Star Wars Battlefront II Performance Review
-
Page 1:The Game, Graphics Engine & Settings
-
Page 2:How We Tested Star Wars Battlefront II
-
Page 3:Graphics & Rendering Settings
-
Page 4:Benchmarks: FPS, Frame Time & Smoothness
-
Page 5:CPU, RAM & VRAM Resources
-
Page 6:DirectX 11.1 vs DirectX 12
-
Page 7:Multi-Core Performance
-
Page 8:CPU/GPU Performance For Multiplayer
-
Page 9:Conclusion
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!
Minimum & Recommended System Requirements
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.
| Configuration | Minimum | Recommended |
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i5-6600K or AMD FX-6350 | Intel Core i7-6700 or AMD FX-8350 |
| Memory | 8GB | 16GB |
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX 660 2GB or Radeon HD 7850 2GB DirectX 11.0 | GeForce GTX 1060 3GB or Radeon RX 480 4GB DirectX 11.1 |
| Operating System | Windows 7, 8.1, 10 (64-bit only) | Windows 7, 8.1, 10 (64-bit only) |
| Disk Space | 55GB | 55GB |
MORE: Wolfenstein II Performance Review
MORE: Destiny 2 Performance Review
MORE: DiRT 4 Performance Review
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.
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!
Did you skip "Page 7: Multi-Core Performance"?
They even tested a ryzen brought down to 2 threads
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).
I will check on another site then...
if it is still the same engine then it still is horrible for dx12. no real performance gain only some theoretical threading advantages but (what articles like these that only run a short test never show) a metric f*-ton of instability. frostbyte on dx12 is the windows ME of 3d engines. very colorful ... but not really useable.
the game also has a next to nonexistant single player campaign that was obviously cut short after three missions to squeeze even more money out of the customers for less game.
lastly, of course not part of a performance review but still worht mentioning: the pay to win mechanic is ... well if anyone interested in gaming does not know about that by now they must have been living under a rock.
how great this could have been if this game was developed by a studio with any resemblence of decency.
But the again I'm of the opinion that anyone who buys this game instead of the origional Battlefront 2, or Jedi academy with the movie battles mod deserves the disappointment that will come their way.
Every i3 ever released has been 2C/4T (except coffee lake where they're now 4C/4T).
As already pointed out, the Core i3 CPUs have never been 2C/2T CPUs. The old Core 2 Duos were aptly named because they were 2C/2T CPUs, but they predate the Core i3/i5/i7/i9 CPUs. The early Core-based Pentiums were 2C/2T CPUs, but with Kaby Lake they've now moved up to a 2C/4T model. Pre-Coffee Lake Core i3s were all 2C/4T models (even on the mobile side), with the Coffee Lake models now 4C/4T CPUs.
I'll grant you, in more & more games a 2C/4T CPU is going to underperform compared to a 4C/4T or higher CPU. But @Mike2015 was asking about this specific game...as in he wanted to know if he absolutely had to upgrade to even have a chance of playing. Tom's Hardware's testing clearly showed he doesn't need to for this game, but whether he wants to in general for other games is a completely different question.
I mean, most of their developer team had to have an experience with Jedi Academy at some point of their life. Is that duel mechanic that friggin hard to achieve?
Thanks! Based on your feedback, I pulled the trigger and purchased it. I can confirm, it runs okay at the Medium settings in the campaign mode. I tried switching the game over to DX12, and that was a disaster. It wouldn't even start after that and I had to edit a config file to put it back to DX11.