Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming X review
Gears of War 5: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC II Ultra review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula review
Battlefield V Open Beta: PC performance benchmarks
Posted by: on: 09/06/2018 12:54 PM [
104 comment(s) ]
In this quick article, we'll check out some graphics cards with Battlefield V Open Beta. The performance is a mixed bag, the however is shaping up to be something really good.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 5
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35889
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35889
Posted on: 09/06/2018 01:27 PM
Yeah I know, in its current state it's just so difficult to measure. I've placed many disclaimers in the article, and in fact, have been doubting to even post it as really numbers are all over the place depending on where you are on a map and indeed resolution. Better something than nothing I figured. Once the final game is out I can streamline a good path/scene to measure in, precisely.
These results, I've given it to be a preliminary and indicative classification, not a precise one.
Yeah I know, in its current state it's just so difficult to measure. I've placed many disclaimers in the article, and in fact, have been doubting to even post it as really numbers are all over the place depending on where you are on a map and indeed resolution. Better something than nothing I figured. Once the final game is out I can streamline a good path/scene to measure in, precisely.
These results, I've given it to be a preliminary and indicative classification, not a precise one.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9678
Senior Member
Posts: 9678
Posted on: 09/06/2018 01:38 PM
Yeah I know, in its current state it's just so difficult to measure. I've placed many disclaimers in the article, and in fact, have been doubting to even post it as really numbers are all over the place depending on where you are on a map and indeed resolution. Better something than nothing I figured. Once the final game is out I can streamline a good path/scene to measure in, precisely.
These results, I've given it to be a preliminary and indicative classification, not a precise one.
Not really surprising. In one of dev. team talk they said something weird. That, they have bad performance from using many instantiated objects. And instead they try to combine as much geometry under one instance as possible.
That should not be problem, but it looks like their solution is choking AMD's driver or cards somehow and preventing them from fully utilizing brute part of architecture. That bottleneck is likely "removed" by higher resolution as there is more brute force work required than there is load on bottlenecking serial operation.
May be anything, but my guess would be geometry discard as they make those objects complex.
Yeah I know, in its current state it's just so difficult to measure. I've placed many disclaimers in the article, and in fact, have been doubting to even post it as really numbers are all over the place depending on where you are on a map and indeed resolution. Better something than nothing I figured. Once the final game is out I can streamline a good path/scene to measure in, precisely.
These results, I've given it to be a preliminary and indicative classification, not a precise one.
Not really surprising. In one of dev. team talk they said something weird. That, they have bad performance from using many instantiated objects. And instead they try to combine as much geometry under one instance as possible.
That should not be problem, but it looks like their solution is choking AMD's driver or cards somehow and preventing them from fully utilizing brute part of architecture. That bottleneck is likely "removed" by higher resolution as there is more brute force work required than there is load on bottlenecking serial operation.
May be anything, but my guess would be geometry discard as they make those objects complex.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Posted on: 09/06/2018 01:53 PM
I wonder what it is about Frostbite that makes DX12 such a mess. You'd think the team that requested/helped AMD build an entire low level API would be the best at DX12 and yet they are somehow one of the worst.
I guess we'll see when the final build ships and numbers updated but the performance/stuttering mentioned doesn't look any better than their previous DX12 implementations.
I wonder what it is about Frostbite that makes DX12 such a mess. You'd think the team that requested/helped AMD build an entire low level API would be the best at DX12 and yet they are somehow one of the worst.
I guess we'll see when the final build ships and numbers updated but the performance/stuttering mentioned doesn't look any better than their previous DX12 implementations.
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 10628
Senior Member
Posts: 10628
Posted on: 09/06/2018 02:06 PM
I don't know about DX12 with the Frostbyte engine... I tend to wonder the same as you @Denial , especially as they are actively working together with Nvidia to implement RTX, which is DX12. But to what use if the DX12 adaption itself is lacking? Maybe they should first fix their DX12 "container" itself before thinking about RTX performance numbers, since those are crippled by, well being DX12 on Nvidia and Frostbyte in the first place.
I don't know about DX12 with the Frostbyte engine... I tend to wonder the same as you @Denial , especially as they are actively working together with Nvidia to implement RTX, which is DX12. But to what use if the DX12 adaption itself is lacking? Maybe they should first fix their DX12 "container" itself before thinking about RTX performance numbers, since those are crippled by, well being DX12 on Nvidia and Frostbyte in the first place.
