Combo deal: Office 2016 Pro and W10 for $34
Patriot Viper V765 Keyboard Review
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: RTX and DLSS Update
ASUS RT-AX88U (AX6000) router review
The Division 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
URCDkey Spring Sale(up to 86% off) Windows 10 Pro $11
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming X review
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 VENTUS XS 6G OC review
Palit GeForce GTX 1660 StormX OC review
Corsair Crystal 680X PC Chassis Review
Battlefield 1 PC graphics benchmark review
Posted by: on: 10/18/2016 01:37 PM [
124 comment(s) ]
It's that time of the year, EA is finally releasing Battlefield 1. We will look at the game in our geeky gamer way. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 5
ASLayerAODsk
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Senior Member
Posts: 772
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:07 PM
Great review, glad to see you didnt leave out the EA crap either, good to know.
Also, hoping that there is some Dolby Atmos testing coming too? Setup, implementation etc?
Great review, glad to see you didnt leave out the EA crap either, good to know.
Also, hoping that there is some Dolby Atmos testing coming too? Setup, implementation etc?
Only Intruder
Senior Member
Posts: 997
Senior Member
Posts: 997
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:19 PM
Is it just me that's annoyed by one of the screenshots?
(Circled the bit that annoys me)
Is it just me that's annoyed by one of the screenshots?
(Circled the bit that annoys me)
Picolete
Senior Member
Posts: 241
Senior Member
Posts: 241
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:21 PM
Great review as always, is nice to see DX11 and DX12 next to each other.
Its weird how the Fury X gets higher FPS in DX11 than 12, but the non x and the nano get higher FPS in DX12 than 11
Is nice to see that the 390(290) is still a good card for this kind of games
Great review as always, is nice to see DX11 and DX12 next to each other.
Its weird how the Fury X gets higher FPS in DX11 than 12, but the non x and the nano get higher FPS in DX12 than 11
Is nice to see that the 390(290) is still a good card for this kind of games
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:30 PM
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery.
As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game.
Only Intruder -> that was an older alpha screenshot now that i think of it. What you see is VSYNC OFF, screen tearing. I'll remove the image though as it is not representative of the final game.
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery.
As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game.
Only Intruder -> that was an older alpha screenshot now that i think of it. What you see is VSYNC OFF, screen tearing. I'll remove the image though as it is not representative of the final game.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Senior Member
Posts: 6974
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:37 PM
It's a very optimized game, at 1440p with a 1070 I can max it out easily. And this on DX11. I always knew that Frostbite will become a very good looking engine, and BF1 is another proof for that.
It's a very optimized game, at 1440p with a 1070 I can max it out easily. And this on DX11. I always knew that Frostbite will become a very good looking engine, and BF1 is another proof for that.
Bogeyx
Member
Posts: 68
Member
Posts: 68
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:41 PM
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
AlmondMan
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:53 PM
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
Yea - that was a bit odd to me as well.
Well, I'll find out soon enough. Just bought a Sapphire RX480 Nitro and BF1 last night.
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
Yea - that was a bit odd to me as well.
Well, I'll find out soon enough. Just bought a Sapphire RX480 Nitro and BF1 last night.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Posted on: 10/18/2016 02:59 PM
On RX480, it is what it is and what I measure.
AMD also released some numbers this afternoon based on similar ultra settings and they match my result set. I just compared a bit with an AMD reviewers guide, and they also shows DX11 to be a notch faster opposed to DX12 in both 1440p and 2160P, but not in 1080P The differences are subtle, perhaps certain scenes might behave a bit differently.
On RX480, it is what it is and what I measure.
AMD also released some numbers this afternoon based on similar ultra settings and they match my result set. I just compared a bit with an AMD reviewers guide, and they also shows DX11 to be a notch faster opposed to DX12 in both 1440p and 2160P, but not in 1080P
The differences are subtle, perhaps certain scenes might behave a bit differently.
Picolete
Senior Member
Posts: 241
Senior Member
Posts: 241
Posted on: 10/18/2016 03:00 PM
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery.
As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game.
Thank you very much for the prompt reply
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery.
As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game.
