News to me. Details?
Battlefield 4 PC performance thread
- Thread starter Overdoziz
- Start date
News to me. Details?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Did you try 331.65?
This is the first game in a while where I have opted to use the adaptive vsync option. It works much better than either in-game or regular NVCP vsync. Seems like this game isn't triple buffered? I drop to 30 when my system can't maintain 60fps. Feels like 2004 and playing Doom 3 all over again.
Terbinator
Member
Terbinator
Member
KyleN's for BF3 will probably work just as good in BF4 i imagine.
You could leave it on 120hz and choose "Adaptive Vsync (half refresh rate)".
I tried that and it seemed less smooth than forcing the monitor to 60hz and using the regular adaptive sync. No idea why, but it might just be my eyes.
Awesome, thanks
fluffydelusions
Member
280x + i7 4700k ultra 70+ FPS
If you are a gambling man, get one of those Korean monitors. If you get a good one they are absolutely fantastic at a great price.
1440p, overclocks to 120Hz ( Mine does 115Hz ), a beautiful PLS panel and can even downsample from 5120x2880. Amazing monitor.
Everyone here is saying that the final release is a marked improvement performance-wise compared to the beta. Yet to try it myself but it seems positive, especially if you're running a last gen or previous i7 and Windows 7 which both caused problems which have apparently been ironed out.
The Asus 27" 144hz monitor is great. I have 1 of these and a Samsung that runs at 72hz which is also nice but not as smooth. Both are 1080P
Can anyone tell me what the "Effects" setting does exactly? And what the differences might be, between Ultra/High/Medium etc?
Other than MSAA 4x, this is the only setting that changes my FPS for the worse.
In single player staring at a fire I think at the start of level 3 my framerate is 60fps. If I change Effects to Ultra, FPS goes to 38-42. Switch to medium, and I'm back to 60fps.
I've googled it, and can't find any info on the "Effects" setting. But it's the single must punishing performance hit in my experience so far..
Running Windows 7, dual 7970s, i7 2600@4.2 in 2560x1440
Thanks
Other than MSAA 4x, this is the only setting that changes my FPS for the worse.
In single player staring at a fire I think at the start of level 3 my framerate is 60fps. If I change Effects to Ultra, FPS goes to 38-42. Switch to medium, and I'm back to 60fps.
I've googled it, and can't find any info on the "Effects" setting. But it's the single must punishing performance hit in my experience so far..
Running Windows 7, dual 7970s, i7 2600@4.2 in 2560x1440
Thanks
Terbinator
Member
How good explosions, smoke etc - probably directly linked to particles/resoution of said effects.
Interestingly, i found that nerfing post-processing gained more FPS than effects with a Titan/3770/8GB/1440p @ stock clocks.
cobragt4001
Banned
Is there a noticeable visual difference of high post processing and effects vs ultra?
Raven77
Member
$40 OC that 2500K - you can get 4GHz easy, probably 4.5GHz even with a $30 cooler (Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO)...watch some YouTube vids to make sure you apply the thermal paste correctly. This is an often overlooked problem with temps - it will get hotter with too much thermal paste. And hotter with not enough.
$70 Buy Windows 8 Pro, then get the free 8.1 upgrade once installed.
Then see what's up. Maybe after that upgrade your video cards - but that's $$$. RAM at 16GB would be nice...but probably not necessary once at Win8.x.
Why is Windows 8 Pro? I have read nothing but terrible things about it.
Never gave any serious thought about OC'ing the processor. I may try that. Thanks.
Terbinator
Member
Didn't look any different on the test island.
Read page 1 of this thread. DICE optimized the game for DirectX 11.1 which is only available in Windows 8 due to Microsoft.
What have you heard bad about W8 pro? I have it (64bit) and it runs great.
A majority of people just trash talk it because of metro. Then everything just boils down to "Oh it's such a bad OS" because of that. Truth is, the OS itself is great and very much an improved Windows 7 but the metro UI can easily be removed by installing something like Start8. Then you have Windows 7 basically with what feels like a solid service-pack. You could obviously also get to know the metro UI and enjoy that but I'd rather just get a start menu.
Good post about AA from a HardOCP user: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040328042&postcount=13
Perhaps a low level of Post AA, or injected SMAA, would fix the vegetation?
Perhaps a low level of Post AA, or injected SMAA, would fix the vegetation?
Puppet Shadow
Member
Asking this here as one of you can answer this quick. I'm thinking of updating my current 32" TV (I use it as my computer monitor) and want to know if 120Hz TV gives the same results as a 120Hz monitor.
Edit: I was fearing having to use Windows 8 as I loved Windows 7, but holy crap, there is no way I'd go back. I can't believe how fast it is on my SSD drive. Installed a Start button thingy so I never see Metro (old dog, new tricks... I'm lazy).
Only issue was having to Google a fix for Vampire: Bloodlines that wouldn't start. Running Steam as an admin fixed the issue.
Edit: I was fearing having to use Windows 8 as I loved Windows 7, but holy crap, there is no way I'd go back. I can't believe how fast it is on my SSD drive. Installed a Start button thingy so I never see Metro (old dog, new tricks... I'm lazy).
Only issue was having to Google a fix for Vampire: Bloodlines that wouldn't start. Running Steam as an admin fixed the issue.
Thumbs up here for Win 8. I basically use the start button (which now switches you between the Metro UI and the familiar desktop) as a minimize all button that easily gets me to my most frequently used programs that are accessed via tiles on the Metro screen.
