Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Neither of which games offer 64player battles which will reduce the quality.
    64 players dont reduce the quality, they reduce performance and then the developers reduce the quality due to that. Its not my problem that nowadays developers dont take time for optimizing their games and just port crap and add as much content as possible without maintaining quality.

    Dont want to head off-topic but would like to finally say that the monitor is nice and offers quite impressive characteristics but I wouldnt buy one of this monitors cause it has g-sync and I am an amd ati radeon user.

  2. #52
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    the way you're acting is as if BF4 is an ugly game. You seem to be part of the minority but BF4 running at ultra settings is a damn fine looking game. Personally I wouldn't even say Farcry 3 looks better than it on neither technology level or art level, though i've only played FC3 for a few hours before losing interest. Crysis 3 does but Crysis games always look amazing.

  3. #53
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    the way you're acting is as if BF4 is an ugly game. You seem to be part of the minority but BF4 running at ultra settings is a damn fine looking game. Personally I wouldn't even say Farcry 3 looks better than it on neither technology level or art level, though i've only played FC3 for a few hours before losing interest. Crysis 3 does but Crysis games always look amazing.
    If you would have explored the island on max settings some places would look fantastic and the vegetations shaders, shadows, models and textures are just breathtaking, the water is amazing and a lot more natural than in any other game. Crysis 3 looks good but I didnt like its gameplay, however it has very outstanding graphics.

  4. #54
    Master Poster
    ex nihilo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    25
    Posts
    3,362
    Rep Power
    68
    Points
    2,080 (3,000 Banked)
    There is also the Asus PB287Q 60Hz 2160p monitor that was announced for the same price. At least its been said its 60Hz.
    PS4|PS3|PS2|PS1|PSVITA|XBOX 360|XBOX|N64|3DS XL|DSi|Gameboy Advance|Gameboy Color|PC

  5. #55
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,326
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,930 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    apologize for continuing an off topic discussion but...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    Battlefield 4 must be poorly optimized. First of all Id like to say that the graphics arent really good. A lot of blur, bad edges even with aa and destruction is limited. The animations didnt improve from bf3 and look outdated. Plus this game running at 40 fps on a 700$ gpu is a joke.
    The fact that BF3 and BF4 actually run on ps3 and x360 without melting them is a testament to how well optimized the frostbite engine is. Just because you don't see the numbers you expected doesn't mean the game is unoptimzed
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 both look better and run better than BF4.
    I would want to see my graphically advanced games so that we will have more variety in bench marking our computers. But real games, not just benchmarking applications.
    subjective, but I still highly doubt far cry looking better.


    show me better depth of field and this clear IQ


    The water shaders on the road and rain particles are hands down one of the best
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    64 players dont reduce the quality, they reduce performance and then the developers reduce the quality due to that. Its not my problem that nowadays developers dont take time for optimizing their games and just port crap and add as much content as possible without maintaining quality.

    Dont want to head off-topic but would like to finally say that the monitor is nice and offers quite impressive characteristics but I wouldnt buy one of this monitors cause it has g-sync and I am an amd ati radeon user.
    Then why are you complaining about performance in the first place?!

  6. #56
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    apologize for continuing an off topic discussion but...

    The fact that BF3 and BF4 actually run on ps3 and x360 without melting them is a testament to how well optimized the frostbite engine is. Just because you don't see the numbers you expected doesn't mean the game is unoptimzed

    subjective, but I still highly doubt far cry looking better.


    show me better depth of field and this clear IQ


    The water shaders on the road and rain particles are hands down one of the best

    Then why are you complaining about performance in the first place?!

    Haha pre render engine showcase, gotta love how those multiplayer players stand in set positions and and move accordingly to pre-set animations. Nice try though with those gifs.

