly identical, but as stated before, the FX-8350 does manage to get higher max FPS (4 more FPS), so the FX-8350 wins. Interestingly enough the FX-6300 provides better performance than the FX-8350.

When switching over to Win 8, the i5-4670k beats the FX-8350 on max FPS; 42 vs 40. Average FPS for the i5-4670k is 36, while the FX-8350 was able to get 35. Minimum FPS the 4670k manages to get 1 FPS higher than the 8350. Overall, since the benchmarks are pretty close to each other, both provide equal performance. Again, the FX-6300 manages to get marginally better results than the FX-8350.

With the very minor exception of the Radeon HD 7870 benchmarks in Win 7 where the FX-8350 was able to get 4 more Max FPS, than the i5-4670k, both AMD and Intel CPUs provide comparable performance.

DICE did a very good job with improving multiplayer performance for AMD CPUs and AMD should get some preliminary credit too for the Mantle API,since it is basically impossible to determine how Battlefield 4 performs without Mantle.


Battlefield-4-2560-x-1440-Ultra-Settings-GTX-660-vs-7870.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


Why would I be spending more in the long run? Ivy is fine to at least skylake. Hasfail adds nothing I need to justify the sometimes $40 difference in price for board and CPU. I could find better things to spend $40 on than a measly 5-10% performance boost over Ivy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:

It seems I am jumping around a bit, I meant to analyze the ultra settings for 2560x1440, but instead the following analysis is for high settings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This set of benchmarks include the beta results, but I will just focus on the official release results for Win 7 and Win 8. Again, the main focus will be on the i5-4670k and the FX-8350. I will state ahead of time that the FX-8350 gets outperformed by the FX-6300, and somewhat outperformed by the FX-4300.

When paired up with a GTX 770 @ 2560x1440 on high settings and Win 7, the Intel i5-4670k manages 81 max FPS versus only 72 max FPS by the FX-8350. Intel leads again in average FPS scoring 73 FPS vs. only 62 FPS for AMD. The story remains the same for minimum FPS but with an even larger performance gap of 65 for Intel and only 49 for AMD. Might as well save a few bucks more and buy the FX-6300 for better performance than the FX-8350.

Under Win 8 both Intel and AMD CPUs perform better overall; clearly Win 8 provides better gaming performance than Win; at least for Battlefield 4. While the dual core i3-4340 performance pretty well in Win 7, it benefits the most in Win 8 when paired with the GTX 770 scoring the 2nd highest max FPS rate of 83. This clearly shows that a dual core CPU with HT is still a contender in multiplayer games.Both the i5-4670k and FX-8350 gains some performance. Intel still wins, but AMD gained 9 FPS for minimum FPS vs. "only" gains 7 for minimum FPS. The FX-4300 loses a bit of max FPS, but minimum and average FPS went up a bit so... overall better performance for the FX-4300.

Let's look that results for the Radeon HD 7970 instead of the GTX 770 in Win 7. This is interesting... all the CPUs lost some performance with the Radeon HD 7970, the exception is the i5-4670k which gained 4 max FPS, and gain 1 FPS for both average and minimum FPS. The "lowly dual core". The FX-8350 lost some performance; a pretty steep drop of 11 on max FPS, with a 2 FPS drop in average FPS and just 1 FPS drop for minimum. The FX-6300 still outperforms the FX-8350. Looking at the Win 8 side of the benchmarks, again all the CPUs gains some performance, with the exception of the dual core i3-4340 which is the only looser of the bunch. The i7-4770k max FPS surged forward by 15, average FPS by 13 and min FPS by a "mere" 11. The i5-4670k performs about the same compared to Win 7 gaining only 1 max FPS. The FX-8350 gets a much needed performance gain, but still lags behind i5-4670k. The FX-6300 still manages to beat it's bigger brother.

If the quoted title "...FX cpus better than all i5s and i7s" actually means that the FX CPU get lower performance than the i5 / i7 CPUs, then perhaps my command of the English language is as good as I thought it was.

Maybe I am reading the performance charts wrong... I thought higher FPS is better than lower FPS... Perhaps after drinking a bottle of scotch my thought process will become much clearer...

Battlefield-4-Benchmark-2560-x-1440-High-Settings-NVidia-770-GTX-4GB-vs-7970.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


He provides the said information, while you are just a troll AMD fanboy seeking to start a flame war by posting intentionally misleadingly named thread that has nothing to do with reality.

Also, I wonder how much longer can you avoid the banhammer with fake mail accounts Darkressurection/Samuel25/whatever - I can smell your writing style from miles because it just consists of nervous outburst of rage, bold font usage and random accusations.

Really, isn't there some IP ban or something?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


How can a thread be about accurate information when the premise that you started with in your title is clearly contradicted by the evidence that you provided?

Nothing indicates that FX series microprocessors perform better than even i5 series microprocessors, much less quad or hex core i7 microprocessors. The performance of FX series microprocessors is good and AMD certainly has good value proposition here but it's not better than Intel's microprocessors as you claim.

If you're betting on Mantle to provide a performance boost to FX series processors that would propel them above Intel processors also running Mantle then that would constitute speculation rather than information as no empirical evidence of Mantle's advantages exists as of yet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Honestly I did warn you about changing the title Gabriel, these guys have a point, and one that I made earlier.

BTW can anyone explain to me how the 4300/6300 are outperforming the 8350? Is it just the optimisation as the article stated? Or is there something else? Less cores that are beefier > more cores that are weaker-type-situation?

Cheers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


It is probably more of an issue with supporting anything more than 4 cores properly, really. I guess DICE has a lot of fixing to do.

Or maybe they just don't care for anything with more than 4 cores, since dual/quads is what the majority of the population got anyway, so they tailored it to the masses.


And you are spot on about the thread title, it's just disgusting and is instantly stirring up the hive, especially since it is an outright lie.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom