# DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2014)

Along with its highly anticipated game patch that includes an AMD Mantle renderer for Battlefield 4, DICE posted numbers from its own testing, pointing out the performance difference between DirectX 11.1 and Mantle. DICE put Battlefield 4 through three test scenarios, entry-level gaming, mainstream gaming, and enthusiast gaming. The entry-level test-bed comprised of an AMD A10-7850K APU, with its integrated Radeon R7 200 series GPU (512 stream processors, 720 MHz GPU clock). This is a CPU and GPU limited scenario, in which the game was tested at 1280 x 720 pixels resolution. DICE notes that with Mantle, the game yielded about 14 percent higher frame-rates.

Next up, is mainstream gaming. The test-bed runs an AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K. A Radeon HD 7970 is in charge of graphics, and the game is run at 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution, with 1x MSAA and "Ultra" preset. DICE found that the setup yields about 26 percent higher frame-rates. Lastly, there's the enthusiast test-bed, running an Intel Core i7-3960X CPU, and dual Radeon R9 290X (CrossFire) graphics. The resolution stayed at 1920 x 1080, settings at "Ultra" preset, but the anti-aliasing was cranked up to 4x MSAA. The result? A stunning 58 percent higher frame-rates. It's important to note here that in addition to settings, the other thing that's not constant between the three setups is the test scene. Even if DICE' assessment is most generous towards AMD's claims, there really does seem to be a performance increment on offer, with Mantle. Can't wait to check it out for ourselves. For more details and notes from the developer, check out the source link.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Supercrit (Jan 30, 2014)

I 'm kind of disappointed at the lower end system improvements. The whopping 58% higher performance is where it doesn't matter, not to mention the test is not done by a neutral 3rd party. At least it seems that the stuttering problem is gone.


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 30, 2014)

Not bad.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 30, 2014)

*Battlefield 4 + Mantle*

AMD FX-8350 + R9 290X +23% Performance increase Vs. Direct X
Core i5-4670k + R9 290X +7.5% Performance increase Vs. Driect X

Core i7-4960X CPU + R9 290X GPU
1080p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 9.2% improvement with Mantle
1600p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 10% improvement with Mantle

Core i7-4960X CPU + R7 260X GPU
1080p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 2.7% improvement
1600p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 1.4% improvement

A10-7700K CPU + R9 290X GPU
1080p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 40.9% improvement
1600p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 17.3% improvement

A10-7700K CPU + R7 260X GPU
1080p, Ultra Preset, 4xAA: 8.3% improvement
1600p, Low Preset: 16.8% improvement



Source: http://wccftech.com/amd-launches-mantle-beta-low-end-cpus-not-gpus/


----------



## john_ (Jan 30, 2014)

Supercrit said:


> I 'm kind of disappointed at the lower end system improvements. The whopping 58% higher performance is where it doesn't matter, not to mention the test is not done by a neutral 3rd party. At least it seems that the stuttering problem is gone.



From AMD's results you get a 40% with an APU and an 290X which is the most important scenario today that most people prefer to spend money on a new smartphone than buying a new cpu and motherboard. I expect many who stayed with older cpus (phenom, older i5/i3, core2quad) or build recently systems with sub $150 cpus(Richland/AM3+ quad-six cores/Pentium/i3) and where thinking a full system upgrade in the near future to improve gaming experience by removing cpu bottlenecks, instead of changing their cpu+motherboard alongside the gpu upgrade, to just wait and see if the cpu+motherboard upgrade is really necessary with Mantle. Any positive news and broad adoption of Mantle will drive these people to just buy the fastest GCN card they can afford instead of spending money on a cpu+motherboard upgrade AND also buy a new graphics card. They will either buy a better card or save over $100-$200.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 30, 2014)

The low end is pretty much where it's supposed to matter though... I mean for all us high end users a few extra percent is nice, but the difference between 54 FPS and 57 FPS minimum doesn't really have much of an effect on me. But for a low end user, it can mean a great deal more.


----------



## Mathragh (Jan 30, 2014)

Since multiplayer is usually a lot more taxing for the CPU, the performance uplift in that scenario should also be significant. Lets hope benchmarks done by review sites include those results aswell


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 30, 2014)

Fluffmeister said:


> *Battlefield 4 + Mantle*
> 
> AMD FX-8350 + R9 290X +23% Performance increase Vs. Direct X
> Core i5-4670k + R9 290X +7.5% Performance increase Vs. Driect X
> ...



Wow! Those results make me want to get an APU now


----------



## pidgin (Jan 30, 2014)

hoped a bit more for 7850K


----------



## jigar2speed (Jan 30, 2014)

These are not bad results


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jan 30, 2014)

One thing is obvious, for the same "performance hit" you can do much more with the same CPU without any bottleneck, which is clearly shown by the Star Swarm demo. My point is that probably BF4 is not heavy enough on the CPU side (high end CPU's in single player mode) to make a huge difference. This should be tested in  multiplayer in a crowded server and I bet the gains will be greater.


----------



## Mathragh (Jan 30, 2014)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> One thing is obvious, for the same "performance hit" you can do much more with the same CPU without any bottleneck, which is clearly shown by the Star Swarm demo. My point is that probably BF4 is not heavy enough on the CPU side (high end CPU's in single player mode) to make a huge difference. This should be tested in  multiplayer in a crowded server and I bet the gains will be greater.



Yeah, when you think about it, BF4 isn't really an optimal game to showcase mantle on when it comes to performance, since it was already quite CPU-agnostic compared to lots of other games. Would've probably been a lot better for something like the newest Total War game, or Civilization V.


----------



## derwin75 (Jan 30, 2014)

Wow!! Top pictures look better than the bottom pictures.


----------



## Mathragh (Jan 30, 2014)

derwin75 said:


> Wow!! Top pictures look better than the bottom pictures.



Indeed! the bottom ones look more foggy mostly. I sincerely hope they didn't resort to shortening the view distance(or something like it) in order to reach the performance improvements.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 30, 2014)

Mathragh said:


> Indeed! the bottom ones look more foggy mostly. I sincerely hope they didn't resort to shortening the view distance(or something like it) in order to reach the performance improvements.


That would be funny if all Mantle did was turn all your games in Turok 64. EPIC FOG FTW!







As a matter of fact that worked for all N64 games.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 30, 2014)

"AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K" 
Wait... What??


----------



## Mathragh (Jan 30, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> "AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K"
> Wait... What??


http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


----------



## RCoon (Jan 30, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> "AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K"
> Wait... What??


 
In reality it does. I owned both processors at the same time, both stock and overclocked were pretty much identical.


----------



## v12dock (Jan 30, 2014)

This is horrible I can't believe a beta driver with a beta API on a game with a beta patch only gives free performance improvements...


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2014)

Mathragh said:


> Indeed! the bottom ones look more foggy mostly. I sincerely hope they didn't resort to shortening the view distance(or something like it) in order to reach the performance improvements.



It looks like there's just more fog effects in that picture. Usually when they use fog to limit draw distance, they would thicken the fog enough so they don't have to draw those far off buildings at all. 

What's interesting is the graph.


----------



## Ed_1 (Jan 30, 2014)

In first shot mantle is on bottom and slower one (you can read the rendering in text at top which is which ) .
on pic 2 and 3 i can't make out but think Mantle is on bottom of all .


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 30, 2014)

Mathragh said:


> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


All I can see is some CPU/GPU bottleneck at 96-97fps. That's all.


----------



## Ed_1 (Jan 30, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> It looks like there's just more fog effects in that picture. Usually when they use fog to limit draw distance, they would thicken the fog enough so they don't have to draw those far off buildings at all.
> 
> *What's interesting is the graph*.


Yes ,much less variance but the patch today has some optimizations for GPU/CPU too , across all hardware .


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> All I can see is some CPU/GPU bottleneck at 96-97fps. That's all.


All I saw was GPU bottleneck. An increase in 1ghz for the 4770k yielded in 2 fps or under 2%.


----------



## Slomo4shO (Jan 30, 2014)

So it delivers exactly what was claimed: it reduces CPU bottlenecks and enables higher utilization of the GPU...

From Johan Andersson's Mantle blog:


> The biggest performance gains can be seen when the game is bottlenecked by the CPU which can be quite common even on high-end machines and this was main goal to improve on with Mantle.
> 
> *Test case 1: Low-end single-player*
> CPU/GPU: AMD A10-7850K (‘Kaveri’ APU), 4 cores @ 3.7 GHz
> ...



