With more and more 64-bit compiled games, 8GB is definitely already the minimum for most AAA games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars Battlefront: PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter ISee
- Start date
With more and more 64-bit compiled games, 8GB is definitely already the minimum for most AAA games.
cyen
Member
Im using fxaa high since the blur is minimal and i personally prefer this way but only resolution scale will do a good job cleaning the image
, taa blurs alot, unusable for me.
ISee
Member
My folder size is 27.3gb
Sorry mate, no idea what could be the problem. I bought and preloaded without using VPN.
RoyaleDuke
Banned
Welp, did it anyway and no I already preordered the game before hand.
uninstalled the software.
EDIT: Didn't work, unless I didn't do it right.
uninstalled the software.
EDIT: Didn't work, unless I didn't do it right.
Dictator93
Member
There was the balooning of DDR3 and DDR4 prices for a bit. Perhaps that caused that?
I always made sure I had a good amount of RAM (I had 3 gigs in 2005). RAM limitations, like VRAM limitations are just bad feeling.
double0cinco
Banned
You should be able to get a refund from GMG, then buy on Origin. And all copies of the game will get the Jakku DLC. If u would have preordered via Origin then you'd get to play Jakku a week early, that's the only difference.
Did u get it for $45 when it was on sale? That's what I did, so I'm not going to get a refund just to play potentially two days sooner. If u paid full price I'd ask for a refund though. In the other thread people said they were being approved pretty fast.
Hope that helps! Cheer up
thank you! will be picking up a physical copy, hopefully it doesnt take too long.
You can count on one hand the theoretical max frame increase from faster Ram unless you're using Integrated Graphics, in which case SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Darth Karja
Member
I canceled mine and used a VPN. Paid a few dollars more with the VPN then I got with gmg. But wtf at no Jakku? I would have been pissed if I kept my order.
I upgraded my card just for this game.
I'm already salivating thinking about Mirror's Edge in 4K.
RoyaleDuke
Banned
Okay, I did it wrong. Welp. Here we go.
Played through the tutorial missions. Just like the beta, it runs great maxed out at 1080 on my old i7-860, 970, 8GB RAM and SSD. Lots of time spent in the triple-digits, and didn't notice a single stutter. Proper multiplayer's a different beast though of course, so we'll see if any of the other maps demand some tweaking.
ISee
Member
Thought so too for a very long time. But faster ram seems to make a difference in, at least, some games.
Just watch the whole Digital Foundry Video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-7bfPG2dE
There were also some interesting RAM Benchmarks for FO4.
^^. Very sadly you need to redo this every time you close origin or shut down your PC.
You might not like it but the temporal pass seems to be the only thing keeping Storm Trooper's skulls attached to their spines.
ISee
Member
That's impressive. I had drops to around 57 fps while on 2400x1350 (Ultra/1080p+25%) . I'll try some higher downsampling methods with high settings. But not today my bed is calling me.
You might not like it but the temporal pass seems to be the only thing keeping Storm Trooper's skulls attached to their spines.
Lol. This might explain why they aren't even able to hit a Bantha from 3 meter distance.
Not anymore for this gen.
https://youtu.be/3G-7bfPG2dE
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Felix Lighter
Member
I would love to see the same analysis with quad channel DDR4 with a Haswell-E CPU.
Dictator93
Member
Same.
Perhaps video the same area? that would be interesting to see
Insane Metal
Member
It seems to me that it's worse on PS4.
Game looks great and seems well optimised.
I played 3 rounds of Blast all on different maps, Ultra settings, 2560x1440, and the lowest it dipped to was 140fps, averaging at around 155. I'll test the bigger modes tomorrow, but I'd be surprised if it goes below 100 ever.
i7 4770K @4.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 2x980Ti
I played 3 rounds of Blast all on different maps, Ultra settings, 2560x1440, and the lowest it dipped to was 140fps, averaging at around 155. I'll test the bigger modes tomorrow, but I'd be surprised if it goes below 100 ever.
i7 4770K @4.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 2x980Ti
You should be able to get a refund from GMG, then buy on Origin. And all copies of the game will get the Jakku DLC. If u would have preordered via Origin then you'd get to play Jakku a week early, that's the only difference.
