How We Tested Star Wars: Battlefront II

Page 2 of 9:

How We Tested Star Wars Battlefront II

Test Configuration

Swipe to scroll horizontally

OS
Operating System	Windows 10 x64 Pro 1709 (16299.15)
Graphic Drivers	The game was tested using the latest public drivers at the time we ran our benchmarks:Nvidia GeForce Game Ready 388.31AMD Radeon Crimson Edition 17.11.2
Game	The most up-to-date version of the game was tested at the time we ran our benchmarks:Star Wars Battlefront II (1.0.15.24748)

We recently updated our test configuration to better reflect mid-range gaming in 2017. This time around, we picked an AMD Ryzen-based platform, honing in specifically on the 1600X as a great option for enthusiasts looking to save some money.

Steam's survey of hardware and software configurations offers us a view of the most prevalent components and settings (the data comes from October 2017):

8GB of RAM is the most popular capacity point; that's what 54% of surveyed gamers have installed (our system has 16GB, which we wanted in order to measure peak RAM utilization).
Full HD resolution is used by 71% of gamers, while 10% are still at 1366x768. QHD is used by only 3% of gamers, and 4K remains anecdotal. We will start with tests at 1920x1080, and then use QHD for cards that run well at 1080p.
Quad-core CPUs are installed in more than half of the surveyed systems (69%, to be exact). In anticipation of the coming months, we're using a mid-range six-core processor.

Graphics Card Selection

We chose 10 graphics cards for this test, representing mainly entry-level and mainstream options. Here are the competing cards:

Test Procedure

All performance data is collected using the PresentMon tool and our own custom front-end.

In order to represent performance accurately, each graphics card is warmed up to a stable temperature before measurements are collected. Most newer GPUs employ mechanisms to optimize clock rates based on variables like power and temperature. So, tests run during the warm-up period would convey better performance than you'd see in the real world. We therefore execute the benchmark sequence once before gathering official data. For graphics options, we tested at 1920x1080 with maxed-out graphics options and then repeated our benchmark at 2560x1440.

MORE: Wolfenstein II Performance Review

MORE: Destiny 2 Performance Review

MORE: DiRT 4 Performance Review

Current page: How We Tested Star Wars Battlefront II

Prev Page The Game, Graphics Engine & Settings Next Page Graphics & Rendering Settings

See more GPUs News

TOPICS

22 Comments Comment from the forums

AgentLozen

The screen shots make this game look terrific. If EA would rethink it's micro transaction policies, this game be could terrific as a whole.

EA owns so many popular IPs but they take this aggressively toxic approach to charging for bits and pieces of the game that should be part of the whole experience from the start. Their fingers poison everything they touch. Imagine the beautiful garden they could cultivate if they only turned the steering wheel a little bit. EA could be an American Nintendo.
Reply
-Fran-

MP tests? MP tests! MP TESTS!!!

Also, weird thing about the core distribution. It would be interesting to hear what the devs have to say about it, specially with the Radeons performing right on par with the GeForces.

Nice findings, as usual. Keep up the great work.

Cheers!
Reply
Som1_

These benchmarks only test gpu, if you have anything lower than a 6600k all the way to an i5-46** with a 1060/rx570 you WILL run the game at a smooth 60 fps.
Reply
Mike2015

Just curious, but would this game still run (be playable) running on a system with 8 GB RAM, an Intel i3 6100 (dual core) and a GTX 750 Ti 2GB GPU with the detail settings turned down to say medium or low? I'm considering this option for my Son who's very interested in the game. Don't want to have to upgrade the CPU just for this game if I don't have to.
Reply
Derren001

I do wish the game used SLI. I end up with one GPU running at 99% and the second at 1%.
Reply
derekullo

20458376 said:
These benchmarks only test gpu, if you have anything lower than a 6600k all the way to an i5-46** with a 1060/rx570 you WILL run the game at a smooth 60 fps.

Did you skip "Page 7: Multi-Core Performance"?

They even tested a ryzen brought down to 2 threads

Reply
spdragoo

20458485 said:
Just curious, but would this game still run (be playable) running on a system with 8 GB RAM, an Intel i3 6100 (dual core) and a GTX 750 Ti 2GB GPU with the detail settings turned down to say medium or low? I'm considering this option for my Son who's very interested in the game. Don't want to have to upgrade the CPU just for this game if I don't have to.

Based on the multi-core testing they did, 2C/4T CPUs should do OK (almost no difference in testing on their Ryzen CPU from 6C/12 all the way down to 2C/4T; it was only when they dipped to 2C/2T that they saw a drop).

GPU-wise, you're kind of on the edge. The 750TI is just behind the 660 or 7850 in performance (the minimum GPUs listed). Given that the 1050 & RX 460/560 (themselves a step up from minimum) were below 50FPS on Ultra, I think you should plan on turning it down to Medium on the quality settings (or turning the resolution down).
Reply
phobicsq

It's really a shame that they didn't use a newer engine for this. These games are becoming so expensive yet the R&D is a joke. Using old engines for these huge titles is stupid.
Reply
redgarl

CPU/GPU goes to the RX 580 while your benches is saying the contrary.

I will check on another site then...
Reply
matthew_258

So no 1080ti, 1070ti or 1080? 4k? no...no lemon pledge...
Reply

Show more comments