Thursday, January 30th 2014
DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers
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.
Source:
DICE
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.
63 Comments on DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers
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.
-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.www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/
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.
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