Battlefield 4 Tested, Benchmarked

By on October 31, 2013, 1:29 AM

With roots that stretch back more than a decade and enough fans to justify new content every year, Battlefield is among the handful of franchises that needs no introduction around here. Even if you hate EA's approach modern military madness, you can typically expect Battlefield's graphics to raise the bar. This year's release is no different, of course, having been built with an updated version of the Frostbite engine.

Frostbite 3 enables more realistic environments with higher resolution textures and particle effects. Part of this includes a "networked" water system that ensures all players in a game see the same wave at the same time. Beyond the networking voodoo happening behind the scenes, Battlefield 4's waves are an incredible spectacle. Water battles in small vessels are exciting as your vision can be blocked by passing waves.

Read the complete article.




User Comments: 59

Got something to say? Post a comment
TechGamer TechGamer said:

Once I saw the amd cpu both six core and eight core held up with all the intel 300$ range and the 250$ range I was impressed good optimization I like it

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Once I saw the amd cpu both six core and eight core held up with all the intel 300$ range and the 250$ range I was impressed good optimization I like it
Thats not really saying much since there was only 2 frames per second difference between i3 and i7. It only proves the game is not very CPU dependent.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

Wow, there probably won't be a card that can max this game in the 200 dollars range for a year and a half.

Xtreme gamer said:

^ true. But running it at maxed (ultra) settings means AA is at X4 I think.

Just customise the settings to everything set at Ultra except AA and it will boost FPS a lot.

indiangamer said:

Great performance review. I have been playing it from release and loving it.

I have one question. I have seen some rumors that BF4 performs almost 30% better on win 8 than on win 7. Can you confirm that?

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Fine work, I'm not going to complain or anything but I was running my 780 on this game (Stock clocks) and I was getting higher than 30fps on average at 1440p? The map only had 12 players on though and I was just standing around setting my controls up.

I guess if it's anything like BF3 though, expect some massive updates that will improve this a lot!

1 person liked this | TechGamer TechGamer said:

Thats not really saying much since there was only 2 frames per second difference between i3 and i7. It only proves the game is not very CPU dependent.

well ye I get your point but I mean that at last we aint seeing all amd cpus at the bottom of the chart but these are expected results to be honest since ea were working with amd but I do get ur point should of took another perspective of the view ty for getting to that point

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

but I mean that at last we aint seeing all amd cpus at the bottom of the chart
That is nice to see.

1 person liked this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Single and multiplayer seem to be mirroring BF3's initial release. Single favours AMD's architecture, MP favours Nvidia's.

[PCLabs]

I have one question. I have seen some rumors that BF4 performs almost 30% better on win 8 than on win 7. Can you confirm that?

Check out page 7 of the PCLabs review. Single player and multiplayer exhibit an interesting comparison under Win7 and 8.1

Arris Arris said:

Think I might sacrifice MSAA to get the frame rate a little higher. Played a few games at 2650x1440 with lowest setting for AA and not really noticed much in the way of jaggies. Nice review and glad to see the inclusion of CF and SLi.

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Great job, as always,

frame time chart shows "higher is better"

Guest said:

The CPU benchmarks in single player are completely irrelevant, there is a huge difference between single player and multiplayer, especially on 64 player servers.

While SP shows almost no scaling, the MP is very different, with very noticeable differences. There is simply a lot more going on in MP and just like BF3, BF4 will show very big frame rate differences based on number of players and what is going on on server (amount of shooting, destruction).

That's what I would like to see, some MP benchmarks even though there is a lot of variance in results based on what happens on the server there is enough reproducibility to paint a clear picture of the CPU hierarchy.

Puiu Puiu said:

I might have missed it while reading. what drivers did they use?

ikesmasher said:

Oh god, that kills my GPU....

1 person liked this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

I might have missed it while reading. what drivers did they use?

Page 1...

Nvidia Forceware 331.65 Beta

AMD Catalyst 13.11 (Beta 7)

Guest said:

Once I saw the amd cpu both six core and eight core held up with all the intel 300$ range and the 250$ range I was impressed good optimization [image link]

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Proud owner of HD 7950 Dual X -Sugoi !! :D :D :D

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Great review, seems like MSAA is a killer again.

Can't believe how there can be so much of a difference betwen single and multi player. Doesn't exactly bode well for someone like me running AMD GPUs and Windows 7!

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Yea, this is different than I was expecting based on the beta, im able to stay in the range of 60FPS on ultra on a 1080p screen very well on my 6990's minus a few drops below 60 every once in awhile (However my GPU's are stressed most of the time). Trying this in 5760x1080 eyefinityon ultra even with my cards all clocked to 1ghz on the vcore does not allow for great FPS, staying above 45 FPS is pretty hard right now and the GPU's are stressed out over the game. Well BF4, you win this round thanks to newegg, but I will have my revenge soon enough.

Fine work, I'm not going to complain or anything but I was running my 780 on this game (Stock clocks) and I was getting higher than 30fps on average at 1440p? The map only had 12 players on though and I was just standing around setting my controls up.

