Battlefiled 4 & Performance Issues?

apcs13 · Dec 29, 2013

I know this has probably been discussed a lot, but there's been a lot of time between launch, a few updates, and generally better performance from most people in BF4, so please hear me out. I have an FX-6350 OC'd to 4.4 GHz (no Intel fanboys please I was on a budget) and a GTX 770 Gigabyte w/ Windforce x3 Cooling w/ a core clock of 1280 MHz when in-game. In games such as Crysis I rarely ever drop down to 60 FPS on ultra settings at 1920x1080, and my average is usually in the realm of the upper 70's-lower 80fps average whilst playing that game. Even in BF3 and other CPU-intensive games I see much, much better performance than in BF4, where my average seems to be in the mid-forties no matter the resolution or setting I put the game on. Is this just due to the game, drivers, updates, or just a weird bug? It puzzles me since other tough games run amazingly on my new system. Thanks!

DrSavage · Dec 29, 2013

I'm having the same issue your having. I too have a GTX 770 and the performance on BF4 isn't what I would have expected after seeing people run 60+ FPS no problem. I still get some crashes even after the patches that supposedly fixed them. You're not the only one with the problem if that gives you some peace of mind. I guess we will have to wait until there is a proper fix to this. After all BF4 is still a pretty buggy game

apcs13 · Dec 29, 2013

DrSavage :

This does give me some piece of mind, thank you very much. I was just worried because it is a new system and some people with 760's claimed they were getting much better performance than I was. Thanks I really hope there is a fix soon.

barto · Dec 29, 2013

Why don't you guys list out your entire build, some of the games you play and settings/resolutions for each. I do know that some of the patches for BF4 have changed the game but I average 50-70 FPS in BF4 on ultra @1080. I also have a 770 gtx.

Also, what drivers are you guys running? I'm using 331.82.

apcs13 · Dec 30, 2013

barto :

I am also using 331.82 drivers, have 2gb gtx 770 @ 1280 mhz core (Gigabyte OC edition + some more) fX- 6350 OC'd to 4.4 ghz, and thats all you need i think, no ssd, 8gb ram, the works. I also average high 70's-mid 80's fps in BF3 so i think its just the game.

DrSavage · Dec 30, 2013

I don't know if this actually worked or if I'm just lucky but I used driver sweeper to remove every driver then I reinstalled 331.82 drivers and ever since my fps has been 60+ most of the time. Still getting the crashes though.

Som3one · Dec 30, 2013

First thing I´d do is monitoring the GPU, VRAM and CPU usage while playing just to make sure there is no bottleneck anywhere and everything is utilized to its full extend.

Also, do you guys get these FPS on all maps? There are one or two maps that are really hard on the GPUs. No idea why.

apcs13 · Dec 30, 2013

DrSavage :

I did reinstall my drivers and it helped with the crazy FPS jumps I was having (from around 50 to 15 for a half second!) and generally all was better but still not great. However it was weird uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers so I'm going to try once more.

apcs13 · Dec 30, 2013

Now playing on Rogue Transmission and FPS is generally staying in the mid-low 80's or mid 60's when it gets intense, I only saw it drop to the high 50's once. However I remember getting pretty good frames on this map before, is it an easier map to run in this game? Going to play more to test but IDK, thanks

barto · Dec 30, 2013

I think your overlooking the fact that the games you are playing are GPU intense. The environment of BF4 is very taxing. I average 50-70 frames but that doesn't mean I don't see 90's. I say 50's because that's where the lows are which is what I watch for. Frames are going to fluctuate based on the events taking place. Choppers flying over, tanks shells, bombs, gun fire, size of the map, the waves and rain, and player count too. They all impact the frames. Also, high 50's is fantastic for a low.

I'm honestly starting to think that nothing is wrong here and I mean that in a respectful manner. But from what you are saying, I'm experiencing similar results to you. Tom's benchmarks of BF4 places the 770 gtx performance right where the frames you are experiencing. If you are unhappy with this performance, then you will have to sacrifice either quality, resolution or money for a second card.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-8.html

apcs13 · Dec 30, 2013

barto :

Well if you read my last post I did get an average of low-mid 70's (ultra preset 1080p) when playing on Rogue Transition, but what doesn't make sense is that then launching Crysis 2 I manage to get consistent frames of high 70's and mid 80's without trouble, fuss, or any issues really, and that is even more GPU intensive than BF4 I think, or at least just as much. I'm going to have to test out a bunch of maps, but I think at this point it's just the game and my system not being in "perfect harmony".

apcs13 · Dec 30, 2013

Som3one :

What maps are the easiest and the hardest, do you know or could direct me to a source that shows it? I was getting great performance on Rogue Transmission, and am going to try another map in a few minutes to test out some things. I've only ever seen the memory usage of BF4 go close to 2,000 MB, and I was actually getting good performance at that moment too. Usually it stays at around 1800-1900 MB in the most heavy situations. Havent' really looked at GPU and CPU usage yet, but I will soon and get back to you on that.