    Even a game with 64 players and such graphics should actually run at at least 90 fps on 700$ gpus not even talking about them working in crossfire or in sli, investing 1400$ solely on gpus just to see the game run at 40 fps is bull$#@!. I do not complain I just point out that instead of doing proper hardware optimization they just decrease the graphics instead of taking more time and actually optimize something. Decreasing graphics into improve performance is something I can do with mostly all my games, I just go to the graphics settings no expertise in hardware optimization is required. If you would compare real battlefield in-game screenshots with far cry 3 you would see how much better far cry 3 is in some sections of graphics like vegetation and water vividness.

    Grass




  7. #57
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,785
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,892 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Those vids you showed are running at less resolution than in the BF4 benchmarks BBK posted.

  8. #58
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Those vids you showed are running at less resolution than in the BF4 benchmarks BBK posted.
    Resolution solely doesnt make the graphics and is not even graphics, its just a resolution at which the graphics are being displayed. Even though those videos are lower resolution they still look better than bf4 at high resolution. Go ahead and run a game at maximum resolution and turn all the graphical settings to the lowest possible, you see that the resolution doesnt make the graphics. If you mean in terms of performance and benchmarking check out some far cry 3 benchmark, they will show that the game performs better.

  9. #59
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,326
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,930 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Those gifs were in game at 4k Cyber. The whole argument of expecting an arbitrary number as fps (in your case 90fps) from your GPU just cuz you spent more money is the most lousy argument I've seen. The game doesn't care how much you bought the card for. It will use what it needs.

  10. Likes BBK.. likes this post
  11. #60
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,785
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,892 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Far Cry 3 is using a heavily modified Cryengine called Dunia.

    You are comparing engines here not games.
    Last edited by keefy; 01-14-2014 at 12:51.

  12. #61
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Those gifs were in game at 4k Cyber. The whole argument of expecting an arbitrary number as fps (in your case 90fps) from your GPU just cuz you spent more money is the most lousy argument I've seen. The game doesn't care how much you bought the card for. It will use what it needs.
    The most lousy argument is saying that the game runs poorly only because of its amount of content, developers are in charge to optimize the game and they can also decide how much content and players capacity they can add. I dont think you know what game optimization means, its not removing content or decrease graphics quality in order to improve performance, not at all. I didnt say that I own such a card but its absolutely absurd that a game cant run on a such capable gpu. That is what I am pointing out.

  13. #62
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Far Cry 3 is using a heavily modified Cryengine called Dunia. Cryengine is 10 years old.
    Its like COD engine is heavily modified idtech3 called IW engine
    Frostbite is also an old and heavily modified engine so there is no point in mentioning that, it was out even before it was actually called frostbite.

  14. #63
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Yup. BF4 is a demanding game on the higher settings but when you play it you can see why it is demanding. The game looks great. I actually think that the fact a single 780 (i'm speculating. I know my 780 gets high FPS than stock Titan) can get an average of 45-50fps on Ultra settings, 2560x1440, 4x MSAA, AA at high and with HBAO on, i would say DICE have made a very good engine. And those are just results from the beta. It's been improved since then especially with drivers.





    Anyway, we are so off topic it's unreal.

    People are forgetting the good news that a 120Hz monitor at 2560x1440 is no longer a myth! Silky smooth everything. Even when you download the Chrome add on for 120Hz scrolling it makes just using the internet a pleasure.


    edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    Frostbite is also an old and heavily modified engine so there is no point in mentioning that, it was out even before it was actually called frostbite.
    Frost bite came out like 2 years ago!? How on earth is that old? In terms of engines it's just a toddler. You are looking past the fact that BF4 is a demanding game. Have you actually played it first hand, not just looked at youtube videos?
    Last edited by BBK..; 01-14-2014 at 12:58.

