The long wait is over, Battlefield 4 is here! (and our BF4 Benchmark that is) . DICE has managed to pull off another miracle with this title and delivered probably the best FPS game ever, with server crashes, bad net code and glitches that came with it. We must apologize for the delay, but there were more than a few issues that stopped us from delivering this benchmark on time. First of all after the launch DICE released a 677 MB update which killed the frames per second by around 5-10 on average, which forced us to redo the whole thing again although we finished half of the job.

Also after the official launch for Europe  it was impossible to enter any server with AMD cards. AMD reacted promptly and delivered a new driver which fixed those issues, but in all good conscience we had to repeat the benchmarks again since it was a new driver.

However server crashing continued even after the new driver , but this wasn’t AMD’s fault  it was EA and DICE’s and until now server crashing has not been fixed completely, although there have been at least 5 patches that took place.

We could have just done Single Player benchmarks (which all of the other sites do) but we as Battlefield players know that SP benchmarks don’t mean squat when it comes to real world multiplayer performance, and lets face it people buy Battlefield because of the multiplayer, not singleplayer and we refused to go along with this meaningless trend that is being forced by other sites. But then again that is why we started HardwarePal.


bf4 2013-11-03 08-29-53-07


Since alot of readers asked why we didn’t  include the i3 CPU in our BF4 Beta Benchmark we decided to go along with it (although honestly no one likes i3 CPU’s), since DICE recommends the GTX 660 and AMD 7870 on there pc requirements chart we added them as well. Win7 vs Win8.1 was one of the biggest questions in BF4 Beta, since we had reports of Windows 8 actually performing much better than Windows 7. At that point , as Windows 8.1 wasn’t officially released and since we had issues earlier with Windows 8 we decided to leave it out of the beta benchmark. Windows 8 brings more features that utilizes CPUs with multiple cores more effectively, especially for AMD’s FX CPUs but for Intel CPUs also to some point. Since Win 8.1 has been officially released we added one more category which doubled the amount of work, add to that 2 more GPU’s and one more CPU and get the idea of how enormous this task of actually completing the benchmark was. Compared to BF4 Beta this was almost 5 times more work for us in order to get the benchmarks out. All this in order to provide one of the most complete game benchmarks that we have ever seen and done.

On their blog, DICE has acknowledged the issues we reported in BF4 Beta concerning  the FX 6300 and FX 4300, we expected that they will fix the issues with these AMD CPUs but also expected that issues with the i7 CPU will be resolved as well. Just to remind you the  i7 4770K in our beta benchmark was performing the same as a i5 4670k most of the time and sometimes even worse. High system memory usage was one more thing we expected to be fixed by launch, in Beta the system memory usage was around 9-10GB, 25% more than DICE recommended. With that in mind we decided to directly compare Bf4 Beta W7 performance with BF4 Official Release on W7 and W8.1 operating systems.  Make sure to read all of the pages from this benchmark, lots of weird things will occur again so reading all the material is a must in order to understand what’s going on in Battlefield 4 now, when it comes to system requirements and performance.

Short disclaimer:

We tested the CPUs, GPUs and operating systems on the same map where we had already with our BF4 Beta benchmark (The Siege of Shanghai) at the exact same location in order to get the most accurate results when we compared data. The benchmark was done on an empty server, since when you do testing of this scale you need absolutely the most stable surroundings as possible as every little variable can affect the results. System memory usage was done on a  full 64 man server. You might get better or even worse performance on similar setups (not by alot though), so take this benchmark only as general guideline when it comes to comparing performance of specific pieces of hardware on specific settings, and this is not the actual result that you might find in the game it self on a 64 man full server.


