Results: High Quality, 1920x1080
Now we're pushing the resolution up to 1920x1080 and still using the High preset. We'd venture to say that most enthusiasts are using panels that natively support Full HD, so this becomes one of the best benchmarks in today's story. It tells you what you'll need in a gaming desktop to play Battlefield 4 using reasonably taxing settings.
Surprisingly, even the Radeon HD 7770 manages to keep its performance above 30 FPS. The Radeon HD 7790 doesn't push that minimum number much higher, but it does give us an average that exceeds 40 FPS. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti demonstrates an even higher minimum frame rate. The Radeon HD 7870 and GeForce GTX 660 keep north of 50 FPS throughout the benchmark. So, those cards become a solid baseline for playing Battlefield 4 at the High preset and 1920x1080.
The frame rate over time chart shows us what happens at each step of the way during our test run, and, for the most part, everything checks out. There is some disturbing fluctuation from the Radeon HD 7790, though. We'll have to see if that's reflected in our frame time variance measurements.
Indeed, the Radeon HD 7790 suffers, along with AMD's Radeon HD 7770. We tried two different Bonaire-powered cards, both of which yield the same strange result. We don't know what is causing the high variance, but it's consistent and specific to the 7790.
The rest of the field keeps below 10 ms most of the time.
****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.
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...