Also, 


> To simplify measuring performance in the game we’ve added a new tool to the in-game console to record frame times for later analysis. Simply run “PerfOverlay.FrameFileLogEnable 1″ to start saving frame times and “PerfOverlay.FrameFileLogEnable 0″ to stop. The resulting .csv file will be located in Documents/Battlefield 4 which can be opened & graphed by Excel or other applications for viewing.Another in-game tool that is useful to use is “Render.DrawScreenInfo 1″ that will now show additional on-screen information about your CPU & GPU config, resolution and as well as if Mantle or DirectX 11 is used for rendering.


----------



## zhangteng242007 (Jan 30, 2014)

*The Mantle's Visual effects same as  DirectX?*
*And DirectX 11,11.2 was support?*
*I think this technology is not practical.*


----------



## zhangteng242007 (Jan 30, 2014)

Fluffmeister said:


> *Battlefield 4 + Mantle*
> 
> AMD FX-8350 + R9 290X +23% Performance increase Vs. Direct X
> Core i5-4670k + R9 290X +7.5% Performance increase Vs. Driect X
> ...


*We need to be optimized, rather than an independent technology, it couldn't survive long!Unless everyone want to the API.*


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 30, 2014)

zhangteng242007 said:


> *We need to be optimized, rather than an independent technology, it couldn't survive long!Unless everyone want to the API.*



Dude, stop shouting.....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 30, 2014)

*I THINK ITS AWESOME! WE SHOULD ALL TALK WITH BOLD CAPS! I LOVE PIE!*


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 30, 2014)

*


Spoiler



I WISH I WERE A BIRD



Hopefully I'll be able to see great gains with my current setup.*


----------



## TheHunter (Jan 30, 2014)

nvidia fanboys need to bitch @ nvidia

Let NV make a proper mantle driver - its a open API not bound to GCN, end of story.

But nooo, its AMD fault and AMD sucks and what not.. Like i said this once some nv fanboys are like a plague in gaming industry...

You should have seen all the commnets at battlelog, Omg


I own a NV gpu and I still think Mantle is almost God sent.. Just wait until its more widespread.


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2014)

zhangteng242007 said:


> *The Mantle's Visual effects same as  DirectX?*
> *And DirectX 11,11.2 was support?*
> *I think this technology is not practical.*




English? Are you in China being paid by NV or something?
Are you using your translator properly?


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 30, 2014)

Supercrit said:


> I 'm kind of disappointed at the lower end system improvements. The whopping 58% higher performance is where it doesn't matter, not to mention the test is not done by a neutral 3rd party. At least it seems that the stuttering problem is gone.




I think that's because of the iGPU's memory bandwidth, think of a DDR3 HD7750 vs the GDDR5 version. The other setups had the benefit of using GDDR5 plus I suppose ROPs have a hand in it too (8 vs 32 vs 64x2)








tokyoduong said:


> English? Are you in China being paid by NV or something?
> Are you using your translator properly?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 30, 2014)

Stop feeding the trolls please.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 30, 2014)

> AMD FX-8350 + R9 290X +23% Performance increase Vs. Direct X
> Core i5-4670k + R9 290X +7.5% Performance increase Vs. Driect X



Good, in multiplayer they brought the 8350 close to a 4670, so basically if you run a Haswell i5 you'd still be better off that with an FX


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2014)

zhangteng242007 said:


> *The Mantle's Visual effects same as  DirectX?*


*YES IDENTICAL (THEY ARE CODE COMPATIBLE, WITH MANTLE HAVING ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE TO XBOX DIRECTX.)*

*


zhangteng242007 said:



And DirectX 11,11.2 was support?

Click to expand...

*
*DIRECTX 11.1 IS SUPPORTED.*

*


zhangteng242007 said:



I think this technology is not practical.

Click to expand...

*
*THE GREEDIEST GAME STUDIO ON THE PLANET (EA) DISAGREES WITH YOU.*

Alright guys, enough screaming.


----------



## zhangteng242007 (Jan 30, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> English? Are you in China being paid by NV or something?
> Are you using your translator properly?


