Battlefield 4 Tested, Benchmarked

[Puiu]

I cant understand - on my configuration Phenom 2 X4 965 3.4Ghz/OC 3.9Ghz, 8Gb DDR3, MSI 970A-G46, HIS IceQ X Radeon 7850 2Gb game shows very low FPS regardless of what settings are currently set - on high, low and medium settings it shows 24-35 FPS. Could anyone help with this issue? Drivers are the most fresh, 13.11 beta 8, Windows 7 x64.

is your card heating up? it might cause it to throttle down to keep temps in check.

 

[Betailas]

I cant understand - on my configuration Phenom 2 X4 965 3.4Ghz/OC 3.9Ghz, 8Gb DDR3, MSI 970A-G46, HIS IceQ X Radeon 7850 2Gb game shows very low FPS regardless of what settings are currently set - on high, low and medium settings it shows 24-35 FPS. Could anyone help with this issue? Drivers are the most fresh, 13.11 beta 8, Windows 7 x64.

is your card heating up? it might cause it to throttle down to keep temps in check.

no, temps are normal

 

[Guest]

Im using a 7870 Ghz Edition and honestly, on Ultra settings I'm getting 40+ fps all the time. In fact a lot of the time I get 60 fps.
The only option I turned off is motion blur, because who likes that ? o.o

 

[Guest]

Since this is a very scalable game (8800GT minimum), I had liked to see a a DX10/10.1 GPU like the HD 4850 or GTX 260 included, or even slower. That would have been a good reference for folks on the low-end side.

 

[Steve]

No 1080p garbage bench. 16:10 screens on all test, you guys rule.

Cannot tell if that is sarcasm or not but thanks anyway, we don’t use cheap monitors.

Im using a 7870 Ghz Edition and honestly, on Ultra settings I'm getting 40+ fps all the time. In fact a lot of the time I get 60 fps.
The only option I turned off is motion blur, because who likes that ? o.o

What resolution? I assume its 1680x1050 or lower? No way is it 1080p or greater.

Since this is a very scalable game (8800GT minimum), I had liked to see a a DX10/10.1 GPU like the HD 4850 or GTX 260 included, or even slower. That would have been a good reference for folks on the low-end side.

The idea of these articles is to show gamers what they need to enjoy the game to its fullest, or near enough. Chances are if you are using a 5 year old graphics card you are in the market for an upgrade, or you should be anyway.

 

[Arris]

So far in Campaign @ 2560x1440 with everything ultra but MSAA dropped to 2x I'm usually sitting at 75fps with 2 x 7970 GHz cards. Unfortunately the fps is only slightly lower than my card temperatures as they seem to be around 80-85c :S

 

[GhostRyder]

So far in Campaign @ 2560x1440 with everything ultra but MSAA dropped to 2x I'm usually sitting at 75fps with 2 x 7970 GHz cards. Unfortunately the fps is only slightly lower than my card temperatures as they seem to be around 80-85c :S

Well you are playing one of the most stressful games out right now at a higher resolution with 2 cards on fans sitting next to eachother

So far on Beta 8 Catalyst 13.11, seems like the game is running pretty well even in eyefinity 5760x1080, im actually able with MSAA at 2 times and ultra running with my cards overclocked to 1ghz able to stay in the range of 45-60 which actually makes me happy. Im still waiting on the 290X GPU's to get in stock some year, but im actually satisfied playing the game right now though im mostly sticking to just 1920x1080 unless im going to play for more than 1 or 2 quick games.

 

[Guest]

I completely agree. I'm not sure if it's because of new drivers, but I'm getting over 60 fps with my XFX 7870. I play with everything on Ultra, 4x AA, at 1920 x 1080. I use vsync and the fps stays locked at 60, occasionally flickering to 58 or 59. So, when I saw this article with the 7870 only getting 30 something fps, I can only conclude that they used an older driver or something like that.

My setup:
AMD A10 - 5800k
XFX 7870 Double D.
Ripjaws 1866 ram 8gb
MSI fm2 75x mobo

 

[jtrdfw]

While there is good information in this article, particularly between hyperthreading and not, this can be seriously misleading if not read carefully. While the article does point out this is single player, please understand that these charts would be dramatically different for online play (which I can only assume accounts for the majority of BF4 players).

For example, the AMD's would fall behind by quite a bit. And clock speed makes a huge difference online, when in single player its hardly even a factor. The chart that shows the 2.5 vs 4.0 ghz would be extremely different. Clock speed affects FPS in BF4 multiplayer in an almost linear fashion.

I feel like this information should be noted in a more obvious way before swaying decisions

 

[Boilerhog146]

I completely agree. I'm not sure if it's because of new drivers, but I'm getting over 60 fps with my XFX 7870. I play with everything on Ultra, 4x AA, at 1920 x 1080. I use vsync and the fps stays locked at 60, occasionally flickering to 58 or 59. So, when I saw this article with the 7870 only getting 30 something fps, I can only conclude that they used an older driver or something like that.

My setup:
AMD A10 - 5800k
XFX 7870 Double D.
Ripjaws 1866 ram 8gb
MSI fm2 75x mobo
Steve
↑
No 1080p garbage bench. 16:10 screens on all test, you guys rule.
Click to expand...
Cannot tell if that is sarcasm or not but thanks anyway, we don’t use cheap monitors.

↑

Im using a 7870 Ghz Edition and honestly, on Ultra settings I'm getting 40+ fps all the time. In fact a lot of the time I get 60 fps.
The only option I turned off is motion blur, because who likes that ? o.o
Click to expand...
What resolution? I assume its 1680x1050 or lower? No way is it 1080p or greater.​

if you are cf with the 7660 on the apu ,that may be helping you otherwise your 7870 is screaming at 60 frames at 1080p,, and steve says no way!
I just love my 2560x1600 res Dell 30".gaming was never the same after that purchase..