Skip to main content

Star Wars: Battlefront Benchmarked

Results: 45 Graphics Cards And iGPUs At Full HD

Ultra Preset For (Almost) Everyone

Since our Endor test scene is one of the most challenging you'll encounter, we'd expect average frame rates to be much higher in other maps. On the next page, we’re also going to show how the different presets affect performance and where (good) playability ends.

We were very disappointed that SLI and CrossFire weren’t supported at launch or at the time of this test. After digging into our bag of tricks, we came up with a way to have the game use Battlefield 4’s profile, resulting in a touch of alternate frame rendering (AFR). Unfortunately, even this ended up not really being usable.

AMD's Radeon graphics cards perform very well across every generation, demonstrating the value of optimizing drivers before a game launches and even taking part in some of the development process. We’ll see a bit later how Fiji catches up with its competition when the going gets roughest.

Bottom Line

Generally speaking, everyone who wants to play this game should be able to run it smoothly, including owners of entry-level GPUs and APUs. If you own a more powerful graphics card, we strongly recommend a quad-core host processor for the online maps. Running it at high clock rates doesn't hurt either. Star Wars: Battlefront might not scale linearly as you add on-die resources, but six or eight cores still yield smaller performance gains.

All of this makes Star Wars: Battlefront a good example of a well-optimized title that successfully compromises between eye candy and hardware scaling. It also does a great job running on lower-end configurations.

  • 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