Battlefield 4

Our latest addition to our benchmark suite and our current major multiplayer action game of our benchmark suite is Battlefield 4, DICE’s 2013 multiplayer military shooter. After a rocky start, Battlefield 4 has finally reached a point where it’s stable enough for benchmark use, giving us the ability to profile one of the most popular and strenuous shooters out there. As these benchmarks are from single player mode, based on our experiences our rule of thumb here is that multiplayer framerates will dip to half our single player framerates, which means a card needs to be able to average at least 60fps if it’s to be able to hold up in multiplayer.

Battlefield 4 - 3840x2160 - Medium Quality

Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 4 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

In Battlefield 4 resolution makes all the difference. AMD’s 4K advantage is in full force here, while that solid lead errodes and the GTX 970 catches up for 1440p and 1080p..

Looking at just the NVIDIA lineup for a second, while not even GTX 980 was able to cross 60fps at 1440p, it does prove that its 17% performance advantage counts for something by being able to push framerates in the high 50s, all while GTX 970 can’t even crack 50fps. EVGA’s FTW overclock will get you there though, and for that matter it can even cross the 60fps mark at 4K.

Bioshock Infinite Crysis 3


View All Comments

  • LancerVI - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    Looks good! Mostly a side-grade for my 290's, but I knew that already. Probably the best purchase I made in a while, those 290's are gonna last me a bit. May have to ebay a 3rd for some tri-fire. I'll go nVidia next round depending, but I'm really impressed with the 980/970, but 290's right now are a steal! Reply
  • Impulses - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    Did the prices drop significantly? I'm scared to look, I got mine for $350 (after rebate) and $360 about a month ago, didn't see anything priced that low immediately after the 980/970 launch but... You'd think AMD would now have to at least match 970 pricing with the 290 in order to sell any at all. Reply
  • Impulses - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    FWIW, I did think the price I paid for the 290s was pretty terrific and haven't regretted it yet... When looking at SLI vs CF tests the performance gaps from game to game are even narrower, a huge AMD price drop would be slightly irksome tho I understand it's bound to happen. OTOH, being so close to the holiday season I doubt we'd see any good sale prices atop any price drops or beyond the 980/970 price points. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    The 980 and 970 make me excited for what nVidia (and hopefully AMD) has in store for 20nm next year. I'm not going to upgrade from my water cooled 7970 (35% chip and 20% memory OC) for another 28nm GPU, even if nVidia managed to squeeze a lot out of the process. Reply
  • StormFuror - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    Wow, I didn't expect the 970 to pull up stats like this compared to the 780. I don't know why, lol. The power consumption from the horsepower this card throws down is rather impressive compared to AMD's R9's. I may have to get one of these. I'm stuck with one monitor @ 1920x1080. This card will give me 60 FPS in just about everything it seems, probably over kill. But this seems like it'll hold me over until I have to do a complete new rebuild down the road(when I upgrade to 4k). I've got a couple years :) Reply
  • eek2121 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    I know AT's benchmarks portrays the Radeon 6970 as 'slow as balls' when it comes to gaming recent titles, but as someone who games more than most (on a 1080p monitor), i still find very little incentive to upgrade. Maybe if i gamed at higher resolutions.... Haven't really encountered a game (worth playing) that doesn't run on ultra settings in 1080p. Then again, steam has been shifting my dollars away from top tier games towards indie games for a while now. I own 425 games on steam and all of them give me no issue on my 'old' graphics card. Not knocking the new geforce cards at all....just wish developers would push the envelope a bit more. Reply
  • TiGr1982 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    Wel, old VLIW4-based HD 6970 is, say, something around 1/3 (33%) slower than GCN-based R9 280 aka HD 7950 Boost (which I have, BTW). But I believe that 6970 is more or less still good enough for 1080p, and, besides, probably the drivers for HD 6970 are pretty mature since HD 6970 is nearly 4 years old now (plus, Trinity and Richland also have VLIW4-based GPU, just 1/4 of HD 6970's Cayman GPU). Reply
  • just4U - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    The biggest thing for me is this...

    " For much of the last year NVIDIA has been more than performance competitive but not price competitive with AMD."


    That's been a major bone of contention with me. They corrected pricing which was very much in line and competitive during the 460-80 days. Then went out to lunch thru the 560-80 era and marginally came back (almost not quite..) during the 660-80 only to head way out to lunch again with their 7x series. It boggles the mind and makes it hard to purchase when AMD is offering great deals on their end /w similar performance.
  • hamiltus - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    So my main question is if the GTX 970 is a good upgrade from the GTX 670 for 1440p/4K gaming? Reply
  • coldpower27 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    This is a solid upgrade, just thinking if this is worth it over GTX 670 as well. Slightly more power consumption for much greater performance and similar idle performance numbers.

    970 has a nice ring to it. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now