Battlefield 1 Performance In DirectX 12: 29 Cards Tested
-
Page 1:Benchmarking Battlefield 1 in DirectX 12
-
Page 2:Mainstream PC, 1920x1080
-
Page 3:Mainstream PC, 2560x1440
-
Page 4:High-End PC, 1920x1080
-
Page 5:High-End PC, 2560x1440
-
Page 6:High-End PC, 3840x2160
-
Page 7:RX 480 And GTX 1060: Mainstream Vs. High-End
-
Page 8:Scaling: CPU Core Count
-
Page 9:Conclusion
Conclusion
Battlefield 1 was a blast to play at launch and it remains immensely popular months later, thanks in part to an engaging single-player campaign, varied multi-player locations supporting up to 64 players, and plans to add new content through four downloadable expansions.
As far as performance goes, we’re impressed by the title’s scalability across varying hardware configurations. Most gamers can stick with the Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets to dial in the best frame rate on their PCs. However, there’s a Custom option for fine-tuning, too.
Stretching back three generations of GPUs, it’s almost always possible to find some combination of settings that yields playable performance. Our data only turned up a handful of exceptions.
The lowest-end cards we tested were AMD’s Radeon HD 7790 and Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 760. The Radeon did struggle at the beginning of our benchmark sequence as its modest FX-8320-based platform struggled to keep up. But eventually, even the Medium preset proved playable at 1920x1080. The GeForce started much stronger, but seemingly ran out of memory partway through the test and fell to ~30 FPS. Battlefield’s official minimum requirements call for a 2GB GeForce GTX 660, but that’d only work at lower resolutions. FHD wants more.
At the other end of the spectrum, 3840x2160 and the Ultra preset are enough to keep a Titan X or GeForce GTX 1080 Ti between 50 and 60 FPS on a fairly high-end PC. AMD doesn’t even have a card capable of cutting through those settings smoothly (yet).
EA’s minimum CPU requirement is an FX-6350 or Core i5-6600K. Our data from the single-player campaign shows that Battlefield 1 needs at least four physical or logical cores. Beyond that, higher-end CPUs help mitigate frame time spikes better than the mainstream platform we tested. We also know from experience (though it’s significantly harder to illustrate using charts) that the multi-player experience is much more processor-intensive. So, if your primary attraction to the Battlefield franchise is squad play on big maps, direct more of your budget to a fast CPU.
Several other Frostbite 3-based games have launched since Battlefield 1 debuted, including Mass Effect: Andromeda. The engine is an important one to characterize, no doubt about it. And with those hundreds of benchmark runs under our belt and a better idea of what to expect from the hardware in our library, it’s time to get some actual game time in.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
Case in point: GTX 780TI
The 780TI featured here runs at stock which was 875 MHz Base Clock and 928 MHz Boost Clock, whereas the 3rd party GPU's produced ran at 1150 MHz and boosted up to 1250-1300 MHz. We are talking about 30-35% more performance here for this card which you ain't seeing here at all.
Also what happened to Kepler, RIP 780 Ti vs 290X.
http://imgur.com/KIP0MRt 3D mark Firestrike results here: https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu
The only thing I felt was missing was as Xizel mentioned. It would have been great to see an I5 included in the Scaling: CPU Core Count chart. All of the I7s perform similarly, with only one I3 outlier for data points. It would have been nice to see a middle-of-the-road offering in one of the I5s.
1st gen GCN really pulled ahead of Kepler over the years.
I agree. My Core i5-4690k at 4.8GHz is between 95-100% usage in multiplayer.
The performance difference isn't nearly that great. I had a look at the GTX 780Ti "GHz Edition" reviews, and benchmarks showed it performing around 15% faster than a stock 780Ti when it wasn't CPU limited. 30% higher clocks does not necessarily equal 30% more performance. Assuming the cards used in these benchmarks were at stock clocks, then the best you could expect from the GHz Edition would be right around the GTX 970's performance level at anything above "low" settings.
Also, it should be pointed out that most 780 Tis didn't run anywhere near those clocks. You can't take the highest-OCed version of a graphics card and imply that was the norm for third-party cards. And if we take into account overclocked versions of the other cards, then the overall standings probably wouldn't change much. The 780Ti likely just isn't able to handle DX12 as well as these newer cards, particularly AMD's.
It might have been nice if this performance comparison also tested DX11 mode though, since I know Nvidia's cards took a performance hit for DX12 back at the game's launch. I was also a bit surprised to see how poorly Nvidia's 2GB cards fared here though, while AMD's seemed to handle the lack of VRAM more gracefully. The 2GB GTX 1050 dropped below 30fps for an extended length of time even at medium settings, and all of Nvidia's 2GB cards plummeted to single digits at anything higher than that. Meanwhile, the 2GB Radeons stayed above 30fps even at high settings. It kind of makes me wonder how these 3GB GTX 1060s will fare a year or so from now, especially when you consider that the RX 480s and even 470s all come equipped with at least 4GB.
with Fury AMD need to make special optimization on the VRAM so the VRAM usage did not exceed the 4GB capacity. something similar can also be done on GDDR5 memory if you want to. i have GTX660 and GTX960 (both 2GB model). on the same graphical setting the 660 will use much less VRAM than GTX960. that's because GTX660 have weird memory configuration that nvidia for their part try to fit the memory on the first 1.5GB portion first. that's why AMD create HBCC with Vega so they no longer need to tweak the VRAM usage per game basis.
as for what happen to 780ti vs 290X that's what happen when you win majority of the console hardware contract. but most often nvidia kepler still very competitive to it's respective Radeon counter part for tittles that is PC exclusive or coming out on PC first console second. take this for example:
http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B8/sid-meier-s-civilization-vi-test-gpu
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/shadow-warrior-2-test-gpu
nvidia to certain extend try to fix the issue they have with kepler with maxwell but they know that will not going to be enough when AMD keep directing more and more games development towards their hardware core strength with new console hardware win. that's why nvidia is back in the console business with Nintendo Switch.