I guess if it's anything like BF3 though, expect some massive updates that will improve this a lot!

Well remember @Burty117 it is all dependent on the map and the players, in BF3 Caspian border for instance was more stressful on my GPU's for some reason than Wake Island even though Wake island should have been more stressful due to its size and what's going on on the map. Have not done much of the campaign as of yet, mostly multiplayer and it seems pretty nice so far in terms of optimizing, though im anxious now to upgrade because im keeping my Cards overclocked to ensure the 60 FPS is constant on a 64 player map (well as constant as possible, its still battlefield)

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I have 680s in sli and my configuration can't handle 5970x1080 on ultra settings. I was going to use tri-sli, but after seeing this review I'm feeling that it still may not be enough. Would it be possible to get an update from someone that has dual R9-290x cards in crossfire? I'm definitely eyeing those cards and I might pull the trigger on two if I can find two of them. Anyone running 290x cards in crossfire?

Techspot: if you guys get a hold of a second 290x, could you give us an update on crossfire?

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I forgot to say: excellent review and great turnaround considering those drivers have only been out for two days!

---agissi--- ---agissi---, TechSpot Paladin, said:

No image quality comparisons showing me the difference between gfx level settings? that review felt lacking, aside from the great benchmarks.

EEatGDL said:

I'm sorry, maybe I came here with wrong expectations but... is this supposed to use Mantle? Or what is the title that will make use of Mantle?

Eddo22 said:

"For example, the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors."

You make it sound bad. If all the benchmarking programs and games utilized all of AMD's 8 cores, their processors would be a much more attractive product.

Also, Id like to see the Fx-9370 in reviews. I realize its a special cpu, but at $250 it fits right in with AMD's other processors, plus you wouldn't have to do as much overclocking for the results section.

WaveZero said:

I'm wondering what about RAM speeds? Corsair did a blog about it and showed massive FPS increases. I wonder if that is true.

Link:

[link]

Boilerhog146 Boilerhog146 said:

Decent Review. thankyou..

During the Beta I read that ultra settings in the final release would be harder on hardware than it was in the Beta ,I guess ultra is the same ,retail or beta?

I played at ultra on Dual 4 gig 670's @ 2560x 1600 and managed to hang in the 50 + f/s range, no complaints here. glad too see cpu not such an impact to gameplay.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Personally, I would like to see more CrossfireX and SLi setups for the 1600p benchmarks. For a game of this magnitude please include CrossfireX 7950's/7970's and SLi 670's, 680's, 770's and 780's.

Having SLi 660Ti's in a benchmark here or there to go off of is not enough. Not saying every review needs this, but this is a very hardware intensive game and I was really looking forward to seeing how SLi 670's, not 660Ti's, would do at 1600p for High and Ultra settings.

Other then that, awesome review.

To which we should note that while AMD's GPUs currently have an edge in this title, Crossfire isn't scaling nearly as well as SLI.

Very interesting indeed.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Well remember @Burty117 it is all dependent on the map and the players, in BF3 Caspian border for instance was more stressful on my GPU's for some reason than Wake Island even though Wake island should have been more stressful due to its size and what's going on on the map. Have not done much of the campaign as of yet, mostly multiplayer and it seems pretty nice so far in terms of optimizing, though im anxious now to upgrade because im keeping my Cards overclocked to ensure the 60 FPS is constant on a 64 player map (well as constant as possible, its still battlefield)

Ooowww I know, That's why I mentioned the fact only 12 people were playing! BF3 maps (Close Quarter one's in particular) were very harsh on the FPS with 64 players compared to say 32 or below, I think I'll just turn 4xMSAA off for now until I have a more beast card (or two 780's whatever happens) and keep 1.1GHz overclock on the card. I only got into BF4 by using a VPN to Korea, I'll do some more testing once the game officially releases (in about 6 and a half hours) so I don't have to keep VPN'ing in to play.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Ooowww I know, That's why I mentioned the fact only 12 people were playing! BF3 maps (Close Quarter one's in particular) were very harsh on the FPS with 64 players compared to say 32 or below, I think I'll just turn 4xMSAA off for now until I have a more beast card (or two 780's whatever happens) and keep 1.1GHz overclock on the card. I only got into BF4 by using a VPN to Korea, I'll do some more testing once the game officially releases (in about 6 and a half hours) so I don't have to keep VPN'ing in to play.

lol yeah, its so dependant on players that many times it can cause issues just because a certain kit is the only one selected. Like on Operation Metro and Conquest when 75% of the people took RPGs and would camp/spam shots down corridors.

Right now, im safe on Ultra though ive bumped the MSAA down to 2x to keep 60FPS more stable while maintaining the 1ghz overclock on my cards. Since im in a rut on being able to buy some new cards because of the limited availability. Ill have to wait I guess till they come back in stock or wait and see if the 780ti is worth its up charge over the 780, I don't really care at this point either way since Dual GPU cards this round are sounding farther and farther stretched for both sides. I just want to have at least 1 GPU that can almost guarantee 60FPS at 1080p and a second for the 5760x1080 resolution.

howzz1854 said:

Is anyone with ATI cards having crashing issues with the game?

