Hardware AMD Mantle - Battlefield 4 Performance

I don't mean to be negative.... but I'm going to be. A little bit.

Your testing methodology is pretty sound, giving nice precise and repeatable data, but doesn't give any meaningful results if it's single-player only. Would it really have take that much effort to get some data from the multiplayer version of the game? The figures may not have been as solid, but surely some smart people like yourselves could have worked out how to get something, however anecdotal it may have been.

I hate to say it, but this article just reeks of laziness.

 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/267130/


much much better test for mantle - star swarm engine for star citizen

 

Don't think you've tested this fairly......you are saying there is little improvement when the the situation is gpu limited......well doh....considering you are using a reference cooled card that is probably not delivering its full clocks even in the DX version due to thermal throttling then how can mantle be expected to get more performance out of the card...further through put would lead to more heat and so even more reduced clocks...get my drift...try the same test with custom cooled card that wouldn't be affected by throttling.

 

I,m so sick of saying this but 1920 x 1200 everyone I know uses this res why don't you. Sorry you probably do at home but not in testing this is very backward thinking.

 

Your right this site is not trust worthy. In the past few years this site has made some of the oddest decisions I've seen in the tech world tomshardwarw are more impartial.

 

no one I know uses this res , so not testing it is really great for 99.9999999% of home users who run @ 1080P

 

According to Steam most of us are running less than 1080p. 1080p monitors are still pretty much a luxury to some and personally I only have one because I'm an avid gamer. I run three monitors in my house, one is 1080p the second is 1440x900 IIRC and the last is a 19" Dell that runs 1280x1024.

I have no plans to replace either of the two sub 1080p monitors, nor do I find 4k interesting in the least. All it means is £1000 worth of new GPUs and I will take 1080p with lots of FSAA thanks...

As for 1920 x 1200 ? I don't know any one who runs it. It's actually quite an oddball res and IIRC it was only really Dell who used it a lot and that's because non gamers wanted the extra height. Probably because those same designers etc came from 1600x1200 CRT monitors and the height loss in 1080p meant that some of the things they designed were not fully viewable (like me, I did around 100 emulator front ends for 1200 height and now I can't play any of them).

As for Bit-tech's testing methodology? yeah I too feel that sometimes it can leave a bit to be desired but hey, there are plenty of other sites around the net that offer up as much anal information as you could wish for, so I don't sweat it. I come here for the people, not so much the reviews. TBH? I don't think I've read a review in depth for about six months, mainly because I'm not looking to buy anything nor replace what I have.

Mantle is still in the very, very early stages and until some one embraces it properly and codes a game from the ground up (instead of whacking in a dodgy patch) it's going to be so so.

 

I think it's safe to say that 1920x1200 performance won't be far off 1920x1080.

 

merged

Everyone I know uses 1920 x1200 as its as high as you can go with out getting into silly money. Plus its a much crisper res for gaming.

Then why has any res been supported in almost every game since the year dot. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The spin drive went out with 1080 if you had any sense.

 

Triple post madness. Use the edit button bro. Time to point out a few truths:

Two things. Everyone you know seems to have bought monitors quite a few years ago. The price premium on 16:10 monitors is fairly substantial and has been for several years now, because since the massive uptake of 1080p panels in the TV market prices of matching 16:9 panels in the PC market have come down a lot.

1920 x 1200 is considered a specialist resolution now, despite it being an older standard than 1920 x 1080. Nobody wuold deny that all theings being equal it's preferable to have an additional 120 vertical pixels, but to claim that a 24" 1200p panel is "crisper" than a 23" 1080p panel is ludicrous. The pixels are the same size.

Because the standard has existed for many, many years?

Isn't that a brand of slot cars?

 

Why do people continually get their knickers in a twist debating the relative merits of 1080p and 1200p? It's horses for courses and there's not much in it. 1200p screens tend to be dearer, so you pay a sizeable premium for that extra 120 vertical pixels. If you're happy doing so, then power to you. If not, 1080p is more than sufficient for most people. Live and let live, people

Stuff like this:

is just silly. Please provide your working to demonstrate why a 24" 1200p panel is "much crisper" than a 23" 1080p screen.

In terms of reviewing games at 1200p, it's a bit redundnat because as Deders said, it's safe to assume that performance at 1200p won't be a kick in the teeth away from 1080p.

Full disclosure: I own a 1920 x 1200 monitor (which I bought about 18 months ago). I do like the additional vertical space for productivity stuff, but if I need to switch to a 1080p screen elsewhere then I don't notice the difference after about 10 minutes

Edit: Oh FFS! Ninja'd by Shirty. That'll teach me to try and compose forum posts at work whilst actually working - it takes far too long! Multitasking fail

 

Something weird happened when I merged the posts from teh tripple post madness I think I lost a quote into the abyss, apologies.

 

BF4? Is anyone even still playing that broken PoS?

 

I've never played it. And I only played BF3 single player, because it was free.