Barry J
Senior Member
Posts: 2766
Senior Member
Posts: 2766
Posted on: 09/06/2018 02:14 PM
1080ti looking ok at 4k I am assuming that's stock not overclocked (only need 60fps)
1080ti looking ok at 4k I am assuming that's stock not overclocked (only need 60fps)
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9678
Senior Member
Posts: 9678
Posted on: 09/06/2018 02:36 PM
Well, Hilbert is usually not benchmarking with overclocked HW when comparing different CPUs/GPUs. Only doing OC potential for particular HW in review of that HW. So reader sees what he can expect.
That's why his 4K result matches that linked one. It is no longer bottlenecked by other things than brute GPU power.
Your Vega numbers are way off from every other test and my own testing /
Well, Hilbert is usually not benchmarking with overclocked HW when comparing different CPUs/GPUs. Only doing OC potential for particular HW in review of that HW. So reader sees what he can expect.
That's why his 4K result matches that linked one. It is no longer bottlenecked by other things than brute GPU power.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Posted on: 09/06/2018 02:41 PM
DX12 vs DX11, 4.2Ghz X99 processor vs 5Ghz Z370 processor.
Not to mention a quick google search shows multiple sites with results +- 15% of one another, on top of Hilbert literally saying the performance is all over the place in the game, on top of multiple user reports complaining about how the performance is a mixed bag..
Your Vega numbers are way off from every other test and my own testing
DX12 vs DX11, 4.2Ghz X99 processor vs 5Ghz Z370 processor.
Not to mention a quick google search shows multiple sites with results +- 15% of one another, on top of Hilbert literally saying the performance is all over the place in the game, on top of multiple user reports complaining about how the performance is a mixed bag..
GREGIX
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Posted on: 09/06/2018 03:23 PM
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
BTW this RAM usage is kinda weird too, AMDs eats a lot less of it.
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
BTW this RAM usage is kinda weird too, AMDs eats a lot less of it.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Posted on: 09/06/2018 03:30 PM
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
BTW this RAM usage is kinda weird too, AMDs eats a lot less of it.
Both cards are AMD.
Failure of DX12 is on the developer, not the API.
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
BTW this RAM usage is kinda weird too, AMDs eats a lot less of it.
Both cards are AMD.
Failure of DX12 is on the developer, not the API.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4338
Senior Member
Posts: 4338
Posted on: 09/06/2018 03:48 PM
Interesting the Vega performance seems lacking at 1080p & 1440p, yet take a jump at 4K.
Pretty typical - Vega's overall performance isn't that impressive but its performance proportionately scales up better than Nvidia's hardware.
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
DX12 and Vulkan reduce CPU and PCI-e overhead. If the GPUs are bottlenecked, there isn't going to be an improvement.
Interesting the Vega performance seems lacking at 1080p & 1440p, yet take a jump at 4K.
Pretty typical - Vega's overall performance isn't that impressive but its performance proportionately scales up better than Nvidia's hardware.
lol, dx12 fails again...
Where is promised boost?
DX12 and Vulkan reduce CPU and PCI-e overhead. If the GPUs are bottlenecked, there isn't going to be an improvement.
Zooke
Senior Member
Posts: 185
Senior Member
Posts: 185
Posted on: 09/06/2018 04:31 PM
Silly question, do DX12 and Raytracing go hand in hand ?
Silly question, do DX12 and Raytracing go hand in hand ?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35889
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35889
Posted on: 09/06/2018 04:42 PM
It is not even remotely a silly question.
Yes, I started DX12 testing with the knowledge in the back of my mind that DX-R, or DirectX Raytracing is an extension to the DX12 API.
Silly question, do DX12 and Raytracing go hand in hand ?
It is not even remotely a silly question.
Yes, I started DX12 testing with the knowledge in the back of my mind that DX-R, or DirectX Raytracing is an extension to the DX12 API.
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 1323
Senior Member
Posts: 1323
Posted on: 09/06/2018 05:47 PM
In case you get curious... all the answers you seek & more lol
"DirectX Raytracing Tutorials - Github code repository"
"DirectXTech Forums - Getting started with DirectX Raytracing "
Silly question, do DX12 and Raytracing go hand in hand ?