PC Spec Requirements by DICE

bf4 2013-11-03 08-31-09-09

Bf4 system requirements


Battlefield 4 Benchmark Rigs and Components

bf4 2013-11-03 08-31-13-70


CPU i7 4770Ki5 4670Ki3 4340
FX 8350FX6300FX4300
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5Asus Gryphon Z87
RAM 2x 8GB@ 2133 Mhz Kingston HyperX Beast : KHX21C11T3K2/16X
HDD/SSD 2 x Intel 520 Series 240 GB
GPU GTX770 4GB , GTX6607970GHZ Edition, 7870 GHZ Edition
Monitor Shimian QH270-IPSMS 2560x1440p 27″
PSU Thermaltake ToughPower XT 775W
OS Windows 7Windows 8.1
Drivers AMD Catalyst 13.11 Beta V8, Nvidia ForceWare 331.65


Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440 Ultra Settings

Battlefield 4 benchmark 2560 x 1440, Ultra Settings, NVidia 770 GTX 4GB vs 7970GHZ


DICE wasn’t lying when they said that optimization for  the FX 6300 and FX 4300 will be finished by launch. The FX 6300 an FX 4300 perform excellently, from a 50%-500% performance increase compared to the Beta. Optimization for the FX 6300 was so good that it even out performs the FX 8350. One more surprise came from the i3 which performs as well as AMD CPU’s which have much more cores. Of course Intel’s cores/threads and AMD cores/modules are not the same thing but this was one of the things we found interesting. We also must note large amounts of stuttering on the Windows 7 OS, in some cases the game was unplayable. When we switched to Windows 8.1 the stutter was gone, and all CPU’s got a nice boost in FPS, especially the FX ones. Don’t you be fooled by the same amount of Max fps on W7 and W8. We had the feeling that 60 fps on W7 was like 30 fps on W8. The GTX 770 performs well having 5-10% better performance on average.


Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440, Ultra Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870


The GTX 660 and AMD 7870 perform more or less the same. These GPU’s have only 2GB of RAM and they are being bottlenecked in that sense, as well as being lacked in sheer horsepower for this high a resolution. At such low frame rates the difference between CPU’s is almost non existent, although we do see the FX 4300 trailing from the rest of the pack. On Windows 8.1 all CPU’s except the FX 4300 got a nice boost of around 20% in terms of frames and enormous playability since we said earlier stuttering under W7 was sometimes unbearable.


bf4 2013-11-03 08-30-10-63


Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440, High Settings

 Battlefield 4 Benchmark, 2560 x 1440, High Settings, NVidia 770 GTX 4GB vs 7970


At these settings you could have seen it earlier that the GTX 770 will be performing around 10% better than the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition. Also all of the CPUs get a nice 10-20% boost under W8.1 (smoothness as well). But we also notice that the i7 4770k still under performs compared to the i5 4670k. The i3 4340 even performs similarly to the i7 which should not be the case by any means, but this is also one of the good examples about how Intel’s HyperThreading works ( with the i3 ).


Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440, High Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870


As we said earlier at this frame count the differences are hard to notice, but again the i7 under performs and its being beaten again by the i5 and i3 as well. With this problem we will deal a bit later. If you watch closely you will see that FX 6300 performs as well as the FX 8350 which kind of gave us an idea about what was really going on . When it comes to the GTX 660 and Radeon 7870, the 7870 performs better at these settings at around 10-15%.

bf4 2013-11-03 08-31-17-56


Battlefield 4 2560 1440 Medium Settings

 Battlefield 4 Benchmark, 2560 x 1440, Medium Settings, NVidia 770 GTX 4GB vs 7970Ghz


The lower the settings the bigger the frame rates. With bigger frame counts CPU power and optimization have the biggest saying. Since W8.1 utilizes CPU cores more efficiently you can see big gains in FPS  especially with the GTX 770 (around 50%). Strangely, we didn’t get that boost on the 7970 with the FX CPU’s (take a note of that!). The i7 and FX 8350 continue to under perform where the i7 trails in W7 but manages to catch up with the i5 4670k  under Windows 8.1. The FX 6300 still has the same performance as the FX 8350 and sometimes even better. The i3 plays out phenomenally.


Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440, Medium Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870


The 7870 in these settings performs better, especially under W8.1. Even here the i7 under performs, almost the same as the i3. The 4670k blows it out of the water in W7, however it recovers under Windows 8.1.

Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440 Low Settings


Battlefield 4 Benchmark, 2560 x 1440, Low Settings, NVidia 770 GTX 4GB vs 7970GHZ

When you look at benchmarks from BETA you will see that the difference is so big that is ridiculous. Better optimization paired with better drivers gives at least 50% more performance. With AMD’s FX CPU the gains are even much bigger , but if you switch to Win 8.1 you get an even higher 20%  performance increase. Notice that GTX 770 beats the AMD 7970 at around 10-20% overall. We also must note that with the GTX 770 the FX CPU’s perform much better than with the 7970. After some extensive research we noticed that GPU usage on AMD 7970 drops to around 65%, and this is not the first time you will be able to see this.

Battlefield 4 2560 x 1440, Low Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870

However in this scenario AMD 7870 does very well and although being on par with the GTX 660 on Windows 7 it gets a big boost on Windows 8.1. The i7 continues to trail behind the i5 and i3 even on W7 but manages to catch up again on Windows 8.1. This is an optimization issue since you can see that FX 8350 also trails behind the FX 6300 and only manages to be on par with it on Windows 8.1 .

bf4 2013-11-03 08-32-49-01


BF4 1920×1080 Ultra Settings

BF 4 1920 x 1080, Ultra settings, GTX 770 vs 7970

As we continue we see again that the i3 and i5 beat the i7 as well as the FX 6300 beating the FX 8350. We concluded that this is an optimization issue, since Frostbite 3 Engine employs CPU’s with an amount of load that a quad core CPU can handle. Don’t get us wrong, this doesn’t mean that the game doesn’t utilize extra cores or threads, it means that for  example the FX 8350 is working at ~50% load while the FX 6300 works at 66%. Non of them work at 100%, however since data is being more efficiently processed with less cores/threads you will get a weird situation where the i7 and FX 8350 are performing worse than the slower CPU’s.

Battlefield 4 1920 x 1080, Ultra Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870

As we go with our lower ranged cards, we see that the GTX 660 performs identically in W7 and W8.1 in terms of frames, however the stuttering under W 8.1 was non existent. When it comes to the 7870 although trailing behind the GTX 660 on W7, it catches up on W8.1.

bf4 2013-11-03 08-34-57-72


BF4 1920×1080 High Settings

BF4 1920 x 1080, High settings, GTX 770 vs 7970

To state the obvious, the i7 and FX 8350 are again trailing on Windows 7 and only manage to catch up on Windows 8 with the slower CPU’s.  The GTX 770+Cpu combos get a massive 50% boost on Windows 8.1 while with the AMD 7970 +CPU combos get only a 10% boost. Again we noticed GPU usage drop on the 7970 to around 65% on Windows 8.1 which resulted to this discrepancy against the GTX 770.

Battlefield 4 1920 x 1080, High Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870

We see similar results with 1920×1080 on high as we did with ultra. The 7870 seems to be alot stronger with the i3 shining on both cards against the rest of the CPU’s.

bf4 2013-11-03 08-34-58-88


Battlefield 4 1920×1080 Medium Settings


BF4 1920 x 1080, Medium settings, GTX 770 vs 7970

Here we see again something that has now begun to be a standard, the i7 and FX 8350 again manage to perform well only at Windows 8.1, while in Windows 7 they fall behind. Again GPU usage on the 7970 drops when working in Windows 8.1 to 65%, this is by no means a CPU bottleneck by FX CPU’s since as you can see they perform quite well with the GTX 770.  This is more likely a video driver issue.

Battlefield 4  1920 x 1080, Medium Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870

Something similar happens with the 7870 , its on par in terms of frames with the GTX 660, but again GPU usage drops in Windows 8.1 performing almost identically as in Windows 7. And yet again the i7 and FX 8350 don’t do as good as they should, managing to give somewhat expected performance with Windows 8.1. Do we need to mention again that there was no stuttering with Windows 8.1?


Battlefield 4 1920×1080 Low Settings


Battlefield 4 1920 x 1080, Low settings, GTX 770 vs 7970

The crescendo of this roundup comes at the lowest resolutions that we tested on the lowest settings, this is where differences in performance started to get truly ridiculous. The AMD 7970 again does OK in W7, but completely disappoints in Windows 8.1. CPUs running under the GTX 770 perform 50% better than the same CPU’s running under tge AMD 7970.The i5-4670k is again king of the hill being the only CPU which reached the 200 fps mark , where as the  i7 only manages to provide slightly less performance of around 10% . The i3 again performs excellently and this CPU is one of the biggest surprises of this benchmark where at most times performed as well as the i7 or maybe even better. The FX 8350 again is under performing compared to the FX 6300.