Yes,China's English!Forgive me,My English was bad,I will to learn  more in free time.
Actually,I really like english,but when I was a child did not study hard


----------



## zhangteng242007 (Jan 30, 2014)

btarunr said:


> *YES IDENTICAL (THEY ARE CODE COMPATIBLE, WITH MANTLE HAVING ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE TO XBOX DIRECTX.)*
> 
> 
> *DIRECTX 11.1 IS SUPPORTED.*
> ...


Good reply!God reply!Thanks


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 30, 2014)

with all this huge bold text all over I thought my Windows 8'd DPI are fracked up again. )) Actually I was also trying to zoom out like an idiot...


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 30, 2014)

Crap Daddy said:


> Good, in multiplayer they brought the 8350 close to a 4670, so basically if you run a Haswell i5 you'd still be better off that with an FX
> 
> View attachment 54426



I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there.  This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience.  Unless the combination of a FX8320 (4.6) + GTX760 is faster than a FX8350 (stock) + 7970Ghz or GTX770.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 30, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there.  This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience.  Unless the combination of a FX8320 (4.6) + GTX760 is faster than a FX8350 (stock) + 7970Ghz or GTX770.



Well, hardwarepal, where I find these benchmarks says:



> 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.
> 
> Read more: Battlefield 4 Benchmark – Multiplayer CPU and GPU W7 vs W8.1 http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/



I just pass the info.  We mostly rely on reviews to make decisions regarding what hardware we buy. This is one of them and it tests the CPUs in multiplayer conditions, the only thing worth playing in BF4. Whether it's accurate, I realy can't say.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 30, 2014)

Crap Daddy said:


> Well, hardwarepal, where I find these benchmarks says:
> 
> 
> 
> I just pass the info.  We mostly rely on reviews to make decisions regarding what hardware we buy. This is one of them and it tests the CPUs in multiplayer conditions, the only thing worth playing in BF4. Whether it's accurate, I realy can't say.



That weird situation where the i7 and 8350 are performing worse that slower cpu's means something with their test system is not optimized.

These are more in line with the real world (or at least what i've seen/read):











To give reference, my setup (8350 @4.6 + GTX760 @ 1267MHz) gets an average of 72fps with a minimum of around 58-60fps.  

1080p Ultra settings 4xmsaa high post, etc.


----------



## NeoXF (Jan 30, 2014)

Crap Daddy said:


> Well, hardwarepal, where I find these benchmarks says:
> 
> 
> 
> I just pass the info.  We mostly rely on reviews to make decisions regarding what hardware we buy. This is one of them and it tests the CPUs in multiplayer conditions, the only thing worth playing in BF4. Whether it's accurate, I realy can't say.



They sure don't look accurate. Most reviews on CPU performance, including the early Alpha/Beta tests, show it being close to, or even faster than the i5 4670K, and FX 9590 being at or slightly under i7 4770K levels.

Edit: Pretty much what FX-GMC just said/posted before I pressed _post_ (thanks!).
Edit2: So what now again... is a FX 8350 build ~15% faster than i5 4670K one in BF4? AMD are witches! We all now Bulldozer sucks! Booooo! etc etc...



Mathragh said:


> Yeah, when you think about it, BF4 isn't really an optimal game to showcase mantle on when it comes to performance, since it was already quite CPU-agnostic compared to lots of other games. Would've probably been a lot better for something like the newest Total War game, or Civilization V.


Nope, *BF3* was quite CPU agnostic... BF4 is a pretty different kind of beast. I guess you haven't followed many CPU benches on BF4, have you.


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> That weird situation where the i7 and 8350 are performing worse that slower cpu's means something with their test system is not optimized.
> 
> These are more in line with the real world (or at least what i've seen/read):
> 
> ...



Your system gets that frame rates at what map? how many players? what is happening? Does your settings match theirs? Does your set up match theirs?

Your FPS can vary by just about anything. This is why benchmarks are made! Same exact repeatable scenario and expected results!


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 30, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> Your system gets that frame rates at what map? how many players? what is happening? Does your settings match theirs? Does your set up match theirs?
> 
> Your FPS can vary by just about anything. This is why benchmarks are made! Same exact repeatable scenario and expected results!



Except by nature, multiplayer benchmarks aren't repeatable.

