Battlefield 4 PC performance thread

elektrixx said:
In general does locking the framerate at 60FPS improve performance overall, BF4 or otherwise?
Click to expand...

Vertical sync in this game feels much better with it on than off. It's natively triple buffered as well so there's no input lag.

If you are on a 60hz monitor I would run sync.
 
dark10x said:
Did that piss you off so much? Jesus. You were the one parading that around in a console thread.

It was a guess based on my experience with the game and I'm still not convinced that you're going to see a solid 60 during gameplay. Maybe close to it in single player but in multiplayer? ATI cards had a lot of performance issues with BF3 and BF4 seemed to be more demanding out of the gate. I'm running a card a bit faster than a 7950 and cannot maintain 60 fps at all times (close, though).

Give me a break.

The skepticism comes from the fact that a lot of people seem to miss framerate dips. You'll hear people talking about high framerates on their PCs or consoles and, upon reviewing what they're seeing, you notice all sorts of dips and drops. Nothing too serious but they're there. I found it hard to believe that a slower card could out perform a faster card in this game. That's all.

edit - Wait, the 7950 is hardly a $200 card. I'm sure if you find a sale you could buy it for that much but that's not the price I'm seeing around Newegg or other sites. You can hardly call something a $200 card when the only time you'll find that price is during a sale of some sort.
Click to expand...

The price of the 7950 jumped $50+ in the last few weeks after the new line of cards came out. The card could be found regularly for $180-200 leading up until the sudden jump. I have no idea why the price skyrocketed, the same thing happened to the 7970. It was discussed in the I need a new PC thread when it was happening. It has fucked up my plans for a build I'm doing for a friend.

Qassim said:
That benchmark is bad. Check the other one posted later on that page.
Click to expand...

At stock speeds the i7920/930 stands up in that benchmark as well. I imagine if it were OCed to the speeds of the more capable CPUs on that list, which is actually a pretty modest OC, it would be in even better shape. I think the most interesting take away is that the i7 930 matches an i5 2500K which is clocked 500Mhz faster. The triple channel memory bandwidth and/or HT make a noticeable difference in this game.
http_www_gamegpu_ru_images_stories_Test_GPU_Act.jpg
 
hey guys im going to install windows 8 today, ill let u know if performance increases

i7920 @ 3.8
2GB 6970 @ 925/1425

1080p everything on high, 2xmsaa, no post, ssao

averaging 40s in battle with some occasional stuttering
 
I finally got around to doing a benchmark with these settings.
b06LnBK.jpg
Click to expand...

Mostly infantry stuff, lots of smoke and explosions where I defended the A and B flag on that map with a railway.
Code: 
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
 47468,    688844,  32, 122, 68.910

Didn't think my 680 would keep up that well after what I got in the beta. I'm gonna change it to SSAO instead of HBAO and turn off MSAA to get a little higher FPS to take advantage of my 144Hz. Might play some with the resolution scaling.

680 2GB@1220/6400, i7 4770K@4,3GHz, 8GB RAM, Win 8.1

Just fix the server crashes and I'm all set!
 
How much more resource heavy than BF3 is this game? I've been thinking of picking it up for PC while i wait for the PS4. I can run BF3 at 60fps with everything on Ultra settings. I don't know the first thing about PC specs etc.
 
Thacker said:
Vertical sync in this game feels much better with it on than off. It's natively triple buffered as well so there's no input lag.

If you are on a 60hz monitor I would run sync.
Click to expand...

I have Vsync on. I was wondering if I limited the frame rate to 60 from console command would make games run better.
 
Been running the 32bit version of the game and I noticed I dont get as many issues. Maybe during my play test I was simply in the best situation but I can say the 32bit version did run smoother; on a plus side I was able to use D3Doverrider and lock in vsync and man what I difference.
 
I was expecting my Phenom II x4 955 @3.8 to struggle, I seem to hit 60fps quite often on most maps on high @1080p

Also the audio problems haven't changed at from the beta...drops in and out constantly.
 
Finally had some decent time with the multiplayer to test out the performance, settings are 90 FoV, everything ultra, no MSAA.

First, I was still using the 320.49 Geforce drivers because they were better and more stable during the beta so I wanted to test them out and see what I get. When comparing it to the beta using the same map, the performance seems to be roughly the same, maybe slightly better since this time I left HBAO on instead of turning AO off completely.

Then, I installed the new WHQL drivers (and performed a clean install) and let me say I was impressed and actually surpised to be honest, the performance definitely was better and the game stayed above 60fps the large majority of the time (only drops briefly to ~40s when the building collapses in Shanghai and dust kicks in everywhere) hell I was so impressed that I thought about at least putting some 2x MSAA but I'm not sure yet.


The game is still crash prone on both drivers and some maps/servers suffer from the audio bug more than other from what I noticed.

My setup is:

3570K@4.5GHz
GTX 670 2GB
16GB 1600 DDR3 RAM
Windows 7 64-bit

What's the best software to benchmark this game without having a big impact on performance ?
 
