Battlefield 4 Windows 7 vs. 8.1 Performance Review @ [H]

bigdogchris said:
Many people in the PC gaming forum say all you have to do is disable HT on Windows 7 to fix the choppiness, no 3rd party tools or Mantle required.
Click to expand...

never disable HT, BF3/4 engine will use up to 12 threads. If you are disabling HT to fix the choppiness you are doing it wrong. Change the renderdevice.renderaheadlimit to 2 and it's gone. But you never disable HT.
 
Brent_Justice said:
On the fence in regards to BF4 specifically, of which is what the article is about. Then I describe that fence depends on what type of a BF4 player you are, hardcore, or casual. Then I describe my opinions on my thoughts about upgrading on those two topics in regards to BF4. The fence comment is entirely about BF4 specifically.
Click to expand...

I liked this article. I'm surprised, really, that the frame-rate differences you saw were as great as they were...;) I like 8.1 x64 a lot, and know that from subjective experience it just seems faster than Win7, at least in running the 2d ui, as I ran both side-by-side on back-to-back partitions for awhile (I have since reclaimed the Win7 boot partition.) But I didn't necessarily expect there to be a quantifiable frame-rate performance difference in games! Good job on actually taking an objective look at this.

I think the big deal keeping people from 8.1 (I still can't believe there are people who did not buy it @ $39.99--I got 8.0 in Jan '13) is the gosh-awful tile interface. The good news is that's entirely optional...and you don't have to hack the OS or anything else not to see it. Just set the 8.1 Taskbar preferences to boot to desktop, and then install a Start Menu like Classic Shell 4.0.2 (free)--and away you go. (The Classic Shell Start Menu even allows you to turn off the corner hotspots and side-bar charms if you want, via a simple settings toggle.) You'll have a Win7, explorer.exe-based gui but Win8.x underneath. Win8/8.1 comes standard with all elements of the explorer GUI standard, except for the start menu, of course, and that's easily replaced as mentioned.

Plus, if you have a UEFI motherboard, Win 8.1 allows, with the simple setting of your secure-boot UEFI options, a proper UEFI Windows install (as opposed to legacy)--which I kind of like, too.
 
I've been having problems with Windows 8 and older games. Also been having issues with numerous drivers in Windows 8.1, even though the drivers are made for 8.1. I had to make the switch back to Windows 7 last night for stability issues in 8.1. Also, Corsair Link doesn't work at all in Windows 8.1, even after trying the registry fixes.

I would love to see a SLI and Crossfire comparison for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. You guys should definitely give that a go. I am running 2 GTX 670s in SLI and am wondering if I am losing more or less than 6% performance by moving back to Windows 7 from 8.1 with SLI.
 
And none of this reflects on the repeated nVidia driver crashes and BSOD's that seem to continue at epidemic rates for this game. Stable? Not. GTX 680, 3770K, 16 Gb RAM and an ASuS P8Z77-V PRO.
 
After this article that Extremetech posted on August 19th, I'm a little concerned about this evaluation. The article is about HWBot, "one of the world’s top benchmarking and overclocking communities", disqualifying all benchmarks that are run in Windows 8 "due to a fault in Windows 8′s real-time clock (RTC)".

The article has the following to say:

"The RTC, due to its implemented-in-hardware nature, is very useful for providing a baseline for benchmarks. Unlike software, which can be easily meddled with or affected by outside influences, the RTC in your PC — as the name suggests — is designed to keep pace with real-world time. For every second that ticks by on your quartz-powered wristwatch, a second ticks by inside your PC. Thus, to generate accurate results, benchmarking tools use the RTC to work out exactly when the benchmark started and finished. This is how most benchmarks have always operated, and it’s how every major benchmark operates today.

Unfortunately, though, Windows 8′s RTC isn’t reliable. According to HWBot, Microsoft made some changes to Windows 8′s timekeeping routines to allow for low-cost devices and embedded systems that don’t always have a conventional PC-compatible RTC. HWBot doesn’t give specific details (presumably we’re talking really low-level kernel stuff here), but it proves its point with some damning empirical evidence. Basically, if you change your CPU base clock (BCLK) frequency in software (not at boot time), it has a massive impact on Windows 8′s ability to keep accurate time. By underclocking the BLCK of a Haswell system from 130MHz to 122MHz (-6%), Windows 8 loses 18 seconds over a five minute period (see video above*); and the inverse applies to overclocking, too."

*I am not directly linking to this video as it's embedded in Exteremetechs' article. Hit the link at the top of this post to watch it.

Now, from what I'm reading this only affects system overclocking in software. Also, the RTC article was published before the Windows 8.1 update and there doesn't seem to be any new info on whether or not this was fixed in the new update. But it is possible that this could be the explanation for the performance boost under 8.1. It all makes me wonder if Kyle, or anyone else at the [H], is aware of the flaw in the RTC under Win 8. Brents' article does not mention how the test system is overclocked (Hardware vs. Software). Personally, I would like to see the [H] test all of this out to see what the outcome would be.
 
cHr0nIc said:
SNIP...
Now, from what I'm reading this only affects system overclocking in software. Also, the RTC article was published before the Windows 8.1 update and there doesn't seem to be any new info on whether or not this was fixed in the new update. But it is possible that this could be the explanation for the performance boost under 8.1. It all makes me wonder if Kyle, or anyone else at the [H], is aware of the flaw in the RTC under Win 8. Brents' article does not mention how the test system is overclocked (Hardware vs. Software). Personally, I would like to see the [H] test all of this out to see what the outcome would be.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't matter. The OC is the same no matter what GPU is installed. Not only that, [H] isn't running benchmarks, so it's irrelevant in either case.
Fraps numbers are absolute and don't rely on the RTC.
 
This is one of those instances where I would like to see canned benchmarks.
 
xorbe said:
This is one of those instances where I would like to see canned benchmarks.
Click to expand...

What for? What would the possibly show of value? Knowing how Red/Green can game the drivers, the numbers you'd get would be meaningless for all intents and purposes.
OR do you mean for the purposes of seeing the RTC issue in practice?
 
Modred189 said:
What for? What would the possibly show of value? Knowing how Red/Green can game the drivers, the numbers you'd get would be meaningless for all intents and purposes.
OR do you mean for the purposes of seeing the RTC issue in practice?
Click to expand...

Nah, just for the same brand, but this OS vs that OS. (I understand the [H] method for brand vs brand due to driver "gaming".)

Also, my first post was lacking a big thanks for all the work that went into that review! :eek:
 
just curious, what the bandwidth would be on this game for a typical online experience for an hour.
 
That's a little disappointing.

I'm not quite ready to upgrade my desktop to Windows 8 yet. I have it on my HTPC, and it's brilliant for that purpose, but I still don't see using it on my desktop, even after the 8.1 update.

I'm not too much into the Call of Modern Battlefield series, so it's not an issue for me yet, but I hope this isn't a significant trend with other titles. If so, I may just go back to dual booting, like I used to back in the day.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040412207 said:
That's a little disappointing.

I'm not quite ready to upgrade my desktop to Windows 8 yet. I have it on my HTPC, and it's brilliant for that purpose, but I still don't see using it on my desktop, even after the 8.1 update.

I'm not too much into the Call of Modern Battlefield series, so it's not an issue for me yet, but I hope this isn't a significant trend with other titles. If so, I may just go back to dual booting, like I used to back in the day.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what would make W8.1 less preferable for desktop use?

With the return of the start button and direct to desktop booting it's essentially a faster, more efficient W7 with a different start menu layout.
 
I'm still very much fine with Windows 7. I saw nothing here that would make any difference in my decision. It would be one thing if the difference was running bad on one and running good on the other. With the examples shown I would notice no difference in game performance from one to the other. A couple of fps when you are already running good is no difference than can be felt. It's still the everyday using of the OS that is most important to me. Windows 7 is just set up for me better than Windows 8.1 for the way I use an OS. I'll be hanging on to Windows 7 for the foreseeable future and quite content to do so.
 
I can attest to be set in their ways.

I moved to win 8 back in January. I was most upset about not being able to boot into the desktop right away. I spent 99% of my time in the desktop mode.

But a funny thing has happened ... I use the metro much more frequently as there are a few bing apps that I really love now. But .. it was pointed out to me that a person so infrequently boots anyway that it is not really an issue. And once I realized that, I realized it was me just being set in my ways. It is much easier to leave it boot to metro so a person can have metro apps close to metro interface and win apps close to desktop.

Yes win 8.1 feels faster and snappier and I love the task manager interface. It also is a blast on 2 monitors or more.

In the beginning I had a lot of crashes over a few disparate programs like bf3 and Skype. I eventually found it was network magic from cisco causing all my errors. It was not listed as incompatible. So I can see there could be a few legacy programs out there ruining peoples win 8 experience.
 
