Battlefield 1 Video Card Showdown

[Yoinkerman]

6 hours ago, DXMember said:

the rant about EA DRM was very unprofessional, childish and disrespectful to your viewers

you should take whatever beef you have with EA and figure it out between you two

the DRM does what it is suppose to do - prevent people from sharing the games on different hardware for better or for worse it affects people that do benchmarking on numerous hardware configuration

thanks for the video either way

Honestly I disagree.  I have 6 gaming computers at home.  If I want to play battlefield on all 6 I should be able to without issue.

[Soundsystem90]

60% load. 99% GPU usage.

 

100-170FPS 1080P 90hz.

[booger]

22 hours ago, Zyndo said:

@LinusTech @Slick

 

Okay guys. Real talk. Why did you bother to put in "CPU tests" if all you're going to do is create a MASSIVE GPU bottleneck by running it at 4k with ultra settings? Nothing about that shows what a CPU can do. at all. You give us unspecified CPU speeds, unspecified RAM speeds, and then tell us that "any 4 core" is all you need. Whilst that DOES get you over 60 fps, a METRIC SHIT TON of people love to play their shooters at 144 fps for competitive reasons. I'm all for you guys showing that you don't need a 6700k overclocked to 4.8GHz in order to have a good experience at 4k, and I appreciate that... But when talking about CPU's and how much they do or don't affect the game you shouldn't create GPU bottlenecks and then say "oh well there is no difference between configuration A, and configuration B".

 

I tend to agree with most things you guys say and most things you put on youtube and I like you guys. But this has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen, I'd call it "second rate" reporting but I think that would be giving it too much credit. If you are going to report on CPU performance levels, you need to, A) give us the frequency at which these chips are running, B) give us the speed at which the memory is running, and C) Create situations where your bottlenecks are actually on the CPU, and not the GPU... Otherwise just don't bother calling it a "CPU test" because it will have absolutely nothing to do with the CPU.

 

Very frustrating to see such a disgrace on my favorite YouTube channel. I may sound disproportionately upset, and perhaps that is true... but I'm a big fan of your guys' and you've taught me much about computers. I've watched literally every video on the channel and I love watching your daily videos... I hold you guys to a standard of reporting that you also hold yourselves to.... and you fell WAAAAAAAYYY short of the mark on this video, particularly when it comes to the "CPU test" portion of it.... those results showed absolutely nothing relevant to a CPU.

@LinusTech @Slick

I made an account here just to say this. Myself and a huge portion of pc gamers are using 120+hz monitors and stop at no cost to try to achieve high FPS.  This video actually is bad advice for someone like myself.  Modern multiplayer FPS games like BF1 and Overwatch are heavily cpu bound for people on 1080p and lower settings trying to get high frame rates. 

 

The majority of people in your audience use an overclocked core i5 or i7, yet there is no mention of clock.  I'm completely bottlenecked by my i5 4670k at 4.3ghz in these games with a 1070.  My frame rate fluctuates around around 80-150fps on low setting at 1080p with the cpu at 95-100% on all cores. People with i7s get much better results. This video also makes no mention of the stuttering people are getting (and is alleviated by capping FPS to stop 100% cpu usage) and shows no frame time comparisons.

 

I don't know if it's just me, but I really couldn't give a shit about 4K, especially when there are high refresh rate 1440p and 1080p monitors.  I know it's the industry buzzword, but think about what portion of your viewers actually game on a 4K monitor or use it in supersampling? 240hz 1080p/1440p and 144hz 4K monitors are hitting the market next year. Competitive gaming and esports is a massive market segment these monitors are used in.  The visual benefits of ultra/high settings in most modern games are marginal.  Please get with the times and stop focusing on how an rx460 gets 20fps at 4K on ultra settings.

[cTurtle98]

I have a GTX 960

 

this one:

http://www.evga.com/Products/Specs/GPU.aspx?pn=c7bd6671-43f0-480b-bf91-a47e0885de56

[Misanthrope]

Seeing most of this comments I'm glad I skipped this video.

[N0rm]

Great video, would love a follow-up with low res/settings and SP vs MP bottleneck tests.

[patrick3027]

Would be nice to include the Intel Skull Canyon Nuc in your 1080p benchmarks since pretty much every video starts with an ad of it.

[JettaGetUpandGo]

On 10/31/2016 at 11:21 AM, Yoinkerman said:

Honestly I disagree.  I have 6 gaming computers at home.  If I want to play battlefield on all 6 I should be able to without issue.

While I question why you have 6 gaming computers at home, I agree that you should be able to play your copy of BF1 on any of them as long as it is only one PC at a time.  How can Origin determine whether you're playing on a different computer in the same house or simply built a new PC to replace your old one?