Friggin audio bugs and crashes in MP. I really hope it's fixed this weekend because I'd like to play more than one match without a crash in the second.
 
With the latest patches, it looks like the crashing/freezing has improved. Don't run into them nearly as much. That being said, I did get a crash to the point where I had to do a hard reboot of the PC. Seems like a processor issue but it only has happened in this game so who knows.
 
pestul said:
lol

Now can people stop saying 'overclock that cpu!' and 'you need a new cpu for BF4.' Crikey, a stock i7 920 is performing nearly as well as the highest end cpu. Interesting too that this is the first review where the R290x seems to be curb stomping everything in BF4.

Just wow..
iv9GXDs8CugAX.png


iHq3BDQNGiRew.png
Click to expand...

Looks like my Phenom II x4 955 isn't too old yet :)
EDIT: With my AMD 7870
 
Seriously, wtf is up with the Effects setting??? Setting it to High instead of Ultra gave like a 15-20 fps boost O_O

I don't even notice the difference. I wish someone would upload a video showing the difference between Ultra and High for Effects. :)
 
Just switched from a quad core Intel i7 920 OC'd to 3.8ghz to a six core Intel Xeon L5639 (nearly the same as the 920, just more cores) OC'd to 3.7ghz. The performance gains in FPS are quite significant.

FRAPS results taken on 64p Large Conquest server -- Floodzone:

Setup: X58 Sabertooth, GTX 780 @ 1100, 6gb ram, 1920x1200, Ultra 4xMSAA

Min fps Avg fps Max fps:
Quad core:
52 77 110

Six core :
67 94 134

Core usage on the Xeon averages about 70% across all six cores, with a few spikes to 75% in heated moments. I forgot to check the i7 core usage before I replaced it, unfortunately. The max and min fps do vary quite a bit across my bench logs since no two game sessions are identical (high fps max with no action; low minimum with lots of explosions, etc) but the average is pretty consistent.

Conclusion: about a 20% gain in avg FPS by switching CPUs.
 
v happy with my upgrade and performance, certainly is more demanding than bf3 but not too much, running 3570k@4.4, 8gb, 780sli, win 7 at the settings below + inject smaa (ultra), uses 2.8gb vram and framerate is above 45fps 95% of the time and the game is silky above 50fps, what are the settings which affect performance most without affecting image quality?

ShfTCfb.jpg
 
bee said:
v happy with my upgrade and performance, certainly is more demanding than bf3 but not too much, running 3570k@4.4, 8gb, 780sli, win 7 at the settings below + inject smaa (ultra), uses 2.8gb vram and framerate is above 45fps 95% of the time and the game is silky above 50fps, what are the settings which affect performance most without affecting image quality?

http://i.imgur.com/ShfTCfb.jpg[/IM
G][/QUOTE]

People are saying changing effects from ultra to high is not very noticeable but gives a big performance boost.
Click to expand...
 
bee said:
v happy with my upgrade and performance, certainly is more demanding than bf3 but not too much, running 3570k@4.4, 8gb, 780sli, win 7 at the settings below + inject smaa (ultra), uses 2.8gb vram and framerate is above 45fps 95% of the time and the game is silky above 50fps, what are the settings which affect performance most without affecting image quality?

http://i.imgur.com/ShfTCfb.jpg
Click to expand...

set your effects to HIGH instead of ULTRA, gets rid of the framedrops during explosions

---

I'm actually really happy with the performance of BF4 in terms of framerate/frametimes. Installed W8.1 specifically for BF4, sure runs a lot better than W7 in the beta but no direct comparison on retail from me obviously. The PCGH benchmarks above do suggest some signifcant advantage for W8(.1). I like the OS itself too, which is important because I do more on this rig than just game ;)

i7 2600K @ 4.8 , 16 GB 1866 RAM , Windows 8.1 , SSDs , GTX670 2GB SLI @ 1215/3800 , BenQ XL2420T @ Lightboost mode

at 1080P I'm running Ultra + 100FOV, with only effects dropped to HIGH, pretty much constantly above 90 fps ... I'm actually using Adaptive V-Sync, which I normally never ever do but it does seem to make the game more fluid and my aiming is as good as ever :)

with effects on ULTRA I noticed that explosions would drop the framerate as low as 45 fps

also 2 GB is not an issue at 1080p , just don't touch that oversampling slider :p 150% = memory shortage = slideshow
 
bee said:
v happy with my upgrade and performance, certainly is more demanding than bf3 but not too much, running 3570k@4.4, 8gb, 780sli, win 7 at the settings below + inject smaa (ultra), uses 2.8gb vram and framerate is above 45fps 95% of the time and the game is silky above 50fps, what are the settings which affect performance most without affecting image quality?

http://i.imgur.com/ShfTCfb.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Try turning down effects to high and use SSAO instead of HBAO.
Click to expand...
 
n0n44m said:
set your effects to HIGH instead of ULTRA, gets rid of the framedrops during explosions

