Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Battlefield 4 Beta Performance: 16 Graphics Cards, Benchmarked

Battlefield 4 Beta Performance: 16 Graphics Cards, Benchmarked
By

We spent our weekend playing the Battlefield 4 multiplayer beta, and made sure to capture a ton of performance data with lots of PC hardware. Does your system have what it takes to handle this title? It comes out this month; you'd better look and see!

PC gamers who love great-looking first-person shooters have more than a few big-name franchises to choose from. But if you're particularly enchanted with large-scale multiplayer battles that include a wide array of player-piloted vehicles, one series stands above the rest. The Battlefield games weren't the first to focus on that style, but they certainly had a hand defining the genre.

The imminent release of Battlefield 4 is, therefore, a big deal to PC gamers. We spent some time with the public multiplayer beta to see what's new and check out pre-release performance on a wide array of graphics cards and processors.

Gone in 60 secondsGone in 60 seconds

Of course, this means our analysis is limited to online play for now (though that tends to be what makes the series so long-lasting). The basics haven't changed: the four player roles are still assault, support, engineer, and recon. The beta offers the staple conquest-style game with large vehicle-populated maps, along with an infantry-focused domination option on a smaller map and void of mechanical transportation. The new obliteration and defuse games are not available yet. Neither are competition favorites like team deathmatch, rush, or squad deathmatch. There's only one map in the beta test: Seige of Shanghai. Like Battlefield 3, the game servers are selected via a Web browser.

Server browserServer browser

The sense of scale is much larger than any Battlefield game I've played before, thanks to the sprawling city and large buildings. The new Frostbite 3 game engine facilitates gorgeous visuals that remind me a lot of Crysis 3. There are other changes, like improved water dynamics, the commander mode (also available from Battlefield: 2142), and the new "levolution" feature that gives you the ability to destroy large-scale map features, such as buildings, to move the location of objectives. While levolution sounds cool, it appears to be hard-coded into specific structures. My understanding was that only one building in the Seige of Shanghai could be destroyed. It was already down in every server I joined, though, so I never saw this feature in action.

Chopper up...Chopper up...

I would have liked to see fully-destructible terrain, though of course that introduces logistical issues. We're hoping, then, that the final version of Battlefield 4 includes at least one map with more "levolvable" structures.

Otherwise, the beta's environment is fairly standard, perhaps a bit more interactive than prior titles in the franchise. There's a lot of glass and architectural detail that demonstrates abuse from gunfire and explosions, and much of the concrete cover is destructible. Most of the buildings are static above the first floor, though.

Chopper down.Chopper down.

Thus far, Battlefield 4 looks like it's shaping up to be a polished, better-looking version of its predecessor with even more interesting environments to play in.

We all know we're going to be busy playing Battlefield 4 when it comes out, so let's take a moment during the beta period to discuss DICE's Frostbite 3 engine.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 43 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    13thmonkey , 10 October 2013 08:05
    is this pre or post the mid beta update? I got significantly smoother performance after the update (which also unlocked obliteration).
  • 0 Hide
    TeeBoner , 10 October 2013 08:55
    I have double HD Radeon 6770 GDDR5 :( 
  • 1 Hide
    pike9 , 10 October 2013 11:36
    Time to upgrade my Q6600 ^^
  • 1 Hide
    ross_mitchell , 10 October 2013 12:35
    Any chance you could create benchmark results for 1440p with Ultra quality and AA disabled?
  • 0 Hide
    Menigmand , 10 October 2013 12:56
    Doesn't look that good to be honest..
  • 0 Hide
    Menigmand , 10 October 2013 13:01
    Agh, can't edit posts. What I wanted to say is that it doesn't look "bad", but I'm not really impressed the same way as I was seeing BF2 back then. Not a lot seems to have changed since then, it looks slightly better, but not all that much. I had expected some larger strides, but I suppose graphics tech is just at the end of the road now..
  • 0 Hide
    Pailin , 10 October 2013 13:49
    @Menigmand
    Click the little red "Quotes" button above to go through to the forums comments where you can edit your post.


