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

[Gabriel1987]

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

 

[jaguarskx]

In reply to the following deleted response (deleted by a different moderator) by the original poster..

oh really sheriff?mantle is not applied yet, so don't say something when you have no info about...You are starting flame wars here and how the hell can Gaidax choose the best answer in my thread/post...I had already warned that, this thread is for information purposes only and aren't you biased, you disappoint me really...the most disgusting thing I have ever seen, biased moderators

The title of the thread is very misleading. It does not reflect the actual results reflected in the actual review with all the benchmarks. If the thread was for information purposes only, then you should have a title that was less sensational, and more importantly not entirely false.

I did not say "mantle is not applied yet", I stated AMD should be given preliminary credit for the Mantle API. Because the game is developed with the Mantle API it is impossible to say what it's performance would be like without it. Thus, it is difficult to state actually how good Mantle actually is just based on a single game. More games developed with Mantle will need to be assessed before it can be determined if AMD's Mantle helps level the playing field and allows developers to "truly" bring out all the potential performance in PC hardware.

With regards to "starting a flame war", perhaps you should actually read your own posts to understand just what type of language is needed to start a flame war.

 

[REQUIEM-2]

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.

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.

There is no need to go further, all cpus are pretty much even here, I don't see what is the topic all about, yes fx 8350 is a little better but 1-2 fps!? will that count? but you are mistaken here Gaidax, because if this were true, then nobody would upgrade, the majority of people have 2-4gb of ram why does call of duty ghost need 6 gb?

 

[JOOK-D]

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.

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.

Yeah I guess so. I don't really care as long as the game runs comfortably at over 60 FPS. Anything more is overkill (for me) and since I only have a 60hz monitor I won't really see any real benefit. I'm still planning to build an intel rig here soon, just for fun more than anything so I'll be curious as to what my own benches would show the difference between the CPUs for my own uses. Veered a bit off topic haha.

I hope they do care for more than quads, for my own sake LOL. BTW you might not even remember, it might have been last week, but I think it was you who linked in a thread a graph of steam's user base and how many cores their processors had, and dual/quad was the most popular. Do you think that the FX 8xxx series could have been included in that due to some programs recognising it as 8 cores and some as 4 cores with modules or w/e? It's not really important, just something that's been on my mind. If I remembered incorrectly and that wasn't you then don't worry haha.

Update: You just linked it again so it probably was you 😛

 

[Gaidax]

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.

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.

There is no need to go further, all cpus are pretty much even here, I don't see what is the topic all about, yes fx 8350 is a little better but 1-2 fps!? will that count? but you are mistaken here Gaidax, because if this were true, then nobody would upgrade, the majority of people have 2-4gb of ram why does call of duty ghost need 6 gb?

I am not mistaken because of the following: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

It is a very powerful built-in hardware survey by Steam - notice that about 98% of all PCs' with Steam installed have 4 cores or less.

In an environment where basically every gaming computer is Quad core or lower it would only make sense that developers would first of all go on and optimize for 4 cores or less, which is exactly the case here.

I guess they are not very concerned about anything more than that, kinda makes sense because the costlier builds won't really suffer, their e-peen will just be hurt, but nothing gamebreaking really. I guess eventually they will patch in improved support for those, but it is logical that it is not really a highest priority for them.

And yes, this lack of I7 support is annoying, but honestly - the frames I'll get will be good really, so whatever anyway.

 

[con635]

The next gen is all about gpu power and vram, cpu is becoming less of a bottleneck, look at the budget cpus i3, fx 4300, good news for all, cant wait to play it.

 

[REQUIEM-2]

It is true Gaidax ,but this is not how technology works. I have i5-3570k and I am really happy with it, but it is not true to say because people have dual cores so dual cores will be, this way, we should stay still forever, read this article http://www.tomshardware.com/news/call-of-duty-ghosts-watch-dogs-system-specs-pc-gaming,24580.html , does ubisoft care that most people run 32 bit operating systems or most people have 2gb of ram? I don't think so

 

[Shneiky]

Ok, Gabriel1987 had his fun, now let's send him home.

 

[Gaidax]

does ubisoft care that most people run 32 bit operating systems or most people have 2gb of ram? I don't think so

The reverse is true as well, neither they care for people with overclocked I7s' and high end SLIs'... Those enthusiast guys are not where the money is and they care for money.

Case in point - overwhelming amount of people have Quad/Dual cores and the games are optimized accordingly, I mean you see the data before your own eyes - both Steam and Benchmark, really.

This situation will last for a good 4-5 years from now, the only chance for a change is if AMD will flood the market with cheap and attractive Hexa/Octa core APUs', which they intend to do, but even then the adoption rate will be slow and until Intel won't decide to make Hexacores mainstream in their desktop line - it won't go far anyway.

Another chance is with some really popular game coming out that NEEDS hexacores. but I doubt any publisher has the balls to mess with 98% of the potential customers.

 

[Gaidax]

Ok, Gabriel1987 had his fun, now let's send him home.

Meh, he will just register (yet again) with some fake email and he is back here trolling us again.