Battlefield 4 1920 x 1080, Low Settings, GTX 660 vs 7870

Same problem that occurs with the 7970 continues with the 7870. As we go down with the settings we go down with GPU usage as well which of course affects the overall framerate. AMD needs to fix this asap.




Bf4 2560x1440 Ultra settings GPU ram usage



BF4  1920x1080 ultra settings gpu ram usage


As we can see, compared to Beta, Vram usage has increased on all resolutions if you want to play at max settings. DICE has apparently added more high resolution textures which resulted with the increased need for memory usage. 3GB of  dedicated video memory is a must have if you want to play at the 2560×1440 resolution at maxed out settings. When it comes to the 1920 x 1080p resolution we were kinda surprised that 2GB wasn’t quite enough, however we think that 2GB might do the job just as well since 200 MB won’t make that much of a difference.

bf4 2013-11-03 08-35-00-37


Battlefield 4 System Memory Usage


2560 x 1440 BF4 Ultra Settings System Memory Load in MB full 64 men server


When it comes to system memory usage we see that DICE has fixed memory leakage problems and that memory needed to run fluid gameplay has been considerably reduced. Less than 7 GB of RAM is needed on full 64 man servers for your game to run at 2560×1440 at maxed out settings. As we go down with to smaller resolutions we see something very interesting.


BF4 , 1920 x 1080 Ultra Settings System Memory Load in MB full 64 men server


Apparently lower resolution does not affect the amount of memory you need. Although the difference in RAM usage between the BF4 Beta 2560×1440 and 1920×1080 was around 1GB we see that the results in the official version are quite different.We see exact same or close enough system ram usage in both resolutions. We tested this on multiple servers and the result were always the same.



And boy, its going to be a big one, but in order for you to keep track it will be divided into sections.

  • Game optimization- as we saw at this point in time it doesn’t really matter which CPU you have. The game is optimized to fully utilize only CPU’s with 4 cores or threads and, that work load is being replicated to other more powerful CPU’s. To be exact this is the average CPU usage for all CPU’s.

BF4 Average CPU usage chart


We believe that DICE is having trouble  taming the beast called Frostbit Engine 3.0 and at this point when the game is still at its early release stages they decided to restrain the engine by default in drawing too much CPU power so the  smaller and slower CPU’s don’t get overwhelmed as was the case with the FX 6300 and FX 4300 in Beta.

Although the problem with FX CPU’s was another thing since if you remember the i7 was under performing in Beta as well, compared to i5 4670k which suggests that the game or the engine itself clearly doesn’t use all the CPU power it has at its disposal. This is not directly connected with Intel’s Hyperthreading since we saw the i3 (which has HT) doing remarkably well. This is one of the rare situations  (if not the only one) that we have seen in gaming where having a stronger CPU doesn’t really help, heck, its quite the opposite. People who bought cheaper CPUs have a reason to cheer about it although I am sensing some rage on the side of i7 users who paid top dollar for their processors.

It would be nice from DICE to fix this optimization issue (after they fix server crashing, net code, etc…) and you can be sure that we will inform DICE about our findings as soon as possible. Users that already have the i7 might want to try and disable Hyperthreading in the BIOS, they could get better performance than leaving it on.


