Battlefield 4 Graphics Performance Overview With Current Generation GPUs

by - 8 years ago

«»

High End Graphics Card Performance


At the lower resolutions all the high-end GPUs we tested tore through Battlefield 4, with everything at ultra, churning out 60 FPS or more. All GPUs are clearly capable and if you’re only running a single 1080p panel then quite honestly anything above a GTX 770 or R9 280X is overkill.

battlefield_4_1_1

Moving onto the higher resolutions and all the graphics cards had to work a bit more, especially at Eyefinity/Surround. The AMD R9 290X and R9 290 do really well but our test wasn’t long enough for them to significantly throttle down (which they definitely will if you buy a reference design). Despite all the AMD rhetoric with Battlefield 4 Nvidia appear to have the advantage when considering stock vs stock performance with no throttling. Once you get stuck into a long gaming session and clock speeds start to settle from the heat output I think the GTX 780 Ti, GTX Titan and GTX 780 will both surpass the AMD R9 290X and R9 290 as Nvidia’s cards are much more thermally controlled. However, if cooling isn’t a limitation (e.g you watercool or have a non-reference air cooler) then you can see the R9 290X and R9 290 are both excellent performers for their price – particularly the R9 290 which beats the GTX Titan at 5760 x 1080. Interestingly at triple screen gaming there is just 3 FPS separating the R9 290, R9 290X, GTX 780 Ti and GTX Titan. Clearly both AMD and Nvidia have competent solutions here, I think Nvidia have the edge performance wise but AMD have the value for money advantage as we’ve come to expect. AMD’s Mantle may change things but until then Nvidia have the more refined offerings in my opinion.

battlefield_4_2_1

Article Index

  1. Introduction
  2. Test System and Methodology
  3. High End Graphics Card Performance
  4. Mid-Range Graphics Card Performance
  5. Combined Summary Graphs
  6. Final Thoughts
  7. View All

Author Bio

11 Comments on Battlefield 4 Graphics Performance Overview With Current Generation GPUs

  • Avatar Andy says:

    Very good review, although considering you are only using Windows 7, there is a major FPS increase with Windows 8/8.1, I had Windows 7 64Bit and I was able to just about play on Low settings and getting 60-70 FPS, I then bought a copy of Windows 8 and reformatted etc. I am now able to run the game on Medium Settings with 70-80 FPS, so anyone looking at this with a Windows 8 PC will definitely see different results 🙂

    • Avatar Ryan Martin says:

      We are looking to make the jump to Windows 8.1 soon but we are waiting to see a bit higher uptake on the Steam hardware survey before we make the shift because we want to see that most gamers actually use it. Currently WIndows 7 64 bit has 53.4% of steam users while Windows 8(.1) 64 bit has 15.66%, that means WIndows 7 users outnumber Windows 8 users on Steam gaming by over 3 to 1. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

    • Avatar GH0ST_SE7EN says:

      This has to be a joke. I had NO performance increase with Win8 and reinstalled Win7. This is with a GTX 660 running on a 1600×900 monitor though, so idk.

  • Avatar Branden Jew says:

    Battlefield 4 has stopped working…

  • Avatar H3Ad_HuNt3r_uk says:

    im running Win 7 64Bit, 8Gig DDR2, 2x 580GTX in SLi & Intel Core 2 Duo X9650 Extreme 3.00Gig O.C. to 3.6Gig and using this :http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri put me in the middle of Minimum & Recommended while having settings set at Auto and seeing a very poor game play still :S

  • Avatar Ezio Crenshaw says:

    I have an i5-3770k, ASRock motherboard, 8 gigs of RAM, and a GTX660 Ti Boost. Win7 is currently the OS but I’m considering Win8 for performance boosts, as my sister also plays NFS games (Most Wanted2 and this year’s Rivals). However, my HDD, which was a compromise, is WD Scorpio Blue, which is understandably slow. So, do I go in for an SSD this year, or do I up the RAM?

    • Avatar Ryan Martin says:

      SSD. 4 to 8GB of RAM makes minimal difference, 8GB to 16GB will make no difference.

      • Avatar faaaaq says:

        Ryan’s post only has validity if the games are the ONLY thing you are running. There isnt a time when I’m not already using 8gigs of ram. I would have to close every program just to be able to properly run any games, and that is silly. But, getting more ram will not improve anything for you unless you already NEED more ram. And an SSD will also not get you any gaming benefits other than faster loading times and less texture issues (if you were having any to begin with). I would get more ram, or better ram, and wait a while longer while SSD prices are still dropping. You dont need either (for the price of an SSD worth buying, you could get a new GPU…which is what you should be doing anyways).

    • Avatar cXn-John says:

      I got a 250GB Sumsung 840 series SSD and i was amazed at how much better my games loaded, but this is all it will do, load things faster. But that being said i do not have a top end PC and struggle to run BF4 at anything above Medium settings, granted medium gives me 120 solid FPS any other combination of settings gives me bad FPS drops and skipping due to my 2x 6870s being old and not up to the job of this new game.

      • Avatar Ezio Crenshaw says:

        I’d gladly go for the SSD even for just booting up faster. Currently takes about 4 minutes for boot, which is odd, considering it doesn’t get much usagew when I’m away. It is also a relatively new PC, got in Jan. Nothing wrong with it according to windows, but I suspect some sort of interference by the ASRock quick boot programs, and they recommend having an SSD in the booklet somewhere.

  • Avatar Brian Collins says:

    I get 72 fps on ultra settings with system specs: 3570k at 4.2Ghz, 780 at 1097mhz, 8gb 1600mhz, windows 7.

Related Posts

0 SHARES

0 SHARES

0 SHARES

0 SHARES

0 SHARES

0 SHARES