1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Battlefield 4 Tested, Benchmarked

By Julio Franco ยท 59 replies
Oct 31, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. TechGamer

    TechGamer TS Guru Posts: 370   +40

    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
  2. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,160   +3,259

    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.
    Burty117 likes this.
  3. Littleczr

    Littleczr TS Addict Posts: 439   +84

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

    Xtreme gamer TS Enthusiast Posts: 49   +12

    ^ 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.
  5. indiangamer

    indiangamer TS Enthusiast Posts: 57   +9

    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?
  6. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,041   +793

    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!
  7. TechGamer

    TechGamer TS Guru Posts: 370   +40

    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 likes this.
  8. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,160   +3,259

    That is nice to see. :)
  9. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,262

    Single and multiplayer seem to be mirroring BF3's initial release. Single favours AMD's architecture, MP favours Nvidia's.
    Check out page 7 of the PCLabs review. Single player and multiplayer exhibit an interesting comparison under Win7 and 8.1
    Burty117 likes this.
  10. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,686   +350

    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.
  11. Alpha Gamer

    Alpha Gamer TS Evangelist Posts: 345   +105

    Great job, as always,
    frame time chart shows "higher is better"
  12. 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.
  13. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 2,397   +874

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

    ikesmasher TS Evangelist Posts: 2,860   +1,182

    Oh god, that kills my GPU....:(
  15. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,357   +1,516

    Page 1...

    Nvidia Forceware 331.65 Beta
    AMD Catalyst 13.11 (Beta 7)
    Puiu likes this.
  16. This is joke ? Right ?

    Did you also see that dual core intel i3 3220 held up to more expensive AMD FX-8350 ?

    Not to mention that they are not using the newer haswell based i3
  17. Proud owner of HD 7950 Dual X -Sugoi !! :D :D :D
    Mooseinadesert likes this.
  18. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,706   +172

    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!
  19. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder This guy again... Posts: 2,197   +592

    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.

    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)
  20. ghasmanjr

    ghasmanjr TS Booster Posts: 363   +86

    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?
  21. ghasmanjr

    ghasmanjr TS Booster Posts: 363   +86

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

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,977   +15

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

    EEatGDL TS Evangelist Posts: 535   +210

    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?
  24. Eddo22

    Eddo22 TS Booster Posts: 161   +6

    "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.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...