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
Add your own comment

63 Comments on DICE Posts its Own Battlefield 4 DirectX vs. Mantle Performance Numbers

#1
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: TheHunter
nvidia fanboys need to bitch @ nvidia

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.
I see the benefits in Mantle, but its really not a god send at all.
Posted on Reply
#2
Steevo
Or it looks like the draw distance is the same, and heaven forbid the brightness is turned up!!!!

Actually the FOV in the last images shows the Mantle demo running more area, and thus calculating more.


Also don't double post, no matter how butthurt.
Posted on Reply
#3
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Steevo
Or it looks like the draw distance is the same, and heaven forbid the brightness is turned up!!!!

Actually the FOV in the last images shows the Mantle demo running more area, and thus calculating more.


Also don't double post, no matter how butthurt.
There's nothing to be butt hurt about.....Game runs fine for me. 80fps+ all the time.
Posted on Reply
#4
tokyoduong
by: FX-GMC
Except by nature, multiplayer benchmarks aren't repeatable.

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?
You just proved my point that your "guesstimate" of framerates being unequal is bogus. There's no way you had the same setup running the same thing as they did. Your results will definitely be different. Those questions are not meant for you to answer. It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.
Posted on Reply
#5
FX-GMC
by: tokyoduong
You just proved my point that your "guesstimate" of framerates being unequal is bogus. There's no way you had the same setup running the same thing as they did. Your results will definitely be different. Those questions are not meant for you to answer. It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.
You're right, I didn't have the same setup. I had a WEAKER setup. Said that plenty of times. On the same settings in the same game I never go as low as their min FPS numbers and I average a good bit more than they do. Do ya see the problem or are you too dense?
It was to help you realize how dumb your statement was.
My statements:

-I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there. This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience. Unless the combination of a FX8320 (4.6) + GTX760 is faster than a FX8350 (stock) + 7970Ghz or GTX770.

-That weird situation where the i7 and 8350 are performing worse that slower cpu's means something with their test system is not optimized.

-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.

You're right. Those are some stupid statements. /sarcasm

Great job not adding anything to any discussion.

P.S. I'm done with you. Edited for consistency.
Posted on Reply
#6
NeoXF
by: tokyoduong
Your system gets that frame rates at what map? how many players? what is happening? Does your settings match theirs? Does your set up match theirs?

Your FPS can vary by just about anything. This is why benchmarks are made! Same exact repeatable scenario and expected results!
Random thought to you and the guy who you replied to... Have you guys thought that they might be using 200% scaling in the settings menu? I have no clue what that does exactly, but I do know it eats from your performance. That could explain why they're getting such low frames in all of their tests.
Posted on Reply
#7
FX-GMC
by: NeoXF
Random thought to you and the guy who you replied to... Have you guys thought that they might be using 200% scaling in the settings menu? I have no clue what that does exactly, but I do know it eats from your performance. That could explain why they're getting such low frames in all of their tests.
Didn't see any mention of that. They say that it was done using the same settings in the same location as their beta benchmark. but I couldn't find it to see the exact settings.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/
Posted on Reply
#8
tokyoduong
by: FX-GMC
You're right, I didn't have the same setup. I had a WEAKER setup. Said that plenty of times. On the same settings in the same game I never go as low as their min FPS numbers and I average a good bit more than they do. Do ya see the problem or are you too dense?



My statements:

-I'm curious to know why the FX6300 has a higher fps than the FX8350 in your picture there. This is contrary to logic, all other tests i've seen, to all the people whining that their FX six cores are struggling (From battlelog forums) and my own experience. Unless the combination of a FX8320 (4.6) + GTX760 is faster than a FX8350 (stock) + 7970Ghz or GTX770.

-That weird situation where the i7 and 8350 are performing worse that slower cpu's means something with their test system is not optimized.

-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.

You're right. Those are some stupid statements. /sarcasm

Great job not adding anything to any discussion.

P.S. I'm done with you.
I've seen many instances where the FX6300 would beat the FX8350 running at the same clock. This may happen due to the fact that the FX6300 has more cache to work with per core therefore increasing IPC. That is situation dependent.

I can't view anything labeled gaming at work right now. When I skimmed through the graphs yesterday on the battlelog, it doesn't look like they ran the same exact timed scenario for all systems. They only ran the same scenario for each system and ran it with/without mantle. It was also mentioned that they maxed the load on the game, something you may or may not do when you did your run. I could be wrong here.

PS Someone who gets emotional over forum posts like you will never be done. Keep calling names and get upset. Like I care kid lol.
Posted on Reply
#9
FX-GMC
by: tokyoduong
I've seen many instances where the FX6300 would beat the FX8350 running at the same clock. This may happen due to the fact that the FX6300 has more cache to work with per core therefore increasing IPC. That is situation dependent.

I can't view anything labeled gaming at work right now. When I skimmed through the graphs yesterday on the battlelog, it doesn't look like they ran the same exact timed scenario for all systems. They only ran the same scenario for each system and ran it with/without mantle. It was also mentioned that they maxed the load on the game, something you may or may not do when you did your run. I could be wrong here.

PS Someone who gets emotional over forum posts like you will never be done. Keep calling names and get upset. Like I care kid lol.
You've called me dumb and a kid so you're ahead on the name calling.

I am still waiting for you to tell me which statement was dumb.

P.S. If you think I was talking about the mantle benchmarks on the first page you weren't following along. It was these: Post #35
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: FX-GMC
You've called me dumb and a kid so you're ahead on the name calling.

I am still waiting for you to tell me which statement was dumb.

P.S. If you think I was talking about the mantle benchmarks on the first page you weren't following along. It was these: Post #35
Posted on Reply
#11
FX-GMC
by: TheMailMan78

Bout time you showed up.
Posted on Reply
#12
Thefumigator
I believe all this mantle stuff was all thanks to the AMD commitment to bring APU to consoles (Xbox One / PS4)
Posted on Reply
#13
TheHunter
by: MxPhenom 216
I see the benefits in Mantle, but its really not a god send at all.
What based on Bf4? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment