I've only really seen this article mentioned when it comes to PC performance. Honestly, I'd like to see a lot more reviews - especially from someone like TB, etc before I start worrying.
Check out this thread, there's a few more benchmarks.
I've only really seen this article mentioned when it comes to PC performance. Honestly, I'd like to see a lot more reviews - especially from someone like TB, etc before I start worrying.
Check out this thread, there's a few more benchmarks.
On consoles you play at 30 fps on medium settings without any power to change it. Thats why it "works".
I can put game settings down to those same settings and get lik 80-100 fps even on the worse optimized games.
I don't meant to bash you or anything, I mean for a $400 machine its not bad.
I like 60 frames per second as much as the next person, but only having 45 certainly isn't the end of the world...
Bumping down a few settings a notch to squeeze out some additional performance isn't either...
Oh no, a game made for 8-core consoles won't run on your quad core pc...
Oh no, a game made for 8-core consoles won't run on your quad core pc...
I don't normally enjoy saying people on the internet are wrong (otherwise I would have no free time), but this post is just the epitome of misunderstanding hardware and video game applications use of it.
So will I be able to max the game out and get at least a playable 30FPS on my:
i7-2600K 3.4GHz
16GB DDR3 Ram
Nvidia GTX 770 4GB version?
Currently BF4 runs at around 45-100 FPS depending on how many players are on the map and the map design on max settings x2MSAA.
http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search
On a gtx 780ti with i74790k, you get max 45 fps, maybe 60 fps when nvidia drivers release. Are you guys joking? this is the engine bf4 uses, which I get over 100fps with on max settings with 4xmsaa with explosions going on constantly with a gtx 780 and core i74770k.
But ofcourse there is nothing going on with denuvo (which is known for being system intensive in LOTF, and causing 75% cpu usage in fifa 15) or anything right guys? The anti tampering software that constantly encrypts and decrypts access to exe with massive hard drive writes, hogs memory for security purposes and takes up cpu overhead.
Good lord. Hmm...
This is why I prefer consoles. All I have to down is put in the game, and it plays!
At 30 fps
And low res
So will I be able to max the game out and get at least a playable 30FPS on my:
i7-2600K 3.4GHz
16GB DDR3 Ram
Nvidia GTX 770 4GB version?
Currently BF4 runs at around 45-100 FPS depending on how many players are on the map and the map design on max settings x2MSAA.
According to the benchmarks you should get 30 FPS at least with unoptimised drivers.
Aren't the drivers unoptimized at this early point?
Maybe things will get better post-launch.
According to the benchmarks you should get 30 FPS at least with unoptimised drivers.
Even if I have a 4GB version of the GTX770 2GB they benchmarked??
You have heard of LOD scaling right? This allows them to have more highly detailed models closer while having less detailed ones further away.
Of course their game is built around supporting large crowds, however that does not mean it has low detail models for npcs, unless you think these are "low detail" even compared to DA:I:
Amazing. Had no idea it looked this good.
But moot point, will never play the game until they fix the effeminate protagonist & the eye rolling story
Even if I have a 4GB version of the GTX770 2GB they benchmarked??
VRAM capacity doesn't really affect FPS. But it will help to reduce stuttering.
According to the benchmarks you should get 30 FPS at least with unoptimised drivers.
The benchmark used 4X MSAA so with 2X it should be a lot better than 30 FPS.
I am not sure why people expect a driver to fix everything. Nvidia released drivers for Lords of the Fallen and Unity when they came out, they fixed ****.
The benchmark used 4X MSAA so with 2X it should be a lot better than 30 FPS.
I just jumped in Battlefield 4 and did an FPS test. I ranged around 40-90 FPS depending on the situation on a 64 man rush server in a large map.
Everything is maxed at 2xMSAA with a 70 FOV 85 HOV
For those of you that don't know what Rush is, pretty much all 64 players are concentrated around the center of the two objectives (ie: cluster) So if I can get 40 FPS while looking at 64 players + vehicles blowing each other up then I should definitely get a minimum of 40 FPS playing an RPG game with a few characters on screen.
No way does this game have more visual noise than a 64 man battlefield 4 server. Impossible. Regardless of the couple of new technologies they enabled it's still the same engine.
This is why I prefer consoles. All I have to down is put in the game, and it plays!
Yup. Good old tried and true workingman's graphics. None of that elitist nonsense like antialiasing and 60 fps here.
ugh...ima stick with 2x MSAA..
On consoles you play at 30 fps on medium settings without any power to change it. Thats why it "works".
I can put game settings down to those same settings and get lik 80-100 fps even on the worse optimized games.
I don't meant to bash you or anything, I mean for a $400 machine its not bad.
actually, a bioware dev//mod explained, while comparing the GFX between consoles and PC that consoles bascially the visual fidelity of a PC on high settings, minus the water textures not being maxed, but set to med. granted this isn't comparable to a PC set to "ultra", but thats why people shell out 2K$ for a rig for all the extra bells and visual whistles...
see i'm running a 550ti 1 g of on board ram, 12 gigs of system ram and an i5 2.80 CPU and decided to go with PS4 for now. (will prob eventually go with a PC copy too), because i just can't be reassured at this point how will my lame video card can handle such a bitchin game.
but it's nice to know that the console, excuse me, next gen consoles look so good.
but i am glad i will be playing on the PS4 because i'm picky about my TV//game running at native resolution, although for those of us who will be playing on the XB1 take comfort in the fact that DAI was lead on the XB1 so that's kind of nice to know.
I just jumped in Battlefield 4 and did an FPS test. I ranged around 40-90 FPS depending on the situation on a 64 man rush server in a large map.
Everything is maxed at 2xMSAA with a 70 FOV 85 HOV
For those of you that don't know what Rush is, pretty much all 64 players are concentrated around the center of the two objectives (ie: cluster) So if I can get 40 FPS while looking at 64 players + vehicles blowing each other up then I should definitely get a minimum of 40 FPS playing an RPG game with a few characters on screen.
No way does this game have more visual noise than a 64 man battlefield 4 server. Impossible. Regardless of the couple of new technologies they enabled it's still the same engine.
A couple of new technology can stress the system a lot.
Remember Tress FX just for Lara's hair?
That alone costed me 20 - 30 fps.
In addition to that those 64 players are nothing compared to your inquisitor and your companions in terms of details.
Compare Varic and a multiplayer solider in BF:4.
A new driver will definitely help (usually at least 10 - 20 %) and you may need to lower down few most costly graphics options one notch to get 60 fps.
"Game/Version: Dragon Age: Inquisition Retail, Steam"
Well there's the answer, EA totes sabotaged the steam version with poor performance!
Meh, as long as the Nintendo eShop version is fine, I'm cool.
Eh this is slightly concerning however i'm waiting on benchmarks using more mature drivers before making any judgments.
If this performance lose due to Bioware using every technology avaible i'm happy. Even though with my gtx670, i will have to lower some meaty option(MSAA in this case).
My only fear: wheter this game is poorly optimazed or not(Like DA2).
I am not sure why people expect a driver to fix everything. Nvidia released drivers for Lords of the Fallen and Unity when they came out, they fixed ****.
Eh, it depends. I've actually experienced dramatic improvement sometimes when I update drivers.