Skip to main content

Star Wars Battlefront II Performance Review

The Game, Graphics Engine & Settings

Any game with Star Wars in the name is bound to garner attention. Star Wars Battlefront II is no exception. The publisher (Electronic Arts) and developers (DICE for the ground scenes, Criterion Games for the space combat) have a high bar to reach.

As was the case for Star Wars Battlefront back in 2015, Battlefront II uses the same Frostbite 3 technology. Although the cross-platform engine debuted in 2013's Battlefield 4, it remains wholly modern and relevant. Recently, we've seen it at the heart of Battlefield 1, FIFA 17 and 18, Need for Speed Payback, and even Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Initially, the engine was exclusively DirectX 11-compatible, but later incorporated the option for DirectX 12 rendering. During the course of our performance exploration, we'll try figuring out if that's a feature you want to use or not. We're eager to see for ourselves.

Benchmark Sequence

For games that do not include a built-in benchmark, picking the right sequence to test is stressful indeed. After all, there's no such thing as a perfect passage. We've gotten into the habit of measuring graphics card performance across multiple missions and picking the most demanding action that's also reproducible.

What follows are some preliminary results gathered using MSI's Radeon RX 580 Gaming 8GB. Based on the data, you can see why that scene from the Royalty mission, which takes place on Naboo's capital Theed, interests us most. No, we didn't just pick the map because it features Princess Leia.

The exact test sequence is documented in the video below. You'll have no trouble retracing our steps thanks to the legendary skill of Stormtroopers firing their blasters at who-knows-what. This does give us plenty of lighting and shading effects, though, along with lots of particles. Basically, the scene is full of everything our GPUs love!

EA/Origin's page for the game tells us what we'll need for a good experience (more than 60 FPS). The minimum requirements are reasonable, especially with respect to the GPU. The recommended configuration asks us to beef up our RAM and choose a notably faster graphics card. We also see that a host processor with at least four cores is needed. More on that shortly.

ConfigurationMinimumRecommended
ProcessorIntel Core i5-6600Kor AMD FX-6350Intel Core i7-6700or AMD FX-8350
Memory8GB16GB
Graphics CardGeForce GTX 660 2GBor Radeon HD 7850 2GBDirectX 11.0GeForce GTX 1060 3GBor Radeon RX 480 4GBDirectX 11.1
Operating SystemWindows 7, 8.1, 10 (64-bit only)Windows 7, 8.1, 10 (64-bit only)
Disk Space55GB55GB


MORE: Wolfenstein II Performance Review


MORE: Destiny 2 Performance Review


MORE: DiRT 4 Performance Review

Star Wars Battlefront II - PCView Deal
  • 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
  • Yuka
    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