One thing: I would recommend a fresh install. I did an upgrade over Win 7 and opted to keep my files. I ran into many bugs, and ultimately a severe bug that prevented me from using many programs that rely on a previous versions of .NET. I had to do a new install to get rid of the bug and opted for the fresh install. Much cleaner and no bugs.
In the beta, with ultra & 4xMSAA I was getting 50 - 70 FPS. Now with win 8.1 I'm getting 70 - 120 FPS. No doubt a lot of that is due to optimization between the beta and final build some of the FPS boost I'm getting is is attributable to Win 8.1, too.
One thing: I would recommend a fresh install. I did an upgrade over Win 7 and opted to keep my files. I ran into many bugs, and ultimately a severe bug that prevented me from using many programs that rely on a previous versions of .NET. I had to do a new install to get rid of the bug and opted for the fresh install. Much cleaner and no bugs.
In the beta, with ultra & 4xMSAA I was getting 50 - 70 FPS. Now with win 8.1 I'm getting 70 - 120 FPS. No doubt a lot of that is due to optimization between the beta and final build some of the FPS boost I'm getting is is attributable to Win 8.1, too.
Raven77
Member
Hmm, I thought I read that they were going to be adding the start button back? Maybe i'll upgrade.
Start button is back, start menu is not. The button just leads you to the new metro start screen
cobragt4001
Banned
So a SMAA and MSAA mix would be beneficial it seems.
cobragt4001
Banned
It's what I'm thinking, but I don't have time to test. Who wants to volunteer?
I will......when I get home MDT.
popsicle_sundays
Member
So I booted this up via Origin last night and I launched a MP game and set it to 1080p and Ultra, except I turned off AA and visually it did not look too hot, am I missing something? I even re-launched the game.
I exited and noticed a 64-bit launcher on my desktop, so I will try that tonight.
I exited and noticed a 64-bit launcher on my desktop, so I will try that tonight.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Kinda odd seeing people make claims of 60fps+ constant on similar hardware, speaking of the campaign. If I run a fraps benchmark of a level playthrough I'll average 60+fps, but only because the less hardware stressful parts greatly skewer the average. Most encounters in open areas with dudes shooting the shit out of things, dust flying everywhere, absolutely do not run at 60fps, and instead anywhere between 40-60. Some areas tank performance big time. There's that one room early in the first level, tree growing and sun streaming through the roof, that knocks a good 20+fps whenever I look at it. The vista of the guarded Shanghai hotel from the second level, before you infiltrate it, tanks performance even worse, I assume because of all the lighting going on. And, of course, DICE's fancy DOF bokeh slaughters the framerate during those few scripted cutscenes.
EDIT: I suppose I should add I'm forcing 16x high quality anisotropic texture filtering through the drivers, instead of leaving the game to decide.
EDIT: I suppose I should add I'm forcing 16x high quality anisotropic texture filtering through the drivers, instead of leaving the game to decide.
WonkyPanda
Member
YES! What the hell was that scene rendering? I remember going in, around 60 fps, then BAM, like 30 fps on that stupid tree.
cripterion
Member
I noticed the game never uses more than 2.3GB of ram for me even though I'm sitting on 16GB, what gives?
The game is pretty much unplayable for me, even after running a variety of settings.
I'm using:
560ti
i5 2500k
4 GB RAM
I'm getting an insane amount of stuttering and hitching that make it a death sentence just to aim to the left or right. My overall FPS is fine.
The game also decides to crash very often, and loading into a match takes minutes.
I hope this gets fixed sometime reasonably.
I'm using:
560ti
i5 2500k
4 GB RAM
I'm getting an insane amount of stuttering and hitching that make it a death sentence just to aim to the left or right. My overall FPS is fine.
The game also decides to crash very often, and loading into a match takes minutes.
I hope this gets fixed sometime reasonably.
SuperSonic1305
Member
Hmmm, I joined an empty server just to test the performance. I'm getting 55-75 fps on Ultra. Should I be worried or does it maintain regardless of number of players?
For me, the Campaign by far. It will chew up most rigs for breakfast if you try to go all Ultra.
cripterion
Member
Campaign was extra smooth for me.
None of the shortcuts launch the game for me. I have to go to the battlelog/bf4 website. Did that for me in beta, too. Not sure why. Game runs great for me once I get it launched from there. I did have to upgrade nvidia drivers to fix the purple flickering, but after that it is running better than it did for me in beta
First here's my info:
3770k @ 4.3GHz
16gb ddr3
670 4gb
Win7 64bit
BF4:
Ultra maxed settings
1080p
FoV 100
Vsync off
70-80 fps
I'm playing on a 73" television for now and probably won't be doing Surround/triple screen for at least another few months. But I'm wondering if there's any need to install my 2nd GPU for SLI right now?
3770k @ 4.3GHz
16gb ddr3
670 4gb
Win7 64bit
BF4:
Ultra maxed settings
1080p
FoV 100
Vsync off
70-80 fps
I'm playing on a 73" television for now and probably won't be doing Surround/triple screen for at least another few months. But I'm wondering if there's any need to install my 2nd GPU for SLI right now?
What is your hardware and OS? With 8.1 I never go below 60 fps with a 3570K and a GTX 770 at 1080p and no AA.
Technosteve
Banned
Resolution depedent i think at 1080p i have the same tqm usage
I would, but I hate Windows 8...