In case you get curious... all the answers you seek & more lol
"DirectX Raytracing Tutorials - Github code repository"
"DirectXTech Forums - Getting started with DirectX Raytracing "
fOrTy_7
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Posted on: 09/06/2018 05:56 PM
Thanks for benchmarks. The game itself sucks really bad though.
Thanks for benchmarks. The game itself sucks really bad though.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 695
Senior Member
Posts: 695
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:09 PM
No, it's just you...
Thanks for benchmarks. The game itself sucks really bad though.
No, it's just you...
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6652
Senior Member
Posts: 6652
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:27 PM
I wonder what it is about Frostbite that makes DX12 such a mess. You'd think the team that requested/helped AMD build an entire low level API would be the best at DX12 and yet they are somehow one of the worst.
I guess we'll see when the final build ships and numbers updated but the performance/stuttering mentioned doesn't look any better than their previous DX12 implementations.
I think by now it's safe to conclude that doing DX12 right is hard, and that everyone is still learning ins and outs.
I wonder what it is about Frostbite that makes DX12 such a mess. You'd think the team that requested/helped AMD build an entire low level API would be the best at DX12 and yet they are somehow one of the worst.
I guess we'll see when the final build ships and numbers updated but the performance/stuttering mentioned doesn't look any better than their previous DX12 implementations.
I think by now it's safe to conclude that doing DX12 right is hard, and that everyone is still learning ins and outs.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:31 PM
I don't think MS makes it any easier as well.
I don't think MS makes it any easier as well.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6652
Senior Member
Posts: 6652
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:31 PM
Pretty typical - Vega's overall performance isn't that impressive but its performance proportionately scales up better than Nvidia's hardware.
Or it's getting hard to fully utilize all those GCN cores - something we already saw with Fury
Pretty typical - Vega's overall performance isn't that impressive but its performance proportionately scales up better than Nvidia's hardware.
Or it's getting hard to fully utilize all those GCN cores - something we already saw with Fury
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7669
Senior Member
Posts: 7669
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:40 PM
What a terrible game. The performance is pretty decent around 120-160fps Ultra 1440p using the BF1 SLI profile and usage is around 70-95%.
However, the game is just boring, the maps are way too big even for 64 players, the graphics look like quite a step down from previous BF games. Its littered with post process effects that add nothing but smears and blurs to textures and the overall image. Spotting people is basically a task within it self. I am VERY disappointed with the game graphically, performance can only get better though so that is a plus.
I like the time to kill, which has been dramatically decreased which is by far the best thing they have done with this game. I can not tell u how many times I played BF before and emptying an entire clip into a guy with every bullet getting a hit marker for him to shrug it off and run away was beyond infuriating. This game has solved that issue 100%, now people drop within 5-6 bullets and like 1-2 to the head.
But I just feel like this is going to be a very short lived BF game. People are already sick of the WW1/2 setting again and all they want is modern combat again.... guess you can't please everyone.
What a terrible game. The performance is pretty decent around 120-160fps Ultra 1440p using the BF1 SLI profile and usage is around 70-95%.
However, the game is just boring, the maps are way too big even for 64 players, the graphics look like quite a step down from previous BF games. Its littered with post process effects that add nothing but smears and blurs to textures and the overall image. Spotting people is basically a task within it self. I am VERY disappointed with the game graphically, performance can only get better though so that is a plus.
I like the time to kill, which has been dramatically decreased which is by far the best thing they have done with this game. I can not tell u how many times I played BF before and emptying an entire clip into a guy with every bullet getting a hit marker for him to shrug it off and run away was beyond infuriating. This game has solved that issue 100%, now people drop within 5-6 bullets and like 1-2 to the head.
But I just feel like this is going to be a very short lived BF game. People are already sick of the WW1/2 setting again and all they want is modern combat again.... guess you can't please everyone.
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:42 PM
Well this performance doesn't look too bad in this review: 118fps for 1070ti with DX11 at 1080p all maxed out. 1070ti scores the same (2% more) than my overclocked GTX 1070 in Timespy Graphics Score, so I should be ok with my GTX 1070 for close to 144fps because I don't even run BF1 maxed out (AA off, Lighting Quality High), so if I run the same slightly reduced settings in BF V I reckon I'll see close to 144fps, although I'll be increasing the viewable angle to 90 degrees Horizontal which will reduce fps a bit. I reckon I'll get a good experience in this game with GTX 1070, not far off BF1 in framerate, might have to reduce one more setting to get the same framerate I'm seeing in BF1 though - good result! Thanks for the review Hilbert, looking forward to a review post launch, with RTX etc.