  • Operating Systems – results clearly show that the game runs much better on Windows 8.1 than on Windows 7. When releasing Windows 8’s vanilla version, Microsoft announced better  performance with  multicore CPU’s, especially with AMD’s FX CPUs. What Microsoft said, Microsoft delivered. It is perfectly fine that new operating system brings better performance but we do not know why there is so much stuttering with Windows 7 OS. When we say stuttering we are not referring to frame drops or even Frametiming, we tested all that  and it brought us nothing. We believe that Framerating techniques would show what the users and we as well have experienced, however at the time of testing we didn’t have adequate  equipment to prove these claims but you can be sure that this is something we are going to be dealing with in the future. Battlefield 3 runs perfectly well with  W7 without even a hint of stutter and we really do not understand why this happens in Battlefield 4. Unless, someone has found a way to show his new OS as a much superior one to the previous, and in order for them to do that, found a way for the older one to fail. We are not pointing any fingers, just saying. At this point , since there is not even a hint of a patch that would improve performance on W7 (DICE is being awfully quiet about that), if you are planning on upgrading your computer for Battlefield 4 the first thing you should change is your operating system and switch to Windows 8.1 (64-bit).
  • GPU’s and Drivers – as we saw GPU usage on AMD cards drops as we lowered the resolution and settings, you can be sure that we will inform them as well about the issues we have encountered. AMD really needs to do a better job when it comes to driver support, after all, this game should be optimized for AMD cards, right?
  • System Memory Usage – we are glad that initial fears when it comes to memory needed for this game are now gone, if we don’t get anymore “RAM eating features” 6-8GB of ram is more than enough for you to play at a full scale 64 man server.
  • Vram Usage- if you want to play on Ultra at 1440 or 1600p, you need at least a 3 GB card, for 1080/1200p 2GB card MIGHT do the job.

We will be returning to benching Battlefield 4 when DICE integrates AMD’s mantle on December 15th, so make sure you subscribe to our news letter in order to get your information on time.

Also the next game we will be benching is Call Of Duty: Ghosts that will be released on November the 5th , so you would might want to stick around and see what we make of it.

See Pricing

If you have any questions about the benchmark please ask in the comment section below and I will be glad to answer.

About The Author

"I love the smell of fresh hardware in the morning..."

  • gingababobs

    Good thing I didn’t buy bf4 day 1. Having 1gb of vram sucks balls. Will probably get it when few more patches are out and i get a new gpu.

    • Kyle Jackson

      Nvidia Maxwell next year, that’s what I’m waiting to upgrade for.

  • carol argo

    its always the same issue on various system ! and it is always ignored or forgotten ! IRQ ! MSI ! MSIX ! not many hardware vendor bother setting up msix .oh they all support it , its a requirement . but not many bother setting it . and when its left to the os to decide , ms tend to go on the conservative side if it doesn’t compute something .

  • Kajot

    important question for the reviewers. does it make a difference with gtx 770 to have a 4gb ver over 2gb? or is performance the same on these?

    • Matt

      I used a 2gb 680 for the Beta and I had to set textures to High and MSAA to 2x for stable-ish frame rates (around 60fps). I could play it with the ultra presets but there was noticeable lag when looking around corners at speed… not sure if it was a beta or memory problem though.

    • Milos M

      It depends on resolution of your monitor, if its 1920×1080 I guess you are safe with the 2GB version, if the resolution is higher, 2GB wont cut it. I presume the question was concerning BF4, right?

      • kajot

        yes milos, its for 1440p bf4. i want to get 2 770sli, but i wonder if 2gb will hiccup when vram goes 2.5gb. I can get 4gb versions so that will be ok? i know performance wise they wont make much, but i’m afraid i will get end of vram hiccups.

        • Milos M

          In that case buy one gtx 770 4GB and than one GTX 770 4GB later. Although I would suggest that you buy just one GTX770 and then if you really need another one buy it. Multi GPu configurations are a pain in the ass when it comes to driver support and game optimization.

          • Guest

            ^^^^^^Milos you did not just write that^^^^^^^

          • Vlasov_581

            ^^^^^^^^^^^Milos you did not just write that^^^^^^^^^^

          • Milos M

            Thank you for the feedback, that’s what i get when i tell my girlfriend to write messages for me. Edited.

          • kajot

            I heard you need to mirror hardware. I mean that’s how it is in amd. When i crossfire, I need to use equal ram/gpu type. If I put same gpu different ram it will just downgrade the bigger one to mirror the smaller one and not use the other.

          • Milos M

            You are right there has been a miscommunication between me and the staff that responds in the comments. Sorry for misleading you it wasn’t out of any bad intention. The post has been edited.