Did u get it for $45 when it was on sale? That's what I did, so I'm not going to get a refund just to play potentially two days sooner. If u paid full price I'd ask for a refund though. In the other thread people said they were being approved pretty fast.
Hope that helps! Cheer up
Yeah I know Jakku is just a week early thing but it should be something I get because I did preorder and they didn't make it clear it wouldn't include it until now. It's just more proof that GMG is becoming less trustworthy for me, which sucks because last year I basically only bought games from them.
therealminime
Member
GTX 980 ti
i7-2600k @4.5
16GB RAM
Win 10
Game runs at about 85fps and up at 1440p and 40fps and up at 4k. What a delight.
i7-2600k @4.5
16GB RAM
Win 10
Game runs at about 85fps and up at 1440p and 40fps and up at 4k. What a delight.
Forerunner
Member
DICE has always been wizards when it comes to their engine. My copy doesn't come until tomorrow, but I'll be running it on an i7-970, 16gb ram, and a 980, however I'm only going to be running it at 1080p, so I'm expecting ultra with easily a steady +60 fps.
Gamersyde has video of this on Xbox One for comparison's sake. The Canyon video
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_our_xb1_videos_of_sw_battlefront-17302_en.html
Finaika
Member
Thisss.
CrimsonEclipse
Member
Do you have a native 4K monitor or a 1440p and you DSR up?
As this gen goes onward, you will benefit from 16GB more and more, there's no real reason to have any less.
therealminime
Member
I'm on a 1440p so DSR.
Delt31
Member
looks like ram is pretty cheap too. recommendations?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Just bumped my PC up to 16GB this past Friday. I think I should be ok.
ISee
Member
Hard to tell, this really depends on your mainboard. Normally I'd say ah whatever, but newer benchmark seem to implicate that faster clocked ram is indeed better.
Whatever you buy, get something with XMP.
For DDR3:
HyperX Savage HX324C11SRK2/16GB. They are clocked at "1200" (DDR3 2400) and overall perform really good, but their timings aren't the tightest out there. 1,65V. One of the Pros is their low profile design (e.g. sometimes needed for huge CPU coolers.).
G.Skill Trident X F3-2400C10D-16GTX Also clocked at '2400', with better timings and good performance. No low profile design. 1.65V.
Both priced at around 110 for 16gb.
Might also be interesting for some people:
Battlefield 4 recommended 8GB of RAM but already back then 16GB performed a little better. Just like Battlefront today.
4GB
8GB
16GB
OP, there are Battlefront drivers for AMD here, you linked (well noted) an older driver
"Beta" driver is always the latest.
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/latest-catalyst-windows-beta.aspx
Crossfire users be vary though, disable it or you are going to run into problems.
"Beta" driver is always the latest.
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/latest-catalyst-windows-beta.aspx
Crossfire users be vary though, disable it or you are going to run into problems.
ISee
Member
Forgot to check beta drivers, which is stupid I know. But Crisium was already nice enough to point me to them. Thank you anyway, are the crossfire problems confirmed?
double0cinco
Banned
Yeah, they definitely need to be more clear on stuff like that. I remember the store page didn't say anything about Jakku, so I just assumed the worst. Couldn't argue with $45 though...
OT, I've got:
i5-3570k at 4.3 GHz
8GB DDR3 at 1600
HD 7950 at 1125 core clock (forget mem speed)
Will install to BX-100 SSD
I don't remember my performance or settings exactly from beta, but will definitely have to report back with some results when I finally get the game (hopefully before Thursday). I remember getting mostly 60 frames at whatever settings I had - I believe some mixture of high and ultra.
TAA is nice but the artifacting/swimming during movement is just too much for me to switch