Thank you very much for the prompt reply
Dragondale13
Senior Member
Posts: 1412
Senior Member
Posts: 1412
Posted on: 10/18/2016 03:01 PM
Shadow Warrior 2 and this for christmas? Hells yeah!
Thanks for the excellent review as always.
Shadow Warrior 2 and this for christmas? Hells yeah!
Thanks for the excellent review as always.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 783
Senior Member
Posts: 783
Posted on: 10/18/2016 03:08 PM
Very nice looking game and great review!
Nice to see this game playable for many setups.
Very nice looking game and great review!
Nice to see this game playable for many setups.
Toss3
Senior Member
Posts: 180
Senior Member
Posts: 180
Posted on: 10/18/2016 03:21 PM
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I'd say it depends on the benchmark used, and of course the CPU, as higher end systems aren't going to benefit as much from DX12 as those with slower CPUs. Would be interesting to see a comparison between say the Haswell 4790K running on only four cores (HT disabled) vs the 5820K running all all cores at a slower clockspeed, in DX11 and DX12 seeing how slower clocked multi-core processors should benefit more from DX12.
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I'd say it depends on the benchmark used, and of course the CPU, as higher end systems aren't going to benefit as much from DX12 as those with slower CPUs. Would be interesting to see a comparison between say the Haswell 4790K running on only four cores (HT disabled) vs the 5820K running all all cores at a slower clockspeed, in DX11 and DX12 seeing how slower clocked multi-core processors should benefit more from DX12.
Nima V
Member
Posts: 49
Member
Posts: 49
Posted on: 10/18/2016 03:54 PM
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
EngEd
Member
Posts: 23
Member
Posts: 23
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:06 PM
I will be waiting for the 1080 Ti unless I go with two 1080 in SLI which is OK.
I truly hope that 1080 Ti will be released in Q1 2017 with close performance to Titan XP.
I will be waiting for the 1080 Ti unless I go with two 1080 in SLI which is OK.
I truly hope that 1080 Ti will be released in Q1 2017 with close performance to Titan XP.
Glottiz
Senior Member
Posts: 433
Senior Member
Posts: 433
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:06 PM
you are right 980Ti performance is really strange here, 1070 and fury x absolutely destroys 980Ti in guru3d benchies. on other websites 980Ti is a lot closer to 1070 and fury x.
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
you are right 980Ti performance is really strange here, 1070 and fury x absolutely destroys 980Ti in guru3d benchies. on other websites 980Ti is a lot closer to 1070 and fury x.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34668
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:07 PM
Correct - I already made note of that. It might have been a driver issue or failed optimization. The 980 Ti is on the to-do list for a retest tomorrow, I am out of activations/swaps for today.
Correct - I already made note of that. It might have been a driver issue or failed optimization. The 980 Ti is on the to-do list for a retest tomorrow, I am out of activations/swaps for today.
Prince Valiant
Senior Member
Posts: 667
Senior Member
Posts: 667
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:08 PM
I believe nVidia stops optimizing (as heavily at least) their drivers for cards as soon as they aren't the newest series.
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
I believe nVidia stops optimizing (as heavily at least) their drivers for cards as soon as they aren't the newest series.
ivymike10mt
Senior Member
Posts: 228
Senior Member
Posts: 228
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:10 PM
What about DX12 Multi-GPU support, it works properly?
No VRAM stack never I guess..?
What about DX12 Multi-GPU support, it works properly?
No VRAM stack never I guess..?
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 15012
Senior Member
Posts: 15012
Posted on: 10/18/2016 04:21 PM
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I have to push the game a bit extra via the resolution scaling slider but at 150% (3840x2160 to 2560x1440) there's a small improvement with DirectX 12 in more demanding areas of the game (The foggy forest I tested with had DX11 at 43 - 44 and DX12 at 45 - 46 so pretty minor difference.) otherwise yeah it's pretty close between the two API's but I'd imagine that as usual DirectX 12 mainly helps with CPU limitations and can optionally also be used for multi-GPU support (But currently doesn't seem to be using anything of that?) but that tends to lag behind for several of the current D3D12 capable games out at the moment.
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12.
I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower?
