Skip to main content

Star Wars: Battlefront Benchmarked

Test Scene Selection

We're using Endor for our tests. It's the environment that poses the biggest challenge to your graphics subsystem. Running around (on foot) in the jungle vegetation's tight spaces mimics what you'll be doing through much of the game.

The Survival mission, specifically, allows us to reproduce the same sequence over and over. Doing so requires the use of a cheat that makes us completely invisible to the AI. Movement is executed exclusively through the keyboard with the help of a pre-recorded macro. This makes every run almost identical, though. Each benchmark pass takes 45 seconds. After that, we hit the limitations of our macro-based method. Each number you see is the product of three runs averaged together, giving us reliable measurements.

For most of the game, your frame rates should be significantly higher than our test results. The idea is that planning for a worst-case scenario by seriously taxing our hardware guarantees you'll get a more enjoyable experience when it comes time to play Star Wars for real.

Let's take a quick look at the test system before we get to the results.

Test System and Settings
Test SystemIntel Core i7-5930K at 4.2GHz + Alphacool water coolerCrucial Ballistix Sport, 4 x 4GB DDR4-2400MSI X99S XPower ACCrucial MX200 500GB SSD (system), Corsair LS 960 960GB (applications + data, storage)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 850WAMD FX-8350, be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 38GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600MSI 970 GamingCorsair LS 960 960GBbe quiet! Dark Power Pro 550WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
DriversAMD: Catalyst 15.11.1 BetaNvidia: ForceWare 359.00 (Game Ready)Intel: 20.19.15.4300 (15.40.10)
Gaming Benchmarks1920x1080, Ultra Preset3840x2160, Ultra Preset

Note: We're not reporting fractions of our average frame-per-second results, since it's just not possible to reproduce them to that degree of accuracy. Consequently, were using the average of three test runs, rounded down the next-lowest FPS measurement.

  • Ck1v1
    first of all.

    why is this so late?
    second, why is this running old drivers that nobody uses anymore.

    new drivers have solved lots of issues and with increased performance, especially for AMD.

    Also 290 running 1440p with the real life mod and everything set to ultra runs the game at 80fps, and thats with a 4670k @ 4.4ghz
    Reply
  • FormatC
    The review was published at November the 23th 2015 in German and the drivers were really fresh at this time.
    http://www.tomshardware.de/star-wars-battlefront-grafikkarten-benchmark-hardware-anforderungen,testberichte-241982.html

    I have no idea why this review was over two months in the US pipeline :(
    Reply
  • rambodas
    I want a new GPU for BF4 and the next battlefield release.My 650 ti boost died on me.My rig : i5 3450,8 gb ddr3,500 watt CM PSU,monitor 60 Hz 1600*900( may update to 1080p in the future).My budget around 250$.
    Reply
  • Cryio
    I want a new GPU for BF4 and the next battlefield release.My 650 ti boost died on me.My rig : i5 3450,8 gb ddr3,500 watt CM PSU,monitor 60 Hz 1600*900( may update to 1080p in the future).My budget around 250$.

    Either get a 380 4 GB now, or wait for Polaris and Pascal. Though that may take the duration of the year to launch.
    Reply
  • arielmansur
    Please tell me need for speed will have this same optimization : D
    Reply
  • Yuka
    Nice to see the Fury X leading the big budget cards.

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • Sakkura
    The colors in the 1080p chart are a mess.

    The HIS R9 290, Sapphire R9 380X, HIS HD7970, and MSI R9 380 show up in green.

    The Gigabyte GTX 780, GTX 690, and MSI GTX 770 show up in red.
    Reply
  • Onus
    Rambodas, your CM "500W" PSU may not be. Still, it should safely handle a GTX960.
    Reply
  • ykki
    Hey Toms if an article is two months late then consider one thing - don't publish it.
    Reply
  • blppt
    Wondering why you list the FX-8350 in the test system box when there are no cpu benchmarks here.
    Reply