Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section' started by Plug2k, Aug 30, 2016.
200 fps @ 4k SLI is working for me ..:banana::banana:
Looking at the available benchmarks, it seems like the game is optimized for each architecture. For instance, it's very nice to see that Kepler isn't falling behind its GCN counterparts.
hehe kick ass gaming, grats
It's actually more strange than nice as FB3 was running badly on Kepler last year. Why would they optimize it for Kepler now, after the launch of Pascal?
On a gtx 1070 and 3770K at 4.6 I'm getting bottlenecking trying to go for high consistent framerates. 80-130
Instead I just push everything to Ultra and 60% on res scaling and it doesn't drop below 60 and is more consistent and less jarring that dipping from 130-80 etc.. Pushing the GPU settings makes GPU usage level out at 88-90%.
With lower graphics settings and aiming for high fps only getting 50-70% gpu usage.
Visually it looks great.
What cpu would I need to maintain 120 fps with a 1070?
Very high CPU req. for BF1. They listen 6600k as minimum. I would say something like 6700k would play nicely with 1070.
I wonder if my CPU would bottleneck my gtx 1080's
In the game i get about ~70-75% gpu usage average and 120-160fps everything maxed and %50scale in 1440p.
i have a 4930k overclocked to 4.5ghz.
Actually, I turned off HBAO switched to SSAO and now I get 118 fps @ 4k res. I do agree though the CPU, ram and mobo are holding me back as I am on DDR3 and PCIe 2.0 still. At least my SSD in raid 0 helps.. But 8 threads @ 5ghz isnt exactly awful.. Just a few years old tech really..
It's running really well for me with all the eye candy turned to the max.
Even a AMD FX 9370 is enough, idk where you got idea 6700K is ideal
All cpus at stock, 4770K @ 3.9Ghz turbo vs 6700K @ 4.2Ghz turbo and the difference its not worth mentioning. Its over 150fps by both..
Its not tough on gpu too,
would be interesting what a 1450mhz 980TI does, 1330mhz already does well.:nerd:
Unless that 25% means something other than resolution scale, these benchmarks are very misleading. 42% is native, so what resolution exactly have they tested at?
Probably so it removes any gpu bottleneck while at "max" settings..
This is what battlefield is about, knowing the map and teamwork. If you want to play closer to COD style you have to play in team deathmatch or squad deathmatch, not in conquest or rush.
But they don't say what settings, only the resolution, which they then scale way down. I'm having a hard time seeing the point? Just from the reading I've done the last few days, this seems like it's 640x480 performance; nothing approaching reality.
it says V.H Quality.
25% of 42% is not really 640x480.. more like 900p or so..
42% or full HD 1080p is 2million pixels, 25% is ~1.55million pixels.
If I did math right, I get 1142x642
1440p , ultra settings , res scale 42% (i assume thats native) 99% on one gpu never over 20% on the other. CPU sitting about 40 to 50% (hard to tell exactly with task manager) latest drivers 80 - 100fps . Im assuming this game will fly when they get sli working
Battlefield 1 ran pretty well for the most part.
In 8K with everything on Ultra (including HBAO), I was averaging 80FPS - here's an example: Battlefield 1 in 8K
Yeh, for me it ran a little more demanding than BF4, but then again when BF4 was first released it was higher demanding on CPU, then they tweaked it and got much better.
What I do is cap fps at high level and this helps smooth out load, temps and framerate (I use 125 or so).
Ran quite good for me too.
4770k @4.2GHz and 780Ti at about 1220ish MHz I believe. Resultet in slightly above 100-110FPS
I can't really remember the settings I've changed but it was something like all default and disabled Bloom.
Probably "useless" information without any settings provided, but eh.
Uninstalled it after a few days since I didn't really enjoyed/liked it.
But it ran pretty good.