Som3one · Dec 31, 2013

Not sure about any light usage maps but I recently noticed how Guilan Peak is eating my ressources.

apcs13 · Dec 31, 2013

Som3one :

I'm really confused right now. I played on Dawnbreaker and it was crazy but I was still getting low 50's average ultra which isn't bad I guess but I had drops in the forties often, then I played another game later and Shadowplay failed for some reason, and I noticed I was getting a little better frames without it. Testing in Dawnbreaker again later I noticed I wa almost always above 60 fps the entire time except super crazy moments when there was explosions and it dropped to around 55-58 fps. Then the weirdest thing, I turned Shadowplay back on, closed the game, re-opened it to Dawnbreaker again for consistency, and still got the same good FPS I got before without it. This game confuses me so much.

slimething · Dec 31, 2013

apcs13 :

You're confused because nVidia fan boys are giving you false impressions about the GTX 770. That Toms Hardware "benchmark" is a complete joke. First, it is an old test. Second, their methodology is not based on actual online 64 player real world gaming.

I bought the 770 specifically for BF4. I ran test after test on multiple maps and quite simply, at maxed settings the 770 does not cut the grade. I was not at all satisfied with the results; lag spikes, stutter and overall laggy playing in intense situations. You will note there are no videos by those telling you the 770 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Hardocp ran the cards through the ringer and came to the same conclusion I did. I returned the 770 and bought a 280x when the price was at reasonable and the improvement was undeniable.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4_video_card_performance_iq_review/5#.UsMW9LTddOI

Hardocp's methodology:

Evaluation Method

We evaluate what each video card configuration can supply us in terms of a playable gaming experience while supplying the best culmination of resolution and "eye candy" graphical settings. We focus on quality and immersion of the gameplay experience rather than how many frames per second the card can get in a canned benchmark or prerecorded timedemo situation that often do not represent real gameplay like you would experience at home.

Tomshardware methodology:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-3.html

Custom THG Benchmark, 60-second Fraps run
Map: Siege of Shanghai, Game Type: Domination

Sorry, that is just a piss poor way to test a component and publish results as gospel. Note the date as well. Now many who haven't actually owned and tested the 770 against the 280x in real world full server MP believe those results and wonder why the game runs poorly at their desired Ultra settings after they install the card.

As for Windows 7 vs Windows 8, I have 4 systems running BF4. First, Vista is absolutely horrid. Second, Windows 8 is better than Windows 7 for BF4. The OS bugs have been largely fixed.
This guy knows his stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoahTvuQATU

There's no need to be puzzled. You were mislead.

apcs13 · Dec 31, 2013

slimething :

I've actually seen a bunch of benchmarks where the 770 beats out the 280X not just Tom's. The 280X is a great card and has advantages such as the 3 GB GDDR5 memory as well as the wider 384 bit memory bus vs the 770's 2GB and 256 but bus. However, in most other parts of the video card tech, the gtx 770 beats out the 280X closely for the most part but pretty obviously in a few cases. Besides, I actually ordered a 280X before my 770 and was only getting 45-50 fps on HIGH at 1080p settings with the same exact setup as my current 770 which usually pulls 50-80 mainly depending on the map (Siege of Shanghai after the building collapses generally slows it down in that area but Dawnbreaker and Rogue Transmission especially generally show framerates in the high 70's and mid 80's on ultra settings). That's also disregarding the fact that the new line of 280X's are riddled with issues and mine actually broke just over a day after I booted the computer for the first time. And yes, I had the card tested many times in my system and another friends working system, and the company I returned it to tested it and fully refunded me saying the card was busted and it was a common thing. Besides, I was able to overclock from the boost clock of 1085 MHz boost clock in the core to 1280 while gaming, I think that I should be getting great performance in game. This is proven further when I get over 80 fps in intense combat in Crysis 2 with every single setting maxed and high res textures on, and other games I can max with no dips below 60 fps, and I'm not talkin about minecraft or Gary's mod, I mean intense games. The fact is BF4 is still buggy especially with NVIDIA cards, hell I get 70-80 fps average with BF3 maxed out at ultra at 1080p, it's not te card or system, it's the game.

barto · Dec 31, 2013

Slimething, did you actually read the entire review from Hardocp? The paragraph below the image you posted says quite a bit about the test.

Although the GeForce GTX 760 turned in higher frame rate than the GeForce GTX 770, we believe this is due to the run through for the GTX 770 having significantly more explosions and tank action present during the data recording.

You complain about Tom's reviews even though they take in to account that the fact that the environment will greatly affect frames. Which is why Tom's went into an empty server and tested each card. Consistent results. HardOCP stated that the 760 has higher frames than the 770 and that was due to a mass amount of explosions. What does that say about the other two cards? Did they have lots explosions? Were they in an empty server? What about the fact that the 770 has MSAA enabled when all the other cards have FXAA which uses more GPU power than FXAA? That's even stated in HardOCP's review on page 6.

