Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
BF4 Integrates FCAT Overlay Support

Back in September AMD publicly announced Mantle, a new lower level API meant to offer more performance for gamers and more control for developers fed up with the restrictions of DirectX. Without diving too much into the politics of the release, the fact that Battlefield 4 developer DICE was integrating Mantle into the Frostbite engine for Battlefield was a huge proof point for the technology. Even though the release was a bit later than AMD had promised us, coming at the end of January 2014, one of the biggest PC games on the market today had integrated a proprietary AMD API.

When I did my first performance preview of BF4 with Mantle on February 1st, the results were mixed but we had other issues to deal with. First and foremost, our primary graphics testing methodology, called Frame Rating, wasn't able to be integrated due to the change of API. Instead we were forced to use an in-game frame rate counter built by DICE which worked fine, but didn't give us the fine grain data we really wanted to put the platform to the test. It worked, but we wanted more. Today we are happy to announce we have full support for our Frame Rating and FCAT testing with BF4 running under Mantle.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Battlefield-4-Mantle-CrossFire-Early-Performance-FCAT

This info as come to light that there is more than 1 frame pacing method built into BF4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbug;26104277
From the Lt.

LT has been hard at work. in his conversation with Johan yesterday on twitter he told me that there is two different frame pacing methods. Tell people to type RenderDevice.FramePacingMethod 1 into the console. It works wonderfully and gives the same fps as with it disabled. Method 2 (default since the patch) is what hits fps hard but gives the most consistent and tight (ridiculously so) frame times, hence the lower fps. Check my attached screenshots and post them to the thread. Look at the fps gain while using Method 1 vs Method 2. Incidentally frame pacing is so tight and consistent i cannot tell a difference between both on or off regardless of method used.

Frame Pacing Method 1

framepacingmethod1_zpsae1cf66c.jpg

Frame Pacing Method 2

framepacingmethod2_zpsa17f0853.jpg
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26104277&postcount=14
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,611 Posts
I'm kinda lost... is this frame pacing something I can enable, or some kind of testing tool???

If the former, what are the advantages? Is it Mantle only?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
There is Frame pacing available in CCC for games in general as long as there is a profile which you can turn on or off per game bases or globally.

There is now frame pacing built into BF4 itself and it seems that this method is reliant on Mantle, maybe..
 

·
News Junkie
Joined
·
8,232 Posts
Those straight lines in the frame timing graph? Never seen that before? Bug? (i rarely every played BF4 so not saying it has to be a bug because of my own experience)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenFaux View Post



That Crossfire + Mantel frametime doesn't seem possible.... It's so flat.
Frame pacing benefits multi GPU the most and yeah hard to believe that it could be that good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenFaux View Post



That Crossfire + Mantel frametime doesn't seem possible.... It's so flat.
WoW !
Such smooth
so sexy
impossibru
mantle god
 

·
OC Enthusiast
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
so they lower the performance to decrease the frametime..
and they still need to improve on systems with low-end cpus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Some of those results look very strange. Look at the two results for Mantle + CF at 2560x1440. The A10-7850K is outperforming the i7-3960X. I think something was wrong when they ran the i7 bench, it seems to be hard-limiting to 80 FPS for most of the run. If it's frame-pacing in Mantle limiting it to 80 FPS, why don't we see that with the A10-7850K?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
I need to test this out on my system. The lines are too straight I think, but when playing with mantle in crossfire the game IS really smooth

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck100 View Post

Some of those results look very strange. Look at the two results for Mantle + CF at 2560x1440. The A10-7850K is outperforming the i7-3960X. I think something was wrong when they ran the i7 bench, it seems to be hard-limiting to 80 FPS for most of the run. If it's frame-pacing in Mantle limiting it to 80 FPS, why don't we see that with the A10-7850K?

Remember the weaker cpu has much more to gain from Mantle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Remember the weaker cpu has much more to gain from Mantle.
That chart isn't comparing gains, it's showing raw FPS. The i7 should have had higher FPS or at the very least the same FPS. I think PCper needs to run those i7 benchmarks again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck100 View Post

Some of those results look very strange. Look at the two results for Mantle + CF at 2560x1440. The A10-7850K is outperforming the i7-3960X. I think something was wrong when they ran the i7 bench, it seems to be hard-limiting to 80 FPS for most of the run. If it's frame-pacing in Mantle limiting it to 80 FPS, why don't we see that with the A10-7850K?

Without digesting the article completely I would think it's because the A10 doesn't have the power to stay within a threshold where it has enough overhead to enable the frame pacing. If the frame pacing was disabled you would probably see the i7 blow far passed the A10. This frame rate deduction is somewhat similar to the penalty that vertical sync had at one point (not so much anymore).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Remember the weaker cpu has much more to gain from Mantle.
Well... it depends how you look at it. This type of frame pacing should provide for a much better experience than a fluctuating frame rate.
 

·
Software Developer
Joined
·
7,231 Posts
Some of these numbers/graphs look insane. I am not going to call foulplay... but still things look very off.

I would test out FCAT vs. my BF4 Frame Time Analyzer... it is possible FCAT implementation is bugged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck100 View Post

Some of those results look very strange. Look at the two results for Mantle + CF at 2560x1440. The A10-7850K is outperforming the i7-3960X. I think something was wrong when they ran the i7 bench, it seems to be hard-limiting to 80 FPS for most of the run. If it's frame-pacing in Mantle limiting it to 80 FPS, why don't we see that with the A10-7850K?

This is really weird... this is not RAW fps as some said, this is OBSERVED FPS, so if there were any kind of microstutter, this number would be way lower. I could understand foul play or some weird type of vsync taking into accoount those fixed 80fps on the i7, but if you look closer, further down the line, it goes up to 98 and later to 100+fps.
Weird stuff.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingCain View Post

Some of these numbers/graphs look insane. I am not going to call foulplay... but still things look very off.

I would test out FCAT vs. my BF4 Frame Time Analyzer... it is possible FCAT implementation is bugged.
I am sure if it was bugged pcper would be able to feel that it is not smooth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Very nice. If AMD continues improving their frame pacing maybe I'll consider going back to them. The problem is that their DX11 frame pacing is still lagging behind Nvidia's, and I'd like to have smooth pacing in ALL my games, not just a few of them. Either way, I'll be going with a single card setup for the foreseeable future, so I don't really care.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top