Thursday, January 30th 2014
DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers
Along with its highly anticipated game patch that includes an AMD Mantle renderer for Battlefield 4, DICE posted numbers from its own testing, pointing out the performance difference between DirectX 11.1 and Mantle. DICE put Battlefield 4 through three test scenarios, entry-level gaming, mainstream gaming, and enthusiast gaming. The entry-level test-bed comprised of an AMD A10-7850K APU, with its integrated Radeon R7 200 series GPU (512 stream processors, 720 MHz GPU clock). This is a CPU and GPU limited scenario, in which the game was tested at 1280 x 720 pixels resolution. DICE notes that with Mantle, the game yielded about 14 percent higher frame-rates.
Next up, is mainstream gaming. The test-bed runs an AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K. A Radeon HD 7970 is in charge of graphics, and the game is run at 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution, with 1x MSAA and "Ultra" preset. DICE found that the setup yields about 26 percent higher frame-rates. Lastly, there's the enthusiast test-bed, running an Intel Core i7-3960X CPU, and dual Radeon R9 290X (CrossFire) graphics. The resolution stayed at 1920 x 1080, settings at "Ultra" preset, but the anti-aliasing was cranked up to 4x MSAA. The result? A stunning 58 percent higher frame-rates. It's important to note here that in addition to settings, the other thing that's not constant between the three setups is the test scene. Even if DICE' assessment is most generous towards AMD's claims, there really does seem to be a performance increment on offer, with Mantle. Can't wait to check it out for ourselves. For more details and notes from the developer, check out the source link.
Source:
DICE
Next up, is mainstream gaming. The test-bed runs an AMD FX-8350, which offers roughly the same gaming CPU performance as a Core i5-3570K. A Radeon HD 7970 is in charge of graphics, and the game is run at 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution, with 1x MSAA and "Ultra" preset. DICE found that the setup yields about 26 percent higher frame-rates. Lastly, there's the enthusiast test-bed, running an Intel Core i7-3960X CPU, and dual Radeon R9 290X (CrossFire) graphics. The resolution stayed at 1920 x 1080, settings at "Ultra" preset, but the anti-aliasing was cranked up to 4x MSAA. The result? A stunning 58 percent higher frame-rates. It's important to note here that in addition to settings, the other thing that's not constant between the three setups is the test scene. Even if DICE' assessment is most generous towards AMD's claims, there really does seem to be a performance increment on offer, with Mantle. Can't wait to check it out for ourselves. For more details and notes from the developer, check out the source link.
63 Comments on DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers
Hopefully I'll be able to see great gains with my current setup.
Let NV make a proper mantle driver - its a open API not bound to GCN, end of story.
But nooo, its AMD fault and AMD sucks and what not.. Like i said this once some nv fanboys are like a plague in gaming industry...
You should have seen all the commnets at battlelog, Omg:rolleyes:
I own a NV gpu and I still think Mantle is almost God sent.. Just wait until its more widespread.
Are you using your translator properly?
DIRECTX 11.1 IS SUPPORTED.
THE GREEDIEST GAME STUDIO ON THE PLANET (EA) DISAGREES WITH YOU.
Alright guys, enough screaming.
Actually,I really like english,but when I was a child did not study hard
These are more in line with the real world (or at least what i've seen/read):
To give reference, my setup (8350 @4.6 + GTX760 @ 1267MHz) gets an average of 72fps with a minimum of around 58-60fps.
1080p Ultra settings 4xmsaa high post, etc.
Edit: Pretty much what FX-GMC just said/posted before I pressed post (thanks!).
Edit2: So what now again... is a FX 8350 build ~15% faster than i5 4670K one in BF4? AMD are witches! We all now Bulldozer sucks! Booooo! etc etc...Nope, BF3 was quite CPU agnostic... BF4 is a pretty different kind of beast. I guess you haven't followed many CPU benches on BF4, have you. :)
Your FPS can vary by just about anything. This is why benchmarks are made! Same exact repeatable scenario and expected results!
Here we go:
Your system gets that frame rates at what map? No specific map (do note I am talking about the vanilla maps). When I play I notice fps in the low 70's most of the time. Lowest I've seen is around 55fps but usually min frames are around 60. Max frames can go up to 90.
How many players? 64......duh.
What is happening? Ever played battlefield? Shooting, explosions, people raging, flying, driving. That's what happens in battlefield.
Does (I think you mean do there) your settings match theirs? Either matches their settings or they are skewing the numbers. You must of missed the part where I said MAX settings 1080p. (Well i didn't say MAX, but Ultra, 4xmsaa, and high post should cover max settings.)
Does your setup match theirs? No it doesn't. Mine should be weaker, but my performance is better. If you would have followed along this has all been posted already.
Got anymore questions?
Also, why are we talking about the i5 4670k now (I'm not taking the bait)? This was strictly about the FX6300 being faster in their "test" when it's not in the real world.