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
POST A COMMENT

155 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    So you're saying it doesn't matter to say "clocked at 7GHz" when the actual clock is 1.75GHz. Well it matters to me! What if the chip multiplies the core clock by 2 internally; should we then say the core clock is 2.2GHz instead of 1.1GHz? Reply
  • Black Obsidian - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link

    And thus the reporting of EFFECTIVE clock speeds. Not everyone does (or can) understand the complexities of the underlying architecture. Reply
  • jtrdfw - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link

    yes. heatsinks on memory are pretty much a scam Reply
  • MagickMan - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    How about a 970 OC vs 290 OC comparison? I don't have a favored GPU, I just care about bang for buck. Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    What would be the point? 970 already equals or beats 290X, and you don't get much from overclocking Hawaii GPUs, apart from more heat. Reply
  • poohbear - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Thank u for including a full stable of previous gen video cards to compare it to! In particularly the 670 & 770! Gives us a better idea of how it performs! Reply
  • Tetracycloide - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Seconded. Still running a 6950 flashed to 6970 so having the stock 6970 as a point of reference made this the easiest buy ever. Roughly twice the performance with lower power, heat, and noise? Yes. Reply
  • roxamis - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link

    I have the same card (Sapphire 6950 Dirt 3, unlocked to 6970) and one fan of the 2 died last week (hitting 90-100 deg C in games). So with that I went to see what i can replace it with and the 970 ticks all my marks. Reply
  • krazyfrog - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    The price-to-performance ratio is strong with this one. Reply
  • Frenetic Pony - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Certainly, but considering AMD has implemented some of the same things I'd expect an equivalent price to performance ratio from AMD for their new cards. Cut down the 290's bus to 256bit, clock the ram to 7ghz, and with the bandwidth compression you'd get a cheaper card with the same performance.

    Still, nice all around to have choices, been looking at cards myself, and am going to build a system for my brother quite soon. Yay price wars!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now