Star Wars: Battlefront Beta PC graphics performance review
Click here to post a comment for Star Wars: Battlefront Beta PC graphics performance review on our message forum
Undying
Great performance for beta. Seems like it favors AMD GPU's slightly. Only card that is struggling even at 1080p is gtx960.
Denial
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
Nice review!
Picolete
Great review as always
I have a question. Is the FOV at 55 degrees or at %55 of a value that EA used?
Yakk
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
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 :wanker:
Undying
Indeed. I would like if HH include GPU review and CPU review but no one have that much time this days. 🙂
moab600
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
Are we sure it's using dx11 on AMD cards and not "silently" using Mantle? I'm really impressed with the AMD cards.
Yakk
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
Will likely not see that until a new version of Frostbyte.
GeniusPr0
Fov 55 headache city
Noisiv
Great performance!
Still would not touch with a 10-foot pole
or as HH said:
:D
Yakk
Yeah agreed. This game just seems it works be the perfect showcase game for it though.
fantaskarsef
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
Administrator
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
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
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
:stewpid:
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
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.