Here we go:

Your system gets that frame rates at what map?*  No specific map (do note I am talking about the vanilla maps).  When I play I notice fps in the low 70's most of the time.  Lowest I've seen is around 55fps but usually min frames are around 60.  Max frames can go up to 90.  *

How many players?  *64......duh.
*
What is happening?  *Ever played battlefield?  Shooting, explosions, people raging, flying, driving.  That's what happens in battlefield.
*
Does (I think you mean do there) your settings match theirs?  *Either matches their settings or they are skewing the numbers.  You must of missed the part where I said MAX settings 1080p.  (Well i didn't say MAX, but Ultra, 4xmsaa, and high post should cover max settings.)
*
Does your setup match theirs? *No it doesn't. Mine should be weaker, but my performance is better.  If you would have followed along this has all been posted already.
*



Got anymore questions?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 30, 2014)

I'll post another one from sweclockers where the 4670k is considerably faster than an 8350, both stock with a high-end card.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 30, 2014)

Crap Daddy said:


> I'll post another one from sweclockers where the 4670k is considerably faster than an 8350, both stock with a high-end card.View attachment 54442



What do you mean by "both stock and with a high-end card"?

Also, why are we talking about the i5 4670k now (I'm not taking the bait)?  This was strictly about the FX6300 being faster in their "test" when it's not in the real world.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Jan 30, 2014)

TBH Frame rate consistency is more my concern than frame rates. Whats the point drooling on high frame rates when they don't even stay up for long? See this kind of comparison brings me assurance that there will be less slowdowns in the midst of air strikes.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 30, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> What do you mean by "both stock and with a high-end card"?
> 
> Also, why are we talking about the i5 4670k now (I'm not taking the bait)?  This was strictly about the FX6300 being faster in their "test" when it's not in the real world.



It wasn't about the 6300. It was about the Dice results with Mantle and the 8350 vs. the 4670 paired with the same AMD card. Remember this is a thread about Mantle. Go back to my first post and you'll see that my conclusion regarding mantle is that, with high end set-ups it improves framerates for AMD CPUs better than with Intel CPUs, thus bringing the FX closer if not equal to Haswell i5. I showed you a couple of benchmarks to prove this.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 30, 2014)

Crap Daddy said:


> It wasn't about the 6300. It was about the Dice results with Mantle and the 8350 vs. the 4670 paired with the same AMD card. Remember this is a thread about Mantle. Go back to my first post and you'll see that my conclusion regarding mantle is that, with high end set-ups it improves framerates for AMD CPUs better than with Intel CPUs, thus bringing the FX closer if not equal to Haswell i5. I showed you a couple of benchmarks to prove this.



The only part of your post that I had an issue with was the first benchmark you posted because it doesn't conform with real world usage.  Remember this: 





> I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there. This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience. - ME



I wholeheartedly agree that Mantle will benefit AMD procs more than Intel's.  I just didn't get why you posted a benchmark that was 4670k and 8350 when I wasn't talking about any intel processors.   Then again, I did assume you posted it in response to me.  If you weren't posting it in response to me than my apologies and carry on.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 31, 2014)

What in the hell. Looked at the pictures, after what people were saying with the fog, and it looks like they just reduced the draw distance and covered it with fog it to gain performance...............


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 31, 2014)

TheHunter said:


> nvidia fanboys need to bitch @ nvidia
> 
> Let NV make a proper mantle driver - its a open API not bound to GCN, end of story.
> 
> ...


 
I see the benefits in Mantle, but its really not a god send at all.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 31, 2014)

Or it looks like the draw distance is the same, and heaven forbid the brightness is turned up!!!!

Actually the FOV in the last images shows the Mantle demo running more area, and thus calculating more. 


Also don't double post, no matter how butthurt.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 31, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Or it looks like the draw distance is the same, and heaven forbid the brightness is turned up!!!!
> 
> Actually the FOV in the last images shows the Mantle demo running more area, and thus calculating more.
> 
> ...



There's nothing to be butt hurt about.....Game runs fine for me. 80fps+ all the time.


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 31, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Except by nature, multiplayer benchmarks aren't repeatable.
> 
> Here we go:
> 
> ...


You just proved my point that your "guesstimate" of framerates being unequal is bogus. There's no way you had the same setup running the same thing as they did. Your results will definitely be different. Those questions are not meant for you to answer. It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 31, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> You just proved my point that your "guesstimate" of framerates being unequal is bogus. There's no way you had the same setup running the same thing as they did. Your results will definitely be different. Those questions are not meant for you to answer. It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.