I don't know where this is coming from. No one here is claiming that the 770 GTX is superior to the 280x. That's completely random and has nothing to do with Fanboyism.

Apcs13 feels that he is experiencing issues with BF4. That's why people are here to get help with their issues. This isn't measuring contest or fighting a stupid endless argument about which is better Nvidia or AMD.

Apcs13, I did read your last post. And again, the environment of BF4 is what it is. You will not have the same frames for each map. Crysis 2 is not more demanding than BF4. Crysis 2 is going to be 3 years old come this March. While it is a system intense game, BF4 definitely runs your system harder. A 770 GTX is a 680 GTX with better cooling and higher clock rates. Take a look at what a 670 GTX ran on Crysis 2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279-5.html We can assume that a 680 will have better frames than a 670 and to be in the ball park. Second of all, you're talking about to different game engines. The Crytek engine and Frostbite engine are very different and will stress systems in a different manner.

I know that you aren't pleased with the mass fluctuation in frames. But you should be happy with those frames. 50 FPS as a minimum is great. Lowering or turning off MSAA will help with those minimums. I think we both can agree this game could use some more optimization.

apcs13 · Dec 31, 2013

barto :

Slimething, did you actually read the entire review from Hardocp? The paragraph below the image you posted says quite a bit about the test.

Although the GeForce GTX 760 turned in higher frame rate than the GeForce GTX 770, we believe this is due to the run through for the GTX 770 having significantly more explosions and tank action present during the data recording.

You complain about Tom's reviews even though they take in to account that the fact that the environment will greatly affect frames. Which is why Tom's went into an empty server and tested each card. Consistent results. HardOCP stated that the 760 has higher frames than the 770 and that was due to a mass amount of explosions. What does that say about the other two cards? Did they have lots explosions? Were they in an empty server? What about the fact that the 770 has MSAA enabled when all the other cards have FXAA which uses more GPU power than FXAA? That's even stated in HardOCP's review on page 6.

I don't know where this is coming from. No one here is claiming that the 770 GTX is superior to the 280x. That's completely random and has nothing to do with Fanboyism.

Apcs13 feels that he is experiencing issues with BF4. That's why people are here to get help with their issues. This isn't measuring contest or fighting a stupid endless argument about which is better Nvidia or AMD.

Apcs13, I did read your last post. And again, the environment of BF4 is what it is. You will not have the same frames for each map. Crysis 2 is not more demanding than BF4. Crysis 2 is going to be 3 years old come this March. While it is a system intense game, BF4 definitely runs your system harder. A 770 GTX is a 680 GTX with better cooling and higher clock rates. Take a look at what a 670 GTX ran on Crysis 2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279-5.html We can assume that a 680 will have better frames than a 670 and to be in the ball park. Second of all, you're talking about to different game engines. The Crytek engine and Frostbite engine are very different and will stress systems in a different manner.

I know that you aren't pleased with the mass fluctuation in frames. But you should be happy with those frames. 50 FPS as a minimum is great. Lowering or turning off MSAA will help with those minimums. I think we both can agree this game could use some more optimization.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I also said earlier that BF3 I was getting 70+ frames per second on ultra, so I think it's not the frostbite engine just the game needing optimization. But yes, after multiple driver reinstall actions I think the performance is definitely better and something I can live with. The last few games I played I rarely even went below 60 fps! I will just have to deal with good games and games where i average closer to 40 fps until there are more patches I guess. Oh well.

slimething · Jan 1, 2014

barto :

Yes I read the entire review, and it is exactly right. And the Tomshardware method is laughable to evaluate the performance in BF4. The 770 CANNOT run BF4 64 player MP servers smoothly on maxed settings when high demand is placed on the card. That's why I returned it and bought the 280x.

You choose to ignore the bottom line of the article:

The Radeon R9 280X was very playable at these settings and stayed ahead of all of the other mid-range cards that we evaluated. The other three cards were not playable at these settings.

90% of advice in this forum is based on opinions, not fact. People listen to said "advice" and wonder why their BF4 experience is not what they expected. I've had both cards and the above statement is correct.

Where are the videos of a 770 playing BF4 on full servers in real world gaming at maxed settings, with the FPS overlay on for all to see?

barto · Jan 1, 2014

slimething :

I actually didn't ignore it. I read and was wondering how it's true when there isn't a consistent test base. Again evident by the statement from the review.

I can tell there's no point discussing this with you. If it makes you feel better, I play BF4 on Ultra @1080 with MSAA x4 averaging 70 frames. But that's besides the point. Clearly your "advice" is set in stone and is what everyone in this world will experience.

Have a nice and Happy New Year.

Battlefiled 4 & Performance Issues?

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Expert

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Expert

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Expert

Honorable

Honorable

Expert

Share this page