EDIT: or I could just download the open beta & test it myself....downloading now!
Well this performance doesn't look too bad in this review: 118fps for 1070ti with DX11 at 1080p all maxed out. 1070ti scores the same (2% more) than my overclocked GTX 1070 in Timespy Graphics Score, so I should be ok with my GTX 1070 for close to 144fps because I don't even run BF1 maxed out (AA off, Lighting Quality High), so if I run the same slightly reduced settings in BF V I reckon I'll see close to 144fps, although I'll be increasing the viewable angle to 90 degrees Horizontal which will reduce fps a bit. I reckon I'll get a good experience in this game with GTX 1070, not far off BF1 in framerate, might have to reduce one more setting to get the same framerate I'm seeing in BF1 though - good result! Thanks for the review Hilbert, looking forward to a review post launch, with RTX etc.
EDIT: or I could just download the open beta & test it myself....downloading now!
zimzoid
Senior Member
Posts: 1432
Senior Member
Posts: 1432
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:56 PM
What a terrible game. The performance is pretty decent around 120-160fps Ultra 1440p using the BF1 SLI profile and usage is around 70-95%.
However, the game is just boring, the maps are way too big even for 64 players, the graphics look like quite a step down from previous BF games. Its littered with post process effects that add nothing but smears and blurs to textures and the overall image. Spotting people is basically a task within it self. I am VERY disappointed with the game graphically, performance can only get better though so that is a plus.
I like the time to kill, which has been dramatically decreased which is by far the best thing they have done with this game. I can not tell u how many times I played BF before and emptying an entire clip into a guy with every bullet getting a hit marker for him to shrug it off and run away was beyond infuriating. This game has solved that issue 100%, now people drop within 5-6 bullets and like 1-2 to the head.
But I just feel like this is going to be a very short lived BF game. People are already sick of the WW1/2 setting again and all they want is modern combat again.... guess you can't please everyone.
It's beta though..
What a terrible game. The performance is pretty decent around 120-160fps Ultra 1440p using the BF1 SLI profile and usage is around 70-95%.
However, the game is just boring, the maps are way too big even for 64 players, the graphics look like quite a step down from previous BF games. Its littered with post process effects that add nothing but smears and blurs to textures and the overall image. Spotting people is basically a task within it self. I am VERY disappointed with the game graphically, performance can only get better though so that is a plus.
I like the time to kill, which has been dramatically decreased which is by far the best thing they have done with this game. I can not tell u how many times I played BF before and emptying an entire clip into a guy with every bullet getting a hit marker for him to shrug it off and run away was beyond infuriating. This game has solved that issue 100%, now people drop within 5-6 bullets and like 1-2 to the head.
But I just feel like this is going to be a very short lived BF game. People are already sick of the WW1/2 setting again and all they want is modern combat again.... guess you can't please everyone.
It's beta though..
screwtech02
Senior Member
Posts: 176
Senior Member
Posts: 176
Posted on: 09/06/2018 08:59 PM
Running @ 7720x1440 100hz eyefinity with 3 R9-390's. 50% res. Getting 60-70 FPS in game. On 17.12.2 drivers as well. Pretty happy with how its playing currently.
Running @ 7720x1440 100hz eyefinity with 3 R9-390's. 50% res. Getting 60-70 FPS in game. On 17.12.2 drivers as well. Pretty happy with how its playing currently.
fOrTy_7
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Posted on: 09/06/2018 09:06 PM
Trolling much?
No, it's just you...
Trolling much?
Maddness
Senior Member
Posts: 938
Senior Member
Posts: 938
Posted on: 09/06/2018 09:32 PM
That's pretty impressive performance. What settings did you use.
Running @ 7720x1440 100hz eyefinity with 3 R9-390's. 50% res. Getting 60-70 FPS in game. On 17.12.2 drivers as well. Pretty happy with how its playing currently.
That's pretty impressive performance. What settings did you use.
pages 1 2 3 4 5
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Interesting the Vega performance seems lacking at 1080p & 1440p, yet take a jump at 4K.
Thank you HH!