Promo: Windows 10 Pro + Office 2016 for $33
MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT GamingX 8GB review
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT EVO 8GB review
PowerColor Radeon RX 5500 XT Red Dragon 8GB review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming 8GB review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Star Wars: Battlefront Beta PC graphics performance review
Posted by: on: 11/17/2015 12:38 PM [
177 comment(s) ]
In this article we benchmark the Star Wars Battlefront - multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies. We'll also look at frametimes, graphics memory and a thing or two more.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12417
Senior Member
Posts: 12417
Posted on: 10/07/2015 01:53 PM
Nvidia needs to drop the price on the 980. Quite a few new titles are starting to show 390x being faster and it's $100 cheaper.
Nvidia needs to drop the price on the 980. Quite a few new titles are starting to show 390x being faster and it's $100 cheaper.
DocStrangelove
Senior Member
Posts: 1934
Senior Member
Posts: 1934
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:01 PM
Nice review!
Nice review!
Picolete
Senior Member
Posts: 277
Senior Member
Posts: 277
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:03 PM
Great review as always
I have a question. Is the FOV at 55 degrees or at %55 of a value that EA used?
Great review as always
I have a question. Is the FOV at 55 degrees or at %55 of a value that EA used?
Yakk
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:07 PM
This game looks Fury friendly! Nice scaling overall I have to say. Will we see some multi-card benches (eventually)? CPU usage would also be interesting with the Frostbyte engine.
Good job on the quick review!
This game looks Fury friendly! Nice scaling overall I have to say. Will we see some multi-card benches (eventually)? CPU usage would also be interesting with the Frostbyte engine.
Good job on the quick review!
umeng2002
Senior Member
Posts: 931
Senior Member
Posts: 931
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:07 PM
A 290X performing as good as a 980 @ 1080p? A 290 beating a 970?
nVidia needs to work on those drivers or EA just likes AMD more... given the consoles are GCN based, it might not be that surprising. Either that or nVidia really does gimp cards with driver updates
A 290X performing as good as a 980 @ 1080p? A 290 beating a 970?
nVidia needs to work on those drivers or EA just likes AMD more... given the consoles are GCN based, it might not be that surprising. Either that or nVidia really does gimp cards with driver updates
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12057
Senior Member
Posts: 12057
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:13 PM
Indeed. I would like if HH include GPU review and CPU review but no one have that much time this days.
CPU usage would also be interesting with the Frostbyte engine.
Indeed. I would like if HH include GPU review and CPU review but no one have that much time this days.
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6115
Senior Member
Posts: 6115
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:14 PM
Optimized games for AMD, therefore they have better performance.
980TI=Fury X, but 290x trashes 970 and equal 980, 780TI performance are low again vs 290X... nothing new.
Performance overall seems to be solid, i wonder how it actually plays behind the numbers, which is the most important thing.
Optimized games for AMD, therefore they have better performance.
980TI=Fury X, but 290x trashes 970 and equal 980, 780TI performance are low again vs 290X... nothing new.
Performance overall seems to be solid, i wonder how it actually plays behind the numbers, which is the most important thing.
umeng2002
Senior Member
Posts: 931
Senior Member
Posts: 931
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:16 PM
Are we sure it's using dx11 on AMD cards and not "silently" using Mantle? I'm really impressed with the AMD cards.
Are we sure it's using dx11 on AMD cards and not "silently" using Mantle? I'm really impressed with the AMD cards.
Yakk
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:43 PM
It would be interesting if the game was silently using Mantle code, but the increase in responsiveness and reduction in lag over DX11 would immediately be noticeable. Looks like optimized code, consoles may be helping but in DX11 this would be limited I would guess. nvidia's new driver indicates they were involved in developement.
Would be nice to have a DX12 surprise at launch though!
Are we sure it's using dx11 on AMD cards and not "silently" using Mantle? I'm really impressed with the AMD cards.
It would be interesting if the game was silently using Mantle code, but the increase in responsiveness and reduction in lag over DX11 would immediately be noticeable. Looks like optimized code, consoles may be helping but in DX11 this would be limited I would guess. nvidia's new driver indicates they were involved in developement.
Would be nice to have a DX12 surprise at launch though!
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Senior Member
Posts: 9426
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:49 PM
It would be interesting if the game was silently using Mantle code, but the increase in responsiveness and reduction in lag over DX11 would immediately be noticeable. Looks like optimized code, consoles may be helping but in DX11 this would be limited I would guess. nvidia's new driver indicates they were involved in developement.
