DICE's recommended hardware list for Battlefield 4 includes quad-core Intel CPUs and hexa-core AMD processors, suggesting optimizations for threading that we typically don't see from games. So, let's see how different CPUs and architectures handle the game:
While we see a clear performance drop from the FX-4170 and Core i3-3220, frame rates remain comfortably above 40 FPS. That's great new, though if you own a GeForce GTX Titan, you probably wouldn't be enthused about that 20 FPS-drop attributable to too-slow of a CPU. This beautifully illustrates the importance of balance in a gaming PC build.
There's a noticeable speed-up going from FX-4170 at 4.2 GHz to the FX-8350 at 4 GHz. Although AMD doesn't fare as well as the Core i5s and i7s, we can at least speculate that Battlefield 4 does get some utility from a six- or eight-core CPU that you don't see from a quad-core chip.
It's also interesting that Sandy Bridge-E delivers the best minimum frame rate, despite a relatively slow operating frequency. That has to be attributable to lots of L3 cache or core count. Why the bunch-up around 74 FPS on average? That's the GeForce GTX Titan bottlenecking performance. We'd need a dual-GPU configuration to push Battlefield 4's frame rate higher.
The lower-end processors certainly encounter spikes in frame time latency. But keep in mind that this is the Ultra preset, and that a less demanding setting would likely help smooth some of those out.
Current page: CPU BenchmarksPrev Page Results: Ultra Quality, 2560x1440 Next Page Battlefield 4: We'll See You On The Battlefield!
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
My system is good to go!Reply
****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****
Looks about right. My 7970 @ 1165/1805 gets 50-60+ FPS. But no quad core i7's?Reply
Why did you use a Titan for the CPU benchmarks when you have the GTX 690 / HD7990 delivering ~30% more FPS?Reply
Any particular reason why only the 2500K was overclocked in the CPU benchmarks and why the FX-4170 was benchmarked in place of the 4300 or 6300?Reply
Would love to see some more detailed CPU benchmarks on a full 64 man conquest server once the game comes out... from some other data out there it looks possible that BF4 multiplayer is the first game to actually benefit from Hyperthreaded i7s over their i5 counterparts.Reply
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.
Why would they mention Mantle in an article about beta performance?Reply
I have an 2500k and an 7870xt (7930). As long as I dont max out AA I tend to be able to play at 45-50 fps with a mix of high/ultra on 1080p/ 24" screen.Reply
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 think they focused too much on the bottom end cards (6450, 210). I think anybody that has less than a 6670 probably won't be buying BF4.Reply
I also wish they tested a Radeon and Geforce card that would be considered equal to see how it performs by brand.
I have a 7770 and an i5, runs pretty clean on high, wouldnt want to bump up to ultra though, that would likely suckReply
11689688 said:Weird that there is absolutely no mention of Mantle when BF4 is going to be the first game to implement it.
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...