The system is flawed. That dude was perma-banned at least twice in the last 2 weeks, he is just coming back again and again with new usernames.

 

[Gaidax]

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.

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.

There is no need to go further, all cpus are pretty much even here, I don't see what is the topic all about, yes fx 8350 is a little better but 1-2 fps!? will that count? but you are mistaken here Gaidax, because if this were true, then nobody would upgrade, the majority of people have 2-4gb of ram why does call of duty ghost need 6 gb?

I am not mistaken because of the following: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

It is a very powerful built-in hardware survey by Steam - notice that about 98% of all PCs' with Steam installed have 4 cores or less.

In an environment where basically every gaming computer is Quad core or lower it would only make sense that developers would first of all go on and optimize for 4 cores or less, which is exactly the case here.

I guess they are not very concerned about anything more than that, kinda makes sense because the costlier builds won't really suffer, their e-peen will just be hurt, but nothing gamebreaking really. I guess eventually they will patch in improved support for those, but it is logical that it is not really a highest priority for them.

And yes, this lack of I7 support is annoying, but honestly - the frames I'll get will be good really, so whatever anyway.

does ubisoft care that most people run 32 bit operating systems or most people have 2gb of ram? I don't think so

The reverse is true as well, neither they care for people with overclocked I7s' and high end SLIs'... Those enthusiast guys are not where the money is and they care for money.

Case in point - overwhelming amount of people have Quad/Dual cores and the games are optimized accordingly, I mean you see the data before your own eyes - both Steam and Benchmark, really.

This situation will last for a good 4-5 years from now, the only chance for a change is if AMD will flood the market with cheap and attractive Hexa/Octa core APUs', which they intend to do, but even then the adoption rate will be slow and until Intel won't decide to make Hexacores mainstream in their desktop line - it won't go far anyway.

Steam stats is the last place I'd look. It took over 4 years before steam popped up again and asked me to participate, which I promptly declined. 4 years, that's about 2 builds behind on my schedule.

Well mate, even if you don't believe that - just use your own logics...

What hexacores and ocracores we have out now? FX-6/8 line (with Bulldozer being extremely unpopular) and Intel Extremes... that's it.

Do you really think that any more than let's be generous 5%, heck, 10% of the gaming population has either of those, especially is you add the laptops to the mix?

I am sure that survey is pretty accurate, maybe a couple % off here and there, but it's definitely has a lot of data in.

 

[Gaidax]

And most people in the stats have intel hd4000 as their "graphics" .. I mean come on.

Think of all the laptops... pretty popular there, mate.

Look, you may not like it, but that's the data from tens of thousands of reports worldwide there. It is as accurate as it gets.

 

[Gabriel1987]

Ok, Gabriel1987 had his fun, now let's send him home.

Meh, he will just register (yet again) with some fake email and he is back here trolling us again.

The system is flawed. That dude was perma-banned at least twice in the last 2 weeks, he is just coming back again and again with new usernames.

I am who? what is this mirage!? you are accusing me? that's not good at all, I don't know who has done what to you or if you are drunk or something, but that's very rude

 

[Gabriel1987]

people have not upgraded because they didn't need to, will you upgrade your personal computer, when you can max out all games? how about when you can't?

 

[Gaidax]

Ok, Gabriel1987 had his fun, now let's send him home.

Meh, he will just register (yet again) with some fake email and he is back here trolling us again.

The system is flawed. That dude was perma-banned at least twice in the last 2 weeks, he is just coming back again and again with new usernames.

I am who? what is this mirage!? you are accusing me? that's not good at all, I don't know who has done what to you or if you are drunk or something, but that's very rude

Cute...especially since you registered the day Samuel25 was banned and you conveniently act just like him and Darkresurrection with your posts up to the minor details like "good luck to all" and bold text.

Just be quiet and lay low, really. This is pathetic.


Anyway, I'm out, this thread is exhausted really - sweet dreams and all.

 

[Gabriel1987]

Ok, Gabriel1987 had his fun, now let's send him home.

Meh, he will just register (yet again) with some fake email and he is back here trolling us again.

The system is flawed. That dude was perma-banned at least twice in the last 2 weeks, he is just coming back again and again with new usernames.

I am who? what is this mirage!? you are accusing me? that's not good at all, I don't know who has done what to you or if you are drunk or something, but that's very rude

Cute...especially since you registered the day Samuel25 was banned and you conveniently act just like him and Darkresurrection with your posts up to the minor details like "good luck to all" and bold text.

Just be quiet and lay low, really. This is pathetic.


Anyway, I'm out, this thread is exhausted really - sweet dreams and all.

are you psychotic or something?! :lol: I hope you have sweet dreams really, but I am really worried about you

 

[Memnarchon]

Hello.
There is an other site with different results while testing at:

The former test standard multiplayer map Siege of Shanghai as an option for the 64 players.

HardwarePal (I will not link the entire image cause its massive, they are checking hell a lot CPUs and OC versions)

Here is the whole article to whoever wants to read: HardwarePal Battlefield 4 - test CPU and graphics card (Multi and Single) (its also translated via google to english).

 

[jaguarskx]

This thread is getting out of hand.

It is now officially closed.