Would be nice to have a DX12 surprise at launch though!
Will likely not see that until a new version of Frostbyte.
It would be interesting if the game was silently using Mantle code, but the increase in responsiveness and reduction in lag over DX11 would immediately be noticeable. Looks like optimized code, consoles may be helping but in DX11 this would be limited I would guess. nvidia's new driver indicates they were involved in developement.
Would be nice to have a DX12 surprise at launch though!
Will likely not see that until a new version of Frostbyte.
GeniusPr0
Senior Member
Posts: 1236
Senior Member
Posts: 1236
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:53 PM
Fov 55 headache city
Fov 55 headache city
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6660
Senior Member
Posts: 6660
Posted on: 10/07/2015 02:55 PM
Great performance!
Still would not touch with a 10-foot pole
or as HH said:
It looks pretty good though.
Great performance!
Still would not touch with a 10-foot pole
or as HH said:
It looks pretty good though.
Yakk
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Senior Member
Posts: 144
Posted on: 10/07/2015 03:04 PM
Yeah agreed. This game just seems it works be the perfect showcase game for it though.
Will likely not see that until a new version of Frostbyte.
Yeah agreed. This game just seems it works be the perfect showcase game for it though.
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 11078
Senior Member
Posts: 11078
Posted on: 10/07/2015 03:20 PM
Thanks for the review Hilbert!
Will we see some kind of SLI / CFX reviews once the final game is out? I understand you won't go through it for just the beta.
Thanks for the review Hilbert!
Will we see some kind of SLI / CFX reviews once the final game is out? I understand you won't go through it for just the beta.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36522
Posted on: 10/07/2015 03:48 PM
Thanks for the review Hilbert!
Will we see some kind of SLI / CFX reviews once the final game is out? I understand you won't go through it for just the beta.
Likely, but I first need EA to solve the HW change limitation for me. I swap out 4 cards and I am locked out of the game.
Thanks for the review Hilbert!
Will we see some kind of SLI / CFX reviews once the final game is out? I understand you won't go through it for just the beta.
Likely, but I first need EA to solve the HW change limitation for me. I swap out 4 cards and I am locked out of the game.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Posted on: 10/07/2015 03:48 PM
It would be okay if results were under msaa4x but it seems to be cheapo fxaa, graphics are like 99% console and it runs there at 60fps.
Ps.- Seriously, gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu, not slower.
It would be okay if results were under msaa4x but it seems to be cheapo fxaa, graphics are like 99% console and it runs there at 60fps.
Ps.- Seriously, gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu, not slower.
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1013
Senior Member
Posts: 1013
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:12 PM
Yea, which seems odd to say the least. If you are coming from the same IP address, why should the beta care how many GPUs you use? Perhaps it's because they are trying to get a fix on how different hardware is running with the game--but still, during a 24-hour lockout period they are getting zero data about anything. An IP lock would make a lot more sense if they are trying to control the spread of the beta.
Likely, but I first need EA to solve the HW change limitation for me. I swap out 4 cards and I am locked out of the game.
Yea, which seems odd to say the least. If you are coming from the same IP address, why should the beta care how many GPUs you use? Perhaps it's because they are trying to get a fix on how different hardware is running with the game--but still, during a 24-hour lockout period they are getting zero data about anything. An IP lock would make a lot more sense if they are trying to control the spread of the beta.
labidas
Senior Member
Posts: 230
Senior Member
Posts: 230
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:14 PM
It would be okay if results were under msaa4x but it seems to be cheapo fxaa, graphics are like 99% console and it runs there at 60fps.
Ps.- Seriously, gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu, not slower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLQ6iRl8QPA
this is 1600x900 and it cant do even 50 on average
"gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu"
gtx960 falls just under 280X performance
PS4 gpu performance is similar to 270
get your **** together.
It would be okay if results were under msaa4x but it seems to be cheapo fxaa, graphics are like 99% console and it runs there at 60fps.
Ps.- Seriously, gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu, not slower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLQ6iRl8QPA
this is 1600x900 and it cant do even 50 on average
"gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu"
gtx960 falls just under 280X performance
PS4 gpu performance is similar to 270
get your **** together.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLQ6iRl8QPA
this is 1600x900 and it cant do even 50 on average
"gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu"
gtx960 falls just under 280X performance
PS4 gpu performance is similar to 270
get your **** together.
