Evga GeForce GTX 980 - Battlefield 4 Ultra Settings

PatchRowcester

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
243
I recorded a gameplay video with BF4 on Ultra Settings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAxs6k7voY

I purchased the following card -

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487079

Frame rate is at the upper left corner. I used ShadowPlay to record, and FRAPS to display the frame rate.

Here is my system build -

http://pcpartpicker.com/b/c97Pxr

I am working on creating BF4 Ultra Settings comparison benchmarks between 780 and 980.

So far, I am really liking it. This is the only game I have tried so far. I will test out more games this weekend.
 
Well pretty much every review of the 980 has BF4 benches, I mean the info is already out there.

Could you link me to that review? I am asking because I searched around for multiplayer 64p conquest benchmarks, but I found nothing.

That's why I made the video. I thought there will be folks out there who will find it useful.

EDIT - OK, I found this - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...overclocking_video_card_review/5#.VDawuxZo6G8

This particular review has done a better job than most out there.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, well, im gonna do this right now with my Asus GTX 780 Direct CU II 3GB card to see how it plays and actually check the FPS. Comp vitals in sig.

Ive been playing on ultra with everything maxed out but never bothered to check fps while im playing because it always played smoothly and perfectly. Lets see the numbers now I guess lol. Ill report back.




EDIT**************


Just played 2 maps, Parcel Storm and Rogue Transmission on 64 player conquest, full server, 20ish ping here in the west coast. Full settings on Ultra and 4x MSAA. I see that im averaging 70-85fps in heavy gun fights/open areas and like 90-110 in different less intense areas. Not bad, im sure the 980 feels even better than this but even being as hardcore as I am, I don't think I can justify getting it just yet.
 
Last edited:
Could you link me to that review? I am asking because I searched around for multiplayer 64p conquest benchmarks, but I found nothing.

That's why I made the video. I thought there will be folks out there who will find it useful.

EDIT - OK, I found this - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...overclocking_video_card_review/5#.VDawuxZo6G8

This particular review has done a better job than most out there.

I see. You didn't mention anything about 64p multiplayer in the OP. You only said "BF4 on Ultra settings". And the point was that every single review includes BF4 benchmarks so I wasn't sure what new information you were trying to shed a light on that hasn't already been covered ad nauseum.

Singleplayer is the proper benchmark in BF4's case, because FPS in multiplayer is impacted by many variables that cannot be controlled - netcode for starters. Example two people with identical hardware but different ISP's, different distances from server, etc are going to end up with different results for their FPS playing on the same server. Thus the FPS in multiplayer is anecdotal. You could have quad-SLI 980's and still experience significant dips due to all the other people on the server on shit connections.

Lastly, the 780 already handled Ultra fine in BF4, so 970/980 are mostly just unlocking more AA and DSR/downsampling.
 
Last edited:
EDIT**************


Just played 2 maps, Parcel Storm and Rogue Transmission on 64 player conquest, full server, 20ish ping here in the west coast. Full settings on Ultra and 4x MSAA. I see that im averaging 70-85fps in heavy gun fights/open areas and like 90-110 in different less intense areas. Not bad, im sure the 980 feels even better than this but even being as hardcore as I am, I don't think I can justify getting it just yet.

Those numbers are pretty awesome. I wouldn't upgrade at all with the kind of performance you are getting.

You said nothing about 64p multiplayer in the OP. You only said "BF4 Ultra settings".

I did in the video. Forgot to mention it in the post.

Singleplayer is the proper benchmark in BF4's case, because FPS in multiplayer is impacted by many variables that cannot be controlled - netcode for starters. Example two people with identical hardware but different ISP's, different distances from server, etc are going to end up with different results for their FPS playing on the same server. Thus the FPS in multiplayer is anecdotal.

You are right that having different ISP and pings etc will impact gameplay, I wanted to share my experience with other folks who are interested in what the MP performance is like. If this information is useless to you, then so be it. I just wanted to share it for someone who might be curious.
 
I play BF4 on my RogSwift 2560X1440P with w 980s in SLI so for grins I changed the game to 1080P Ultra settings 4XMSAA Thewn I cranked up the Resolution Scale to 160% and I was still getting 100FPS + LOL.
 
I need that gun. Nice video btw.

Thank you! What gun are you referring to?

I play BF4 on my RogSwift 2560X1440P with w 980s in SLI so for grins I changed the game to 1080P Ultra settings 4XMSAA Thewn I cranked up the Resolution Scale to 160% and I was still getting 100FPS + LOL.

That is just ridiculous! You are making me want to get a second 980 :p I can definitely afford it, but its an overkill to say the least!
 
Thank you! What gun are you referring to?



That is just ridiculous! You are making me want to get a second 980 :p I can definitely afford it, but its an overkill to say the least!

Not overkill.. I play with 200% scaling and it looks sooo good. I am happy with 50 FPS though.
 
I see. You didn't mention anything about 64p multiplayer in the OP. You only said "BF4 on Ultra settings". And the point was that every single review includes BF4 benchmarks so I wasn't sure what new information you were trying to shed a light on that hasn't already been covered ad nauseum.

Singleplayer is the proper benchmark in BF4's case, because FPS in multiplayer is impacted by many variables that cannot be controlled - netcode for starters. Example two people with identical hardware but different ISP's, different distances from server, etc are going to end up with different results for their FPS playing on the same server. Thus the FPS in multiplayer is anecdotal. You could have quad-SLI 980's and still experience significant dips due to all the other people on the server on shit connections.

Lastly, the 780 already handled Ultra fine in BF4, so 970/980 are mostly just unlocking more AA and DSR/downsampling.

proof? because i'm pretty sure everything you just said is complete horse shit. multiplayer framerates are very, very consistent so long as you have the same amount of players in the server. the only thing related to netcode that would affect performance is the interpolation slider, and its impact is negligible at best. and no, a 780 does not already handle BF4 fine on ultra. it can't average 60 fps at 1440p, and it can't average anywhere close to 120 fps at 1080p. 970 SLI is bare minimum to average 120 fps at 1080p in BF4 with the ultra preset.

single player benchmarks for a multiplayer game are completely useless. and, like i said, multiplayer framerates are consistent, whether you think so or not. that is why i said this is what people need to see; how the game is ACTUALLY going to play, with real gameplay scenarios, with all of it captured on video and laid out in plain sight.
 
Back
Top