  • Dennis Juchems

    An interesting benchmark, especially since you included the CPU and GPU usage. Regarding the 6300 being more powerful than the 8350 in this case, could you disable two cores of the 8350 and by that get a performance boost? Or doesn’t it work like that?
    Also, what’s your opinion on mantle? Will it put the combination of AMD CPU and card ahead or do you still expect that combining AMD with the 770 would be better than with the r9 280x?

    • Milos M

      Yeah you can do that, you can lock the cores in BIOS and you got yourself a hexa core.
      When it comes to Mantle I am not sure at this point in time whether it will affect AMD CPUs it is all a speculation at this point in time and AMD hasnt said anything about CPUs, at least from what I know. When it comes cards at this point in time GTX770 is better but also more expensive (specially the 4GB version) if you are on the market for a new card, and its not the matter of life and death, you should wait for sales as we approach Christmas and New Year, by then you will know whether the Mantle works since we will be doing some extensive benchmarking as well.

      • Dennis Juchems

        Thanks, Milos. 🙂 My girlfriend and I are thinking about upgrading now to the end of November. Hopefully there’ll soon be some more information about Mantle, even if there won’t be any proper benchmarks yet by that time. From how I understood it so far I could imagine that AMD’s cards catch up with their nvidia counterparts, but obviously it’s not sure it’ll be that way. With our current budget it somewhat boils down to a choice of 6300 and 770 (4GB) or 8350 and r9 280x.

      • Russell Collins

        “When it comes to Mantle I am not sure at this point in time whether it will affect AMD CPUs it is all a speculation at this point in time and AMD hasn’t said anything about CPUs, at least from what I know.”

        According to AMD using Mantle will lower the overhead of the CPU, thus increasing performance as it allows for the CPU to be focused on other things. Also in the Dice presentation they said that Mantle allows for perfect parallel rendering, ie using all 8 cores+.

        • Dennis Juchems

          Do you think that will alleviate the problem of the cores not being used to their full potential? What’s your opinion on whether the AMD cards will come up to nvidia’s performance in multiplayer, especially combined with the AMD CPUs?

          • Russell Collins

            I don’t know if it will completely alleviate it, nevertheless it should help. I think they had their CPU’s in mind when they created Mantle. They had to find a way to put their CPU’s on an even playing field with Intel. What many people do not understand is that a lot of programs/games use Intel compilers which in turn purposefully make AMD processors use the slowest instruction sets.
            See more here:

          • Russell Collins

            I answered your question and gave a link supporting my claims but it has yet to be approved.

        • Milos M

          My point was that I am not buying it till I see it and test it. AMD and DICE have been awfully quiet about the performance benefits that will come with Mantle and if you look back and remebr how Buldozer was marketed and at the end what did we get? AMD (with Crytek) has been complaining for a long time now that Direct X is limiting today’s GPU’s, Mantle has been announced as a substitute for DirectX and if I expect improvements in any field, that’s GPU’s, but again until I test it I cant say much about it. When it comes to CPUs I am skeptical, but we will see…

          • Russell Collins

            I agree, proof is in the pudding so to speak. I don’t see how it’s possible to be any slower than DirectX or OpenGL though.

  • Matt

    The stuttering issue will be worked out by dice for Windows 7… There is absolutely no reason to switch to Windows 8.

    • Milos M

      Its not just about Windows 8,1 being stutter free, it does bring performance increase specially when you get a load of frames. Personally, I don’t like W8 either but I sense the transition is in the air.

      • Usman Khan

        it’s not just battlefield alot of games run better in windows 8.1, most of old games have minor shutter in windows 7 on my pc but on windows 8.1 its silky

    • WinSomeLoseNone

      How about direct X 11.1/2 and the added performance that comes with it? GTX 7XX cards are 11.1 compatible. R7/R9 cards are 11.2 compatible. Part of the performance boost for 8.1 is due to DX 11.1/2 which will never be coming to W7 as per MS.

  • Archie Paras

    Do you know if Mantle is going to be implemented in the Frostbyte 3 engine so all games that use it will benefit from it or is Dice just having Battlefield 4 support it via the patch in December. If all games using Frostbyte 3 will support it the future that would be an amazing advantage for AMD. Bioware’s Mass Effect and Dragon Age Inquisition and DICE’s own Mirror’s Edge and Star Wars Battlefront are huge and having them support it will be incredible.