As if that makes any difference lmao. 660 runs games from 50 to 100% faster than ps4 gpu (severely power constrained obviously), and the 960 is up to 50% faster than the 660. So this is still poor numbers for a game running post process antialiasing intended for xbox360 and ps3.
Now get a ****ing clue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLQ6iRl8QPA
this is 1600x900 and it cant do even 50 on average
"gtx960 should be like 50/80% faster than ps4´s gpu"
gtx960 falls just under 280X performance
PS4 gpu performance is similar to 270
get your **** together.
As if that makes any difference lmao. 660 runs games from 50 to 100% faster than ps4 gpu (severely power constrained obviously), and the 960 is up to 50% faster than the 660. So this is still poor numbers for a game running post process antialiasing intended for xbox360 and ps3.
Now get a ****ing clue.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6776
Senior Member
Posts: 6776
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:47 PM
As if that makes any difference lmao. 660 runs games from 50 to 100% faster than ps4 gpu (severely power constrained obviously), and the 960 is up to 50% faster than the 660. So this is still poor numbers for a game running post process antialiasing intended for xbox360 and ps3.
Now get a ****ing clue.
How does 1.9 tflop gpu run games 50 to 100% faster then ps4 gpu that has 1.83 tflops? How? Really... You would need around 770 level gpu to run games at ps4 level. 660 won't get up to speed vs damn xbox one either even if it has more computing power alone since your pc has amazing bottlenecks vs closer to metal consoles.
Now 960 can and will perform better then ps4 and x1 given multiplats.
As if that makes any difference lmao. 660 runs games from 50 to 100% faster than ps4 gpu (severely power constrained obviously), and the 960 is up to 50% faster than the 660. So this is still poor numbers for a game running post process antialiasing intended for xbox360 and ps3.
Now get a ****ing clue.
How does 1.9 tflop gpu run games 50 to 100% faster then ps4 gpu that has 1.83 tflops? How? Really... You would need around 770 level gpu to run games at ps4 level. 660 won't get up to speed vs damn xbox one either even if it has more computing power alone since your pc has amazing bottlenecks vs closer to metal consoles.
Now 960 can and will perform better then ps4 and x1 given multiplats.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36522
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:48 PM
Gents ... language !
Gents ... language !
screwtech02
Senior Member
Posts: 182
Senior Member
Posts: 182
Posted on: 10/07/2015 04:51 PM
Eyefinity resolutions supported with Beta? 5670x1200, ect?
Eyefinity resolutions supported with Beta? 5670x1200, ect?
MBTP
Senior Member
Posts: 125
Senior Member
Posts: 125
Posted on: 10/07/2015 05:10 PM
I like what DICE did here in terms of optimization.
This game aparently, not only by the results, but by the recommend hardware too, is a game that loads ton of stuff quickly but don't go higher than 4GB of VRAM memory buffer. Probably it dynamicaly allocates the memory according to whats on disposal and makes well balanced use of the CPU, RAM, "SSD" and GPU. Possibly less then 4GB memory cards will suffer from some hiccups on the 4k ultra settings, but that is to be expected.
I think Frostbite engine is a really good engine that uses well the two architectures (AMD; NVIDIA) and does not gimp the performance from one or the other.
This results are what i expect to see from a good engine that takes acount people who does not have High End systems and want to have a great experience too.
I like what DICE did here in terms of optimization.
This game aparently, not only by the results, but by the recommend hardware too, is a game that loads ton of stuff quickly but don't go higher than 4GB of VRAM memory buffer. Probably it dynamicaly allocates the memory according to whats on disposal and makes well balanced use of the CPU, RAM, "SSD" and GPU. Possibly less then 4GB memory cards will suffer from some hiccups on the 4k ultra settings, but that is to be expected.
I think Frostbite engine is a really good engine that uses well the two architectures (AMD; NVIDIA) and does not gimp the performance from one or the other.
This results are what i expect to see from a good engine that takes acount people who does not have High End systems and want to have a great experience too.
rgothmog
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 10/07/2015 05:21 PM
Looks like I had better get rid of my Palit 780
and spend stupid money on a 980 ti
Looks like I had better get rid of my Palit 780
and spend stupid money on a 980 tipages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 12057
Great performance for beta. Seems like it favors AMD GPU's slightly. Only card that is struggling even at 1080p is gtx960.