  15. #64
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,785
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,892 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    Frostbite is also an old and heavily modified engine so there is no point in mentioning that, it was out even before it was actually called frostbite.
    Not it isnt. DICE built it themselves for Bad company which released in 2008. Prior to that the previous battlefield games used some other engine.
    http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Refractor

  16. #65
    Veteran

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    PSN ID
    Cybertox
    Posts
    4,129
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    95,216 (4,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post


    Frost bite came out like 2 years ago!? How on earth is that old? In terms of engines it's just a toddler. You are looking past the fact that BF4 is a demanding game. Have you actually played it first hand, not just looked at youtube videos?
    Are you kidding me? Frostbite 2 and Frostbite are exactly the same engine its just that frostbite 2 is an improved version its not like frostbite is a complete new engine compared to frostbite, and before frostbite there was another engine which is the same frostbite just with no name and no additional improvements. If I would follow your logic I would say the same for Dunia which would then be a completely new engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Not it isnt. DICE built it themselves for Bad company which released in 2008. Prior to that the previous battlefield games used some other engine.
    http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Refractor
    Refractor is the same Frostbite just with improvements and modifications.

  17. #66
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    My mistake, frostbite 1.0 came out in 2008. Still, hardly an old engine considering how long UE and Source have been out. Regardless of how old it is, it is one of the best looking engines out there.

  18. #67
    Newbie

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    234 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    i have a GTX780 Superclocked which is faster than a Titan. it can run BF4 at 2560x1440 in ultra at 40fps. Shall be getting another one to sustain a frame rate above 60, maybe closer to 70fps
    Can you pls give me your minimum FPS for BF4 on High?

  19. #68
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercy4You View Post
    Can you pls give me your minimum FPS for BF4 on High?
    Well with the screen I get about 55-65 FPS when in outside areas

  20. #69
    Newbie

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    234 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Well with the screen I get about 55-65 FPS when in outside areas
    Thx m8!
    I'm very interested in this new monitor, but my GPU now is delivering very smooth gameplay in BF4 @ 90 FPS on an Asus VG248QE (144 Hz) I use ingame frame-cap @ 92 FPS

    Lower than 90 FPS is less smooth on this 24 inch monitor, so I'm afraid that on this new 27 inch monitor with 55-65 FPS the game will not be as smooth as now. I can see difference between 90 and 60 FPS, while others I know don't. I cannot see the difference between 90 and higher. (what I don't know is why the game is less smooth on 60 FPS, it can also be caused by other things like FPS drops or serverlag)


    What I read is that G-sync should be smooth on lower FPS, but is there still a difference to see between 60 with and 90 FPS without G-sync?
    Last edited by Mercy4You; 4 Weeks Ago at 22:05.

  21. #70
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I was like you, I always tried to run my games in the region of 90-120fps on my old ASUS which was 120Hz. I've noticed a performance hit but not as much as I was expecting. i've gone from around 80-110fps on BF4 (depending what level i'm playing of course, levels like Metro were often around 100 whereas an open air outside one like Paracel Storm would be closer to 75-90fps) to around 58-85, though since turning off AA at this resolution i've got it to frequently be between 70-80fps on majority of Dragons Teeth maps.

    Now after using GSync for a few weeks I can honestly say that 60fps feels actually more fluid and responsive than my old monitor when running at 90fps. The only way I can describe how it feels is with the word 'tight'. Everything feels like a direct input and I really don't feel when the frame rate drops because you don't get that painfully obvious stuttering or any tearing.

    It definitely is hard to explain the benefits of GSync to someone who hasn't tried it as really all it is doing is something we've blocked out for ages but once you start to play with it and you go back to a normal screen without GSync it becomes really obvious and you start to wonder how you coped with out it.

  22. #71
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,757
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    81,734 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I imagine is must feel very natural and accurate. I really want to upgrade already but I'm waiting for freesync, which I've read gives the same performance. I would get a gsync now but there's a possibility I may not have an Nvidia card in the future and I don't want to lose the prime benefit of my new monitor.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  23. #72
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,866
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,132 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Yeah FreeSync will be the same pretty much but I'm not sure how far off that will be where as GSync was here and now. Admittedly I didn't even buy the screen for GSync it was the refresh rate I wanted the most. GSync just turned out to be really, really good gravy

  24. #73
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,785
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,892 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    You need at least a 7000 series for Freesync to work. Not sure on the equivalent Nvidia cards.
    http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/219

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.