    • Milos M

      DICE has announced that Mantle will be a part of Frostbite Engine 3.0 and that it will be implemented in all future games that they make with that engine including DA:Inquisition, Battlefront etc…. However we have yet to see mantle in Action.

  • Hans

    BF4 never used more than 2GB vom RAM on my Win 8.1 64Bit System. I go 16GB installed.
    Its set to start the x64 Version.

    How did you manage to use over 6GB?

    • Milos M

      This is MP benchmark not SP… If you are on an empty Large conquest map it eats around 4,5-5Gb in average

  • Max Gockel

    One can fix the stuttering on windows 7 by disabling “core parking”

    • Milos M

      It depends, core parking is a windows measure to save power. If you tweak power options in Windows to High Performance you really don’t need that. But for the sake of objectivity I have tried that Core Unparking thing and got 0.0% performance improvement under W7. Stutter continued as before. I see people are saying all over the internet that it helped them, we didnt see performance gain what so ever.

  • EpitaxialOne

    Many people quote work like this to justify the erroneous position that multi-threading doesn’t work in gaming – and BF4 specifically – but don’t understand the context necessary to draw the right conclusions.

    A “benchmark” on an empty server will not provide tangible benefit at the CPU level relative to a fully-loaded server. I’m not saying misconception is the fault of the reviewer, but an even more explicit disclaimer is probably required to help the layman.

    • Milos M

      Hyper threading works very well, you can see that with i3 performance but bad i7 performance has nothing to do with HT. We have tried benching on a full 64 player server but that is truly impossible. First of all, lots of people (the ones that want to kill you) do not have any understanding for the higher purpose when it comes to benching so, we skipped that after a few tries. When you die frame rate goes all over the place and the results are useless. From what I saw while gaming the performance in terms of average fps is pretty much the same, same thing goes for min fps but max fps varies from time to time leaving us with no clear conclusion. As we said this benchmark is for comparing CPUs only, with the current game optimization things are as you see them in benchmark, DICE might patch this but they have bigger things to think about now. Also we wanted to answer some questions: Is it worth switching to W8.1 and do cheaper CPUs bottleneck high end GPUs? We think we answered all of those questions.

  • Tommaso Re

    Have you got any answer from AMD about their video cards misbehavior? Some drivers update solve this issue?

    • Milos M

      No feedback from AMD, they did release a new driver that fixed performance in COD:Ghosts, but to be honest with you we didn’t really have time to test it, AMD in release notes hasnt mentioned anything about performance improvement in BF4, so we thought: “why bother?”.

      • Jynn

        Milos I have seen other people reporting 60 – 80% cpu usage on all 8 cores of the FX 8350 and getting great performance from it in MP. So I’m rather confused by your results. Probably a stupid question but did you use the 64 bit executable for BF4? I’ve heard the 32 bit one will only support 4 cores which would explain your results if you were using it.

  • georgieboy

    Milos, as someone looking to upgrade his CPU what would you recommend me go for a 6300? or a 4670k

    • Bruh

      I know im late but 4670k is way better in general

  • Dave4321

    Does the 770 have 2 or 4 GB of ram?

    • Nikolas Nikolaou

      On the Benchmark Rigs and Components page you can see the VRAM. It’s a 4GB.

      • Dave4321

        Thanks! would be interesting to see how a 2 GB 770 fares against a 3GB 7970. In other words, a faster card vs a card with more ram as they are also closer in price.

        • Nikolas Nikolaou

          Well unless you are using settings that use more than 2GB VRAM (which would bottleneck a 2GB 770) the benchmarks should be identical as the horsepower is exactly the same.

  • sikkkkka

    “1080/1200p 2GB card MIGHT do the job.”

    Seriously? I play bf4 with core i5-3570K, 1440p, 70 to 80 fps on ULTRA PRESET with GTX 770.

  • David Miller

    Did you guys have hyperthreading on the CPU

    • Nikolas Nikolaou

      Yes David hyperthreading was enabled. The benchmark was done before the 17 Update releases just so you know.

  • Chandrian

    talking about total system ram usage, were the results the same both with x64 and x86 exe files?