Maybe Nvidia's windows 7 driver is worse that AMD's and not the other way round, ie Nvidia's windows 8.1 driver is more efficient that AMD's. Just a thought ;)
 
cHr0nIc said:
After this article that Extremetech posted on August 19th, I'm a little concerned about this evaluation. The article is about HWBot, "one of the world’s top benchmarking and overclocking communities", disqualifying all benchmarks that are run in Windows 8 "due to a fault in Windows 8′s real-time clock (RTC)".

The article has the following to say:

"The RTC, due to its implemented-in-hardware nature, is very useful for providing a baseline for benchmarks. Unlike software, which can be easily meddled with or affected by outside influences, the RTC in your PC — as the name suggests — is designed to keep pace with real-world time. For every second that ticks by on your quartz-powered wristwatch, a second ticks by inside your PC. Thus, to generate accurate results, benchmarking tools use the RTC to work out exactly when the benchmark started and finished. This is how most benchmarks have always operated, and it’s how every major benchmark operates today.

Unfortunately, though, Windows 8′s RTC isn’t reliable. According to HWBot, Microsoft made some changes to Windows 8′s timekeeping routines to allow for low-cost devices and embedded systems that don’t always have a conventional PC-compatible RTC. HWBot doesn’t give specific details (presumably we’re talking really low-level kernel stuff here), but it proves its point with some damning empirical evidence. Basically, if you change your CPU base clock (BCLK) frequency in software (not at boot time), it has a massive impact on Windows 8′s ability to keep accurate time. By underclocking the BLCK of a Haswell system from 130MHz to 122MHz (-6%), Windows 8 loses 18 seconds over a five minute period (see video above*); and the inverse applies to overclocking, too."

*I am not directly linking to this video as it's embedded in Exteremetechs' article. Hit the link at the top of this post to watch it.

Now, from what I'm reading this only affects system overclocking in software. Also, the RTC article was published before the Windows 8.1 update and there doesn't seem to be any new info on whether or not this was fixed in the new update. But it is possible that this could be the explanation for the performance boost under 8.1. It all makes me wonder if Kyle, or anyone else at the [H], is aware of the flaw in the RTC under Win 8. Brents' article does not mention how the test system is overclocked (Hardware vs. Software). Personally, I would like to see the [H] test all of this out to see what the outcome would be.
Click to expand...

read what they posted the next day. It's not something that's common on every Windows 8 system, and specifically the software overclocking is done by adjusting the BCLK without a reboot which is not common these days. http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ocking-issues-are-blown-way-out-of-proportion
 
trick0502 said:
Let's face the facts, 8.1 is all around faster than 7. It may have things that bother people (start button), but under the hood it is sperior to 7.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is that we USE Windows all the time and those 2-3% is only benchmark-noticeable.

If Windows 8.1 didn't force the touchscreen crap down my throat, I would have bought it. But then I would financially support Microsoft in again releasing an inferior product. I'll see the new version in 2015 and hope they realise desktop users don't like to raped, up the ass.
 
I got Win 8 from the very beginning and it has been great for games. WIN8 has definitely been rock solid and stable - even more so than WIN7. I would also say that I have experienced fewer problems than I had when transitioning into WIN7 from XP. I think a lot of folks don't realize that the desktop view in WIN8 works pretty much the same as WIN7. If you have to have a "start menu" button, I have Pokki which is free, tho as I get more used to WIN8 I use it less and less.
 
twzTechman said:
I got Win 8 from the very beginning and it has been great for games. WIN8 has definitely been rock solid and stable - even more so than WIN7. I would also say that I have experienced fewer problems than I had when transitioning into WIN7 from XP. I think a lot of folks don't realize that the desktop view in WIN8 works pretty much the same as WIN7. If you have to have a "start menu" button, I have Pokki which is free, tho as I get more used to WIN8 I use it less and less.
Click to expand...
Same for me as well. Pretty glad I upgraded when it was extremely cheap to do so.

Though, instead of Pokki (tried ClassicShell), I use Start8 which does everything I want/need. And really, the only reason I bought it was because I was tired of my games losing focus because the charms bar would always pop up for some odd reason with my dual display set up.
 
This was a great idea for a review [H]!

I am sure many people are not giving win8 a second thought, so it's really nice to know that it is a little bit faster than win7, for anyone who builds a new pc soon.
 