    @Don Woligroski
    I like the 1080 Ultra Metro: Last Light frame variance test results ;) 

    - Would be pretty interesting to see the CPU scaling on High... being easier to run on the GPU side, depending how the settings adjust, perhaps the lower GFx setting might load the CPU more heavily, not more lightly...?
  • 0 Hide
    bumnut53 , 10 October 2013 13:51
    I need to buy another 780, struggling at 2560 x 1440 :( 

    Hope they drop in price soon!
  • 1 Hide
    Pailin , 10 October 2013 14:04
    @Menigmand
    You can also delete double posts there too ~_^

    EDIT: To avoid double posts, there is a bug - do not refresh the page after posting a comment under the News item. (I delete the "#comments" bit in the address bar and hit enter, then scroll down, after which you can safely hit refresh again)
    - the EDITs take a while to appear on the main News item.
  • 0 Hide
    MajinCry , 10 October 2013 14:31
    No test with the 965 BE?

    Come on Toms.
  • 0 Hide
    altikal , 10 October 2013 16:07
    I think there's a massive performance hit between 4GB ram and 8GB Ram, can you check this out?
  • 0 Hide
    Menigmand , 10 October 2013 17:57
    @Pailin Thanks for the help, I think I got my bearings now :) 
  • 0 Hide
    hafijur , 10 October 2013 17:58
    I am suprised by the fps on this cpu wise.
  • 0 Hide
    Pailin , 10 October 2013 18:41
    @Menigmand

    You are welcome :) 
  • 0 Hide
    b737lvr , 10 October 2013 22:01
    I feel like this entire article is unreliable. Nobody has been getting the same performance with the same hardware. I've seen people with GTX 770 getting worse performance than a 7970, then one person with a 7950 unable to play at all.

    Why does this article even exist? Shouldn't the author have waited for the game to officially release and official drivers release rather than run pure beta software?
  • -3 Hide
    aj2013 , 11 October 2013 00:52
    lol an i5? i5s are dead for next gen games...
  • 5 Hide
    dottorrent , 11 October 2013 02:21
    I5s will last a long time for gaming.
  • -2 Hide
    aj2013 , 11 October 2013 02:42
    Quote:
    I5s will last a long time for gaming.


    Course they will, but AMD 6 core or 8 core will overtake them once these next gen games come round to using more than 4 cores and as most games being optimized for AMD. Already you can check recent videos on youtube, not benchmarks, as there old and still use the bulldozer series which was bad.

    And you can see the 8350 beats i5 and i7 3770k, in every single new game. Games of last year is where i5 wins because more core per core and they don't optimize more than 4 cores, unlike now. As far as new games go and next gen, 6350 and i5 3570k is on par with each other with the i5 usually having about 3 more fps average, but considering both run at 60+ fps anyway with decent gpu's (7850 example / 660ti PE), then it's no loss. Except for intel, spend all that extra money and extra cost for motherboard.
  • 1 Hide
    b737lvr , 11 October 2013 03:07
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I5s will last a long time for gaming.
    And you can see the 8350 beats i5 and i7 3770k, in every single new game.


    Oh god you are so wrong it hurts. Have fun with watchdogs. the 8350 only runs faster than the i5 when all 8 cores are being utilized. Even then it is still slower than an i7-3770k. 8 cores are not used yet. Even when they are, still not as good as a Quad core intel.
  • -2 Hide
    aj2013 , 11 October 2013 03:14
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I5s will last a long time for gaming.
    And you can see the 8350 beats i5 and i7 3770k, in every single new game.


    Oh god you are so wrong it hurts. Have fun with watchdogs. the 8350 only runs faster than the i5 when all 8 cores are being utilized. Even then it is still slower than an i7-3770k. 8 cores are not used yet. Even when they are, still not as good as a Quad core intel.


    Yes I'm wrong.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

    I guess he's wrong also. Along with LinusTechTips who made pretty much the same video after. Only time i5 wins is on older games before 2013. You see Arma III for example, 8350 destroys the i5 it wasn't even close.
Display more comments