- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
Does the game lower the resolution of textures on the 2gb cards to avoid stutter?
I have doubts about the vram usage reported by osd software.
Does the game lower the resolution of textures on the 2gb cards to avoid stutter?
Same experience here, game runs fantastic for me with all in game settings maxed out (except motion blur), I forgot to even update to the new BF4 driver beforehand.The game plays well for me with dips only during big explosions happening close to me. Oddly on the Battlefield forums a lot of complaints are fom people with multiple 780s or Titans about terrible 30fps type performance issues. Generally it's people with nvidia cards having issues.
Normally I would guess it is because of the heavy AMD involvement and shens going on, in this case I'm going with CPU killing them as they are usually running an i5. I'm seeing 60% to as high as 90% usage on all 12 threads in the game
BF4 Beta reminds me a lot of the BF3 beta. crap graphics, buggy, heavier resource usage, etc. I'm confident that BF4 will be solid and a kick ass game like BF3 became shortly after release. Really hoping the CPU usage is a whole lot less in the finalized release, GPU I can handle since you can just turn down settings.
Yeah it looks like complete ass. I understand betas aren't stable or exactly well optimized but the graphics is...ugh. We spend mucho money on hardware and we get this kind of crap in return.
How's a 560 ti going to do with this game at 1200 medium to high settings?
It seems to happen in a lot of games. The gap between the 7970GE and 780 closes as the resolution increases. It's too consistent to be a driver issue. I suspect it's an efficiency issue; AMD's rasterizers and ROPs are probably hitting higher efficiency levels at greater resolutions (where triangles cover larger fractions of their rasterization tiles).
Maybe I should consider getting an 8350 instead...
How's a 560 ti going to do with this game at 1200 medium to high settings?
You want lower performance?
Yeah it looks like complete ass. I understand betas aren't stable or exactly well optimized but the graphics is...ugh. We spend mucho money on hardware and we get this kind of crap in return.
So tipical of you, why didnt you also quote the other graphs ???
So tipical of you, why didnt you also quote the other graphs ???
This is a BETA, i would wait until the officially game release to draw any conclusions of the performance of both the CPUs and GPUs. Also, new drivers will have a big inpact in performance so keep an eye on them.
And if you are so righteous, why do YOU post a graph missing both 3rd and 4th generation core CPUs. So typical of you? Yes? :hmm:
They all show the 4670k doing better than the 8350.
The 2500k clocked the same is roughly equal if not a little bit faster than the FX.
4670k OC max FPS - 71.5
FX 8350 OC max FPS - 68.0
3.5 FPS delta, i say FX 8350 is putting a good show here and the picture might change in favor of one or another once BF4 is launched. Guys stop fighting for little details
Yay, fanboy wars! >_> I shouldn't have said anything lol. Sorry for what I've started!
Huh? i5 is still around 25% faster than FX6300. And that is a 2 gen old i5. Not sure if a Haswell i5 is faster, but I would think a few percent at least.