I am getting decent frame rate in 2550x1440 but I am getting the infamous BSOD anywhere between every 20~60 mins.

it's all documented here [link]

the latest beta 8 driver only prolonged the game from 20 mins per crash to roughly an hour. just wondering if any other ATI owners are also having this issue.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Is anyone with ATI cards having crashing issues with the game?

I am getting decent frame rate in 2550x1440 but I am getting the infamous BSOD anywhere between every 20~60 mins.

it's all documented here [link]

the latest beta 8 driver only prolonged the game from 20 mins per crash to roughly an hour. just wondering if any other ATI owners are also having this issue.

Im on Beta 11 version 7, however even on the previous one I had I have not had a crash yet, what cards are you using?

howzz1854 said:

Is anyone with ATI cards having crashing issues with the game?

I am getting decent frame rate in 2550x1440 but I am getting the infamous BSOD anywhere between every 20~60 mins.

it's all documented here [link]

the latest beta 8 driver only prolonged the game from 20 mins per crash to roughly an hour. just wondering if any other ATI owners are also having this issue.

Im on Beta 11 version 7, however even on the previous one I had I have not had a crash yet, what cards are you using?

HD7950

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

HD7950

Odd, well I looked at the thread you posted and it looks like it does not have to do with cards because it seems a wide variety is having the issue. I would update to the latest beta version and then just try again. I have not personally had a crash and I played a couple rounds of BF3 with some lasting more than an hour and have not had a problem yet, though I was playing at 1080p because 5760x1080 meant low FPS for me.

In case your wondering, Dual HD 6990's, sorry I have not had the issue yet, if it comes up ill let you know, but im running Windows 8.1, Beta 11v7 Cataylst, 1920x1080p with 3 monitors active (Only using one for the game), CFX enabled.

howzz1854 said:

I am already on the latest beta 8, which was suppose to fix the BSOD / Red screen of death issue. but it seems it has only prolonged the game play. with beta 7, I was crashing average every 15~20 mins, with the beta 8, I can make it to an hour.

2 people like this | JC713 JC713 said:

Dat 290X....

howzz1854 said:

^^^ what about 290x

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I am already on the latest beta 8, which was suppose to fix the BSOD / Red screen of death issue. but it seems it has only prolonged the game play. with beta 7, I was crashing average every 15~20 mins, with the beta 8, I can make it to an hour.

Well thats odd, im on 6 right now, I need to update to 8, let me see what happens then and if it has to do with that. But ive played multiple games now with one conquest lasting 67 minutes without a hitch and ive stayed on the same server 3 times in a row, so I dunno.

Dat 290X....

R9 290X OP

Honestly, im going to have to play this some more before I make my judgements, im curious about the campaign actually and if its really as bad as some say. I thought it looked pretty cool, nothing spectacular, but at least decent.

howzz1854 said:

Campaign actually runs a lot smoother in comparison to MP. and it's damn gorgeous as well. just fyi

Guest said:

Where did that extra R9 290X performance come from (over a GTX 780) ? The few other benchies I'd found on the net had the two neck and neck, but here they leave the 780 for dead! New drivers?

Guest said:

Nice review. I too would like to see some MP tests. Just to get a general idea of the difference in performance.

I upgraded to Windows 8.1 for this game, bought Startisback for $3cdn, and set OS to boot directly to desktop and I haven't seen the Metro UI since. I'm amazed how well an OC'd 7870 GHz Ed can do on HIGH. I'll probably drop it to Medium anyway, but a second 7870 is also a possibility.

Guest said:

Did I miss where you listed the specs of the benchmarking rig (particularly hardware used for the video tests)?

Also - I noticed the HD7990 seemed to drop off the DX11 (HIGH) HBAO tests for all resolutions?

Puiu Puiu said:

I'm sorry, maybe I came here with wrong expectations but... is this supposed to use Mantle? Or what is the title that will make use of Mantle?

BF4 will get an update in December for Mantle. Until then we can only speculate on what the possible benefits will be. (10-30% more FPS maybe?)

Puiu Puiu said:

Where did that extra R9 290X performance come from (over a GTX 780) ? The few other benchies I'd found on the net had the two neck and neck, but here they leave the 780 for dead! New drivers?

check what drivers they are using. beta7 improves FPS quite a bit. (latest driver is beta8, but both are only a few days old)

Betailas Betailas said:

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.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

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.

Check if it's set to border less or full screen and set to full screen. Also tell us what resolution your running at because a 7850 on high get 45 average.

Polaco Polaco said:

Tomshardware has posted a new driver update related to AMD bugs fixing

[link]

Betailas Betailas said:

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.

Check if it's set to border less or full screen and set to full screen. Also tell us what resolution your running at because a 7850 on high get 45 average.

I'm playing with full screen mode, resolution is 1680*1050

Guest said:

I read all article but I can't see nothing in this benckmark about the amount of cpu usage in sp and multiplayer, I would like to know what the % of cpu usage on intel cpu versus fx vishera

Guest said:

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

Puiu Puiu said:

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.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.