Skip to main content

Star Wars: Battlefront Benchmarked

Results: UHD And Quality Presets

UHD With Ultra Preset

Since we’re testing the worst-case scenario here, every graphics card down to AMD's Radeon R9 390X and Nvidia's GeForce GTX 980 delivers acceptable frame rates.

The quality preset scaling results below might be worth a look, though, if you're looking for a smoother gaming experience. On the lowest graphics preset, even a Tahiti-based AMD Radeon R9 280X works at 4K. A stock Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 with its 2GB of GDDR5 can't always keep up, on the other hand.

Scaling With Different Graphics Presets

How much performance can you add by lowering the graphics quality settings? Regardless of resolution, performance roughly doubles when you go from the Ultra quality preset to Low.

The subjective differences between presets is smaller than you might think. Moreover, they're certainly smaller than you'd expect given the impressive performance bars. Endor's vegetation, including its flowing water, does look a bit flatter and more static, but it's certainly not like the graphics quality takes much of a hit.

Fortunately, the differences are just as small on Tatooine. What jumps out are the simpler shadows and reduced depth. The rest ceases to matter once your online enemies enter the game.

Bottom Line

Whether you end up liking Star Wars Battlefront will depend on opinion of its gameplay, including the fact that it’s almost exclusively a multi-player affair. If you end up setting Star Wars aside, we can guarantee it won't be because of graphics quality or performance. This isn’t the place or time to lament missed opportunities for a stellar campaign. We're here evaluating the title's technical aspects, which EA did a great job with.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards For The Money
MORE: All Graphics Content
Igor Wallossek is a Senior 
Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware Germany, covering CPUs and Graphics.

Follow Tom's Hardware on TwitterFacebook and Google+.

  • 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