Not real impressed or as big a deal as all the Win 8 fan boys shouted before BF4 retail release. 3-6% at most depending on hardware. Plus you can do a easy registry tweak to smooth out BF4 on Windows 7 and be done with it. Not sure why the recommendation to upgrade and spend the extra $$ then?
 
pcjunkie said:
Not real impressed or as big a deal as all the Win 8 fan boys shouted before BF4 retail release. 3-6% at most depending on hardware. Plus you can do a easy registry tweak to smooth out BF4 on Windows 7 and be done with it. Not sure why the recommendation to upgrade then?
Click to expand...

Because it IS faster, and this is one of the first games coded to take advantage of win8's new features.
Thus the recommendation: Unless you're hardcore into competitive gaming, upgrading isn't a priority.
BUT, if you ARE hardcore, you can get better performance.

Plus, keep in mind, being the first game out of the gate with these kinds of optimizations means later games SHOULD see greater gains than this.
Finally, registry tweaks are a no-go for me. Sure, it might fix BF4, but who know what other applications it might screw up.
 
I was disappointed to see no 4K performance comparison.

But I do have a technical question: since the motive behind the test is the benefits of upgrading, perhaps a better test would have been a Windows 7 system upgraded to Windows 8.1 rather than a clean 8.1 install?
 
Still have a few Win 8 licenses I bought with the promotional pricing. Good review, tells me I'm still good with Win 7.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I was disappointed to see no 4K performance comparison.

But I do have a technical question: since the motive behind the test is the benefits of upgrading, perhaps a better test would have been a Windows 7 system upgraded to Windows 8.1 rather than a clean 8.1 install?
Click to expand...

No one who knows what they are doing ever does an upgrade install, even when upgrading with an upgrade disk...
 
The game was unplayable for me regardless of setting on windows 7.
Upgraded to windows 8 and it has been smooth ever since.
I suspect the issue is somehow related to my ageing cpu i7 920 Clocked at 3.8GHZ as im running a gtx 780.
 
I was just testing this myself the other day. Windows 8.1 made BF4 a smoother experience compared to win 7. I had choppy framerates and stutter. Windows 8.1 fixed the issue and I haven't seen a drop below 60 fps compared to Win 7 fluctuating frames. Also Windows 8.1 with classic shell is really good and the OS is overall faster than Win 7.
 
So have we determined where this <10% increase came from? Is it the way Win8 handles cpu cores or is it because of DX11.1?

Disabling core parking on Win7 fixed all the choppiness for me. If I had to guess why disabling HT works for some people is because it forces Windows 7 to re-prioritize the CPU cores because it has less resources, thus they are getting parked less often. Unparking cores increased my fps by 5-10fps by itself and eliminated the huge CPU spikes that caused choppiness. The remaining irregular performance was fixed by the latest Nvidia drivers released last week which gave me another 10fps increase. I have gone from 40fps on medium settings crashing every 15 minutes on launch day to 60fps+ same settings on outdoor maps and crashing once every few hours.
 
Last edited:
bf4 was crashing a lot for me under Win8.1, went back to Win7 and the game hasn't crashed since.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I can't stand games without AA, the jaggies melt my brain. I must have AA, all the AA I can have. Maybe 4X AA AND 150% scaling? hehe I'l try it when I get home next week. Motion blur is another thing I can live without, in games like this it annoys me too.
Click to expand...

Motion blur gets good soldiers dead.
 
Modred189 said:
Because it IS faster, and this is one of the first games coded to take advantage of win8's new features.
Click to expand...

The question is why is it faster.

Finally, registry tweaks are a no-go for me. Sure, it might fix BF4, but who know what other applications it might screw up.
Click to expand...

Oh, please... Every tick in the GUI is a registry change. You sort of have to know what you're doing when you're changing settings and there is no problem. Especially with something trivial as this.
 
Meeho said:
The question is why is it faster.



Oh, please... Every tick in the GUI is a registry change. You sort of have to know what you're doing when you're changing settings and there is no problem. Especially with something trivial as this.
Click to expand...

Meh... to each his own. Imho, if I have to screw with the registry manually, the game is broken.
 
I don't agree with this article you say that the GTX 780 is about the same as the R9-290X, however this is the average frame rates, the R290 has a 25% difference in min frame rates which is freaking HUGE over the GTX780.
 
I'd say this review is just another confirmation of what many have said of Windows 8.x performance compared to 7 including myself. There's not a lot of difference at the top end, however 8.x seems to just run smoother and that will more noticeably show up on lower end hardware.
 
Meh...

So Win8 is a few frame faster. Not worth it to me because I'd have to live with Windows 8!

I never did get COD4 to work in Windows 8...and I still play that all the time online, great mods, great maps.
 
I think the older PC would notice more of a difference with windows 8 as its better on resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top