BF4 at 2560x1600 with 680m SLI

Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone knows if a 680m 2GB SLI setup can handle bf4 at max at a resolution of 2560x1600. I cant seem to find any info on this. Thanks everyone.

 

Can you find any 1080p benchmarks? Take the fps in those benchmarks and divide by 2. A resolution of 1600p has roughly double the pixels of 1080p.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

It doesn't exactly work that way, 3840x2160 is double 1080p, and performance doesn't scale linearly with resolution.

 

4K is quadruple the number of pixels of 1080p. It's doubled in both dimensions.

Assuming you haven enough GPU horsepower, performance should scale pretty linearly with resolution. It's in cases when your GPU is lacking that performance suddenly falls off a cliff at a certain point.

 

Usually when people refer to "double resolution" they mean double X and double Y pixels. And any single notebook card will be bandwidth starved above 1920x1080 that the frame rate will not double from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080, at least with any amount of appreciable detail.

 

Either way, you would see about 40% decrease in performance at 1600p compared to 1080p.

It will not be playable on the Ultra preset, no. I'd say it will be playable on "auto," and it will look worse than Ultra at 1080p.

 

Just for fun I did some quick benches:



So basically 960x540 is "half res" of 1920x1080 and 800x450 is "half res" of 1600x900, or essentially 1/4 the pixels. So if linearly, this means that the FPS should be 1/4 the higher res.

This is not the case.

Resulting curve.



And I added this red line to show likely how it would go as res goes up.

 

Why would you call it "double resolution" if it's quadruple the pixels? 4K is sometimes abbreviated as QFHD (quad full HD). Confusing.

Frame rate won't double from 4K down to 1080p, more like triple or quadruple, especially on bandwidth-starved notebook GPUs. Hence my previous comment about having "enough GPU horsepower" or else "performance suddenly falls off a cliff at a certain point." Most laptop cards nosedive somewhere in the vicinity of 2.5K-3K res. I don't have access to a 4K monitor, but using appropriate levels of supersampling, I can simulate that kind of load, and performance scales down pretty linearly from 1080p.

Sleeping Dogs is Ultra w/Extreme AA right? 24.5 FPS @ 1080p to 91.2 FPS @ 540p is a 3.7x increase in frame rate for a 4x decrease in pixels. I'd say that's pretty close to linear.

 

Symantics... It's twice X, twice Y, not hard to understand...

Doesn't look like a line to me...

 

Because CPU becomes a factor at the lower resolutions. I was talking about 1080p to 4K. Sleeping Dogs from 540p to 1080p (with the Extreme 2x2 SSAA setting becomes effectively 1080p to 4K) dropped to almost 1/4 the FPS, which is pretty linear with the increase in the number of pixels rendered.

The point of inflection (not shown) is where the GPU chokes and performance takes a nosedive.

 

Do you mean with 680m sli isnt unplayable ? That gets me about 40 fps. my FPS on bf4 is 80 or so. It's playable if it's over 30 no? if 680m ali can't do it, what cards can at ultra and 2560x1600? Can the 780ms do it?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

My single OC'd k5000m ( clock speed at about 140% 680m stock) get ~40fps on high setting single player at 2560 x1440.

I think you can probably look at desktop 670 benchmarks, and do some calculation from the clock speed.

 

You would have huge dips. It wouldn't be playable. Your "average" at 1080p is not going to be perfectly sliced in half for an average at 1600p.

I'm not saying you can't or won't be able to. Playable (to me) is when the FPS is >= screen refresh rate, especially in an FPS first-person shooter like BF4. It makes all the difference.

 

Hmm, so even a 780m sli setup can't push it? How about if you scale down the resolution to 1080p for hard to run games like bf4, but on easier ones like WoW, star craft, borderlands 2 ect you run it at native. Would that work ?

 

780M SLI will perform somewhat better. The 780M (at stock) performs about 20% better than the 680M, and it has more vRAM.

 

How about the scaling back resolution to 1080p for top demanding games, will it look like crap?

 

That's the problem with gaming on high-res monitors. Photo, video editing, etc. is not problematic.

If you lower the settings, even a little bit, you will be able to tell much more on a high-res display as opposed to 1080p. That's why I don't suggest 4k or high-res gaming just yet. Mobile GPU's aren't equipped to handle Ultra on 4k monitors running 2160p or something. To be honest, gaming would look better at 1080p (on Ultra) than High on a 4k display/high-res display. You know how everyone says, "turning off anti-aliasing makes no difference at 1080p anyway...", because they're trying to get a few extra FPS? It's because you see can't enough detail at 1080p. At resolutions of 1600p or higher, you'll be able to tell. That statement doesn't hold true. In other words, just because you go out and spend $600 on a monitor doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a better gaming experience.

The 780M/880M replacement on 20nm Maxwell should perform like a desktop GTX 780/780Ti. If this holds true, SLI mobile GPU's will definitely be much better suited for high-res gaming. Still not ideal, but much better.