But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I have to push the game a bit extra via the resolution scaling slider but at 150% (3840x2160 to 2560x1440) there's a small improvement with DirectX 12 in more demanding areas of the game (The foggy forest I tested with had DX11 at 43 - 44 and DX12 at 45 - 46 so pretty minor difference.) otherwise yeah it's pretty close between the two API's but I'd imagine that as usual DirectX 12 mainly helps with CPU limitations and can optionally also be used for multi-GPU support (But currently doesn't seem to be using anything of that?) but that tends to lag behind for several of the current D3D12 capable games out at the moment.
SHS
Senior Member
Posts: 398
Senior Member
Posts: 398
Posted on: 10/18/2016 05:11 PM
So EA is still doing the same old crappy limits what is why we need to stop buying there crappy games in first place we all put the squeeze on them maybe just maybe they get the message.
So EA is still doing the same old crappy limits what is why we need to stop buying there crappy games in first place we all put the squeeze on them maybe just maybe they get the message.
negchampa
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Posted on: 10/18/2016 05:39 PM
It is actually 'their' but besides the point, this game is not crappy , probably will be one of the best games this year. I have over 600 hours in BF4 alone.
Honestly, this DRM will affect almost no one. Other than this particular benchmarking case I can't see how this DRM will adversely affect anyone.
there crappy games
It is actually 'their' but besides the point, this game is not crappy , probably will be one of the best games this year. I have over 600 hours in BF4 alone.
Honestly, this DRM will affect almost no one. Other than this particular benchmarking case I can't see how this DRM will adversely affect anyone.
Reardan
Senior Member
Posts: 285
Senior Member
Posts: 285
Posted on: 10/18/2016 05:45 PM
It is actually 'their' but besides the point, this game is not crappy , probably will be one of the best games this year. I have over 600 hours in BF4 alone.
Honestly, this DRM will affect almost no one. Other than this particular benchmarking case I can't see how this DRM will adversely affect anyone.
I agree, 5 systems in less than 24 hours seems perfectly reasonable. That said, they probably should have some way of deactivating it for reviews on request, but it's hardly the end of the world.
It is actually 'their' but besides the point, this game is not crappy , probably will be one of the best games this year. I have over 600 hours in BF4 alone.
Honestly, this DRM will affect almost no one. Other than this particular benchmarking case I can't see how this DRM will adversely affect anyone.
I agree, 5 systems in less than 24 hours seems perfectly reasonable. That said, they probably should have some way of deactivating it for reviews on request, but it's hardly the end of the world.
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2739
Senior Member
Posts: 2739
Posted on: 10/18/2016 06:08 PM
Another great game performance review and also congrats to HH who handle the limit issue like a professional.
Also strong performance from both sides. Well done.
+1 After contacting them they could/should allow for specific cases(like well-known/credible reviewing websites), one week of unlimited or at least a higher amount of HW swaps on a specific account.
So that "unlock" or bypass will come strictly from their end for that account without the reviewer interaction and it will end in a week's time.
I'm saying this just in case they are worried about something leaking etc.
Another great game performance review and also congrats to HH who handle the limit issue like a professional.
Also strong performance from both sides. Well done.
I agree, 5 systems in less than 24 hours seems perfectly reasonable. That said, they probably should have some way of deactivating it for reviews on request, but it's hardly the end of the world.
+1 After contacting them they could/should allow for specific cases(like well-known/credible reviewing websites), one week of unlimited or at least a higher amount of HW swaps on a specific account.
So that "unlock" or bypass will come strictly from their end for that account without the reviewer interaction and it will end in a week's time.
I'm saying this just in case they are worried about something leaking etc.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1299
Senior Member
Posts: 1299
Posted on: 10/18/2016 06:18 PM
I just wonder how can they make basically the same game over and over again, and still manage to require more processor power every time?. new physics engine?, bots with advanced ia?, didn´t give any attention to cpu overhead under dx11?.
I just wonder how can they make basically the same game over and over again, and still manage to require more processor power every time?. new physics engine?, bots with advanced ia?, didn´t give any attention to cpu overhead under dx11?.
pages 1 2 3 4 5
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9931
Thanks for bothering with EA's crappy limits Hilbert, it's much appreciated!
I also like the graphs with dx11 and dx12 right next to each other.
It's also nice to see that this game seems to be good looking and still able to cope with less than 6/8GB VRAM