Finally, we dial the detail preset up to Ultra for a better idea of how high-end graphics hardware handles Battlefield 4. In addition to bumping up detail, this setting enables 4x MSAA, deferred AA, and HBAO ambient occlusion.

The Ultra setting incurs a significant performance penalty, and while the Radeon HD 7870 and GeForce GTX 660 manage to stay above 30 FPS, their performance is pretty marginal at this preset. We suspect that our frame time variance chart may not be particularly friendly to either card. For now, let's have a look at frame rate over time.

Our contenders land in a pretty tight grouping. The GeForce GTX Titan, 690, and Radeon HD 7990 don't dip below 60 FPS, though again, we'd really like to look at these numbers from an FCAT-based perspective.


Clearly, AMD's Radeon HD 7870 struggles to deliver frames at a consistent pace, and the Radeon HD 7950 Boost has a bit of an issue, too. It's interesting that the Radeon HD 7990 appears to fare better than Nvidia's GeForce GTX 690. We cannot test this theory using FCAT due to the tool's 32-bit limitation, however, the Fraps-based data does appear consistent with our real-world experience. Nvidia's dual-GPU board felt choppier, despite its high frame rate. This could be attributable to its 2 GB of memory per GK104 GPU. But even the GeForce GTX Titan encounters some spikes.
- Battlefield 4, Powered By DICE's Frostbite 3 Engine
- Game Engine, Image Quality, And Settings
- Test System And Graphics Hardware
- Results: Low Quality, 1280x720
- Results: Low Quality, 1680x1050
- Results: High Quality, 1680x1050
- Results: High Quality, 1920x1080
- Results: Ultra Quality, 1920x1080
- Results: Ultra Quality, 2560x1440
- CPU Benchmarks
- Battlefield 4: We'll See You On The Battlefield!
****EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
Sorry, corvetteguy, you're the first so I'm going to hijack your post to answer some common questions:
- Why didn't you mention mantle?
I probably *should* have mentioned it, but at this point it seems a little early. We don't know that much about it and we don't even know exactly when it arrives. Rest assured, when Mantle is rolled out we will cover it!
- Why did you use a Titan in the CPU tests instead of the dual-GPU 690 or 7990?
Dual-GPU performance can be tricky, and without FCAT working, I didn't want to report potential pie-in-the-sky FRAPS performance that is difficult to verify. Titan is the fastest single GPU card we have.
- Why no FX-6000 CPU?
We benched the FX-4170 and FX-8350. The FX-6000 will be in between, there wasn't a colossal spread so it seems pretty straightforward.
- For the love of everything good and pure, why did you use IE?
Haha! Lots of comments on this. I used it because it was there - remember, we clean install for our benchmarks, so unless the test involves browsers we don't bother investing time installing anything else. For the record I feel dirty and violated having opened the software, but you should all know that my personal PC has both Firefox and Chrome installed.
Hope that clarifies things!
- Don Woligroski
****END OF EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
****EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
Sorry, corvetteguy, you're the first so I'm going to hijack your post to answer some common questions:
- Why didn't you mention mantle?
I probably *should* have mentioned it, but at this point it seems a little early. We don't know that much about it and we don't even know exactly when it arrives. Rest assured, when Mantle is rolled out we will cover it!
- Why did you use a Titan in the CPU tests instead of the dual-GPU 690 or 7990?
Dual-GPU performance can be tricky, and without FCAT working, I didn't want to report potential pie-in-the-sky FRAPS performance that is difficult to verify. Titan is the fastest single GPU card we have.
- Why no FX-6000 CPU?
We benched the FX-4170 and FX-8350. The FX-6000 will be in between, there wasn't a colossal spread so it seems pretty straightforward.
- For the love of everything good and pure, why did you use IE?
Haha! Lots of comments on this. I used it because it was there - remember, we clean install for our benchmarks, so unless the test involves browsers we don't bother investing time installing anything else. For the record I feel dirty and violated having opened the software, but you should all know that my personal PC has both Firefox and Chrome installed.
Hope that clarifies things!
- Don Woligroski
****END OF EDIT BY TOM'S HARDWARE****
In 64 man conquest games, doing a FRAPS benchmark of an entire 30 minute round, I got a minimum framerate of 42, average of 74, and max of 118 on my rig (4.8 GHz 2600k || 780 SLI @ 1100/1500 || 16GB DDR3 2133c11) at 1440p with all settings maxed and 120 fov.
Also interesting to see 2GB cards struggling at high res on this game. I really didn't think we'd see that so soon, given that the 780/Titan/7950/7970 are the only cards yet released with >2GB standard memory.
Obviously, we will need a follow up article to see what effect Mantle has with GCN enabled Radeons, including APUs, when BF4 gets patched.
But not matter what, each time that main building is blown up I loss at least 5 fps for the rest of the round and have big time fps/lag spikes.
Imo you want an 7970/280x and a quad core to be able to play smooth.
Also, I hear a lot about vram...what is the feed back on 2 gigs vs 3 ?
I also wish they tested a Radeon and Geforce card that would be considered equal to see how it performs by brand.
Considering that mantle wont be available until December, why would it be mentioned? Especially considering the fact that none of the "new" AMD GPUs were included in the benchmarks...
Because the whole purpose is to test the CPU, not the GPU so it wouldn't matter what GPU there was it was to show where the game stands on CPU cores which it looks like 2 cores 4 threads is not enough really.
Considering that mantle wont be available until December, why would it be mentioned? Especially considering the fact that none of the "new" AMD GPUs were included in the benchmarks...
Cool your jets, people. I didn't say anything about getting performance numbers that are Mantle related or anything. I'm just surprised that it went unmentioned in a BF4 performance article with all of the buzz surrounding Mantle.
Happy to see low-end cards where tested. This at least gives me an idea on what notebooks are capable of.
Because the whole purpose is to test the CPU, not the GPU so it wouldn't matter what GPU there was it was to show where the game stands on CPU cores which it looks like 2 cores 4 threads is not enough really.
Don explicitly stated the CPU test was GPU bound on the high end. Why would you create a GPU bottleneck in a CPU test?!?! The only thing it does is artificially limit the i5 and i7 making lesser chips look better in comparison.
Also, where are the Mantle tests ?