BattleField 4 Performance AMD vs Nvidia

[Xrqute]

But if I get the exact same cards then they'll match and look much better.

Well if you can't get the same. Take off the coolers, put them on water and you'll never know the difference they'll just look like two Wc'd cards.

 

[SuB]

But I thought you needed 10GB of vram for this, oh wait... hopefully this review will stop alot of the vram scaremongering that's going on. System cruncher you say hah, good one.

It's funny, because the requirement is 3GB, and I will 'scare' you by saying I see the game use 2.5GB on a nightly basis Good one eh?

Also good to see that DICE got the graphics optimizations done pretty solidly on release.

This is quite funny, they are STILL plagued with issues, crashes and a bunch of other stuff. Systems that didn't work, were stable and then now crash in almost every game... EA screwed this release up. You'll see from my previous posts I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as my experience was largely un-touched by the issues. But they are starting to rear their ugly head with fellow players now.

As for optimisation, that's a complete joke. There isn't THAT much visual improvement over BF3 to be fair and it's no where near as optimised as it could be.

While I'm happy overall with this game, there is still a lot left for DICE to do, while EA push push push for closer release dates etc....

Still think we need Multiplayer benches, the single player isn't really what I'd consider 'representative' of the final product.

 

[ShaunB-91]

Some issues should be patched up today, or is it tomorrow?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ba...-pc-gets-another-patch-tomorrow/1100-6416509/

 

[barnsley]

If you get a 270x/270 you don't need to get BF4 as the asus ones (not sure about the others) come with it.

 

[Wolvie87]

And here's me playing on a 6970 :huh:

 

[ShaunB-91]

And here's me playing on a 6970 :huh:

What's it like?

 

[Wolvie87]

Plays in Custom> High with a few settings on ultra, smooth as a baby's bum

 

[xRavaged]

And here's me playing on a 6970 :huh:

Ha, and I'm here stuck with my 6950...
Weird how to can run fairly smooth high in multiplayer, only issue is when zooming in on recon, can definitely tell the card is struggling, poor frame rate....
Haven't testing in campaign properly tho, so probably only runs on medium ?

I need of an upgrade!

 

[SieB]

Ha, and I'm here stuck with my 6950...
Weird how to can run fairly smooth high in multiplayer, only issue is when zooming in on recon, can definitely tell the card is struggling, poor frame rate....
Haven't testing in campaign properly tho, so probably only runs on medium ?

I need of an upgrade!

Even my 7950 gets frame dips when zooming in with sniper rifles scopes

I read somewhere that it's because even though you are looking down the scope that it still renders the map as if you are unscoped, plus it has to render what you are looking at down your scope. So basically your GPU is rendering more when scoped than when unscoped.

 

[xRavaged]

Arhhh so the GPU is working twice as hard rendering :L
Either way, I hate my XFX card, cant really overclock it to unlock shaders or anything... Don't think I could even crossfire it... No bridge connection?

 

[SparkleDJackson]

What the flip tom. You didnt sign out with the invisble pen click. I rewatched the ending to make sure I wasnt not seeing things

 

[cooperman]

Well this pretty much makes the R9 290X a GTX titan ---> a over overpriced pointless (to gamers) card that makes a GTX780/R9 290 look cheap....

 

[Excalabur50]

Th one thing I don't understand is why do all reviews focus on single player mode when the real test of performance is multiplayer it's like driving your car down the road where the speed limit is posted at 30mph or 60kph versus driving it on a race track where the speed is unlimited, total chalk and cheese scenario

 

[Warchild]

Because MP is too random.

You cannot compare gfx cards or benchmark MP when even using the same gpu, the FPS will vary from map to map, or even the same map.

 

[Chopper3]

I'd have liked to have seen the results when played at 1920 - I went 120hz rather than 2560 so care more about that aspect - but I do appreciate TTL only has so many hours in the day to do this sort of stuff.

 

[SuB]

Because MP is too random.

You cannot compare gfx cards or benchmark MP when even using the same gpu, the FPS will vary from map to map, or even the same map.

while this is true, battlefield is designed for multiplayer, and as such, it's pointless seeing singleplayer figures because that's not the usual usage scenario of the game...

It's a good way to get solid/repeatable results, granted but.. in my opinion it's still not the 100% correct thing to show. When the shit hits the fan in multiplayer you need to know your titan is gonna cut the mustard...

 

[Preed]

I'm sticking to my ideals and not buying anything from Nvidia since I don't like their way of doing business a'la Apple. So even if the 780Ti was half the price of a 290X I would still not buy one..

 

[ShaunB-91]

Can Tom even survive long enough in BF4 multiplayer to get some scores, I mean...the respawn point is pretty empty and quite so he'll be on some good high fps there.

The multiplayer is the proper task but it's way to random, you'd have to test for hours, one map (from my experience) could throw a good 80-90fps at you and your there with tight jeans, next round/map your at 40.

 

[Chopper3]

Public multiplayer runs are inherently a bad benchmark - if games developers wanted they could setup benchmark-specific servers with scripted and predictable 'other players' that reviewers could test against but I'm not aware of them doing this and in lieu of these I'd rather not see wildly-varying benchmarks.