You're right, I didn't have the same setup.  I had a *WEAKER* setup.  Said that plenty of times.  On the same settings in the same game I never go as low as their min FPS numbers and I average a good bit more than they do.  Do ya see the problem or are you too dense?



> It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.



My statements:

-I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there. This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience. Unless the combination of a FX8320 (4.6) + GTX760 is faster than a FX8350 (stock) + 7970Ghz or GTX770.

-That weird situation where the i7 and 8350 are performing worse that slower cpu's means something with their test system is not optimized.

-To give reference, my setup (8350 @4.6 + GTX760 @ 1267MHz) gets an average of 72fps with a minimum of around 58-60fps. 1080p Ultra settings 4xmsaa high post, etc.

You're right. Those are some stupid statements. /sarcasm

Great job not adding anything to any discussion.

P.S. I'm done with you.  Edited for consistency.


----------



## NeoXF (Jan 31, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> Your system gets that frame rates at what map? how many players? what is happening? Does your settings match theirs? Does your set up match theirs?
> 
> Your FPS can vary by just about anything. This is why benchmarks are made! Same exact repeatable scenario and expected results!



Random thought to you and the guy who you replied to... Have you guys thought that they might be using 200% scaling in the settings menu? I have no clue what that does exactly, but I do know it eats from your performance. That could explain why they're getting such low frames in all of their tests.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 31, 2014)

NeoXF said:


> Random thought to you and the guy who you replied to... Have you guys thought that they might be using 200% scaling in the settings menu? I have no clue what that does exactly, but I do know it eats from your performance. That could explain why they're getting such low frames in all of their tests.



Didn't see any mention of that.  They say that it was done using the same settings in the same location as their beta benchmark. but I couldn't find it to see the exact settings.  

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 31, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> You're right, I didn't have the same setup.  I had a *WEAKER* setup.  Said that plenty of times.  On the same settings in the same game I never go as low as their min FPS numbers and I average a good bit more than they do.  Do ya see the problem or are you too dense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've seen many instances where the FX6300 would beat the FX8350 running at the same clock. This may happen due to the fact that the FX6300 has more cache to work with per core therefore increasing IPC. That is situation dependent. 

I can't view anything labeled gaming at work right now. When I skimmed through the graphs yesterday on the battlelog, it doesn't look like they ran the same exact timed scenario for all systems. They only ran the same scenario for each system and ran it with/without mantle. It was also mentioned that they maxed the load on the game, something you may or may not do when you did your run. I could be wrong here. 

PS Someone who gets emotional over forum posts like you will never be done. Keep calling names and get upset. Like I care kid lol.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 31, 2014)

tokyoduong said:


> I've seen many instances where the FX6300 would beat the FX8350 running at the same clock. This may happen due to the fact that the FX6300 has more cache to work with per core therefore increasing IPC. That is situation dependent.
> 
> I can't view anything labeled gaming at work right now. When I skimmed through the graphs yesterday on the battlelog, it doesn't look like they ran the same exact timed scenario for all systems. They only ran the same scenario for each system and ran it with/without mantle. It was also mentioned that they maxed the load on the game, something you may or may not do when you did your run. I could be wrong here.
> 
> PS Someone who gets emotional over forum posts like you will never be done. Keep calling names and get upset. Like I care kid lol.



You've called me dumb and a kid so you're ahead on the name calling.

I am still waiting for you to tell me which statement was dumb.

P.S. If you think I was talking about the mantle benchmarks on the first page you weren't following along.  It was these: Post #35


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 31, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> You've called me dumb and a kid so you're ahead on the name calling.
> 
> I am still waiting for you to tell me which statement was dumb.
> 
> P.S. If you think I was talking about the mantle benchmarks on the first page you weren't following along.  It was these: Post #35


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 31, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


>



Bout time you showed up.


----------



## Thefumigator (Feb 1, 2014)

I believe all this mantle stuff was all thanks to the AMD commitment to bring APU to consoles (Xbox One / PS4)


----------



## TheHunter (Feb 1, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I see the benefits in Mantle, but its really not a god send at all.



What based on Bf4?


----------