---

I'm actually really happy with the performance of BF4 in terms of framerate/frametimes. Installed W8.1 specifically for BF4, sure runs a lot better than W7 in the beta but no direct comparison on retail from me obviously. The PCGH benchmarks above do suggest some signifcant advantage for W8(.1). I like the OS itself too, which is important because I do more on this rig than just game ;)

i7 2600K @ 4.8 , 16 GB 1866 RAM , Windows 8.1 , SSDs , GTX670 2GB SLI @ 1215/3800 , BenQ XL2420T @ Lightboost mode

at 1080P I'm running Ultra + 100FOV, with only effects dropped to HIGH, pretty much constantly above 90 fps ... I'm actually using Adaptive V-Sync, which I normally never ever do but it does seem to make the game more fluid and my aiming is as good as ever :)

with effects on ULTRA I noticed that explosions would drop the framerate as low as 45 fps

also 2 GB is not an issue at 1080p , just don't touch that oversampling slider :p 150% = memory shortage = slideshow
Click to expand...

got 2 gtx670 2GB versions myself and I run 2xMSAA, medium post-AA and 125% resolution scale and I get a solid 60
 
1st Course said:
Windows 7 vs Windows 8 CPU test from PCGH

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...ts/Battlefield-4-Test-Benchmarks-CPU-1095298/



*Zwei Kerne = 2 cores
*Vire Kerne = 4 cores
*SMT = Hyper-threading

Also people should stop quoting that bench, you're deluding yourself if you think an i3 will give you almost the same performance as the 3960x .
Click to expand...

So there is a boost with i7 CPUs after all, nice... And still a pretty siginificant perf advantage for W8. Happy with my W7 performance though, I won't switch.
 
Yep, looks like Windows 8 does still have a decent advantage over 7 in the final product. Sorry about that chart earlier.. as it only reflects the performance of CPUs in the single player game. If that's all you play BF4 for (you're crazy), then you're good to go with a i3 cpu lol.
 
I'm getting 80ish FPS at 1440p and Ultra settings without V Sync enabled but for some reason the games turns into a Janky, jerky mess with it on running at 35-40 fps or so.

WTF is that about?
 
I've experienced a whole night without crashing (magic).
I've turned off origin helper in the advanced settings,
and I've turned off the origin overlay.

I might get back to crashing the next time I start it up but it's worth a try.
 
I'm in the final stages of clean installing Windows 8.1 from Windows 7. I can't wait to give BF4 a try. So many little things to install/setup.
 
Varna said:
How are graphic cards with only 2GB of vram holding up? Wondering how my 690 would do...
Click to expand...

Phil0sophy said:
Like shit because, at least in my case, I get constant flickering of smoke with sli enabled rendering the game unplayable without disabling sli.
Click to expand...

undercoverb0ss said:
This is really unacceptable since the game was beta tested extensively.
Click to expand...

I am running a bit of an oddball system as it is actually a z620 workstation I am currently for play :) but it seems to have no issues at 60fps 1080p (v-sync on) with a GTX690 installed.

The only issues I have found have been crashing a couple of times per hour and major server lag; but these issues seem to be experienced by everyone regardless of system.

Specs:
- 3.6Ghz Xeon
- 16GB EEC RAM
- EVGA GTX690 4GB
- SSD though I have also run on a platter
- Windows 8.1 though was also running on Windows 7 during beta (which was terrible all around)
 
My god MP is a stuttering mess for me.
My framerate jumps all over from 30-60fps on some maps on high or ultra doesn't matter @1080P. I have SSAO on and turned off MSAA and PostAA. Effects on high/medium doesn't seem to make a big difference.
Specs are FX4100 OC'd @ 4.0GHZ
2GB 7870 OC'd
8GB DDR3

I also have this annoying problem where randomly the fps TANK into the teens for a few seconds and then shoot back up to where it was before. It's very jarring.
 
Anyone else gets stuttering?

the joke is i get constant 60 fps but the game feels very clunky and heavy ..its like i play with 15 fps.
 
I finally got my triple monitor setup going. I got everything on ultra except I lowered lighting down to medium and MSAA to 2x. Framerate averages 55-62fps but goes up to 70 sometimes and hardly goes lower than 50 when shit hits the fan. I'm gonna try lowering Effects to high to see if the performance increases signifcantly.

Before going triple monitor I was getting 80-110fps with everything set to max.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[IGN] Crimson Desert Performance Preview (Tested on PC)
News 
11
334
saintjules replied
Final Fantasy XVI PC Performance Thread
2 3
138
16K
Rush2112 replied
Digital Foundry: Oblivion Remastered PC: Impressive Remastering, Dire Performance Problems
2 3 4 5
212
3K
Bojji replied
Stellar Blade: 'We are working on removing Region Lock from PC Version, DRM does't affect PC performance'
Platform 
2
259
DeepEnigma replied
Capcom responds to Monster Hunter wilds PC performance issues
2 3 4
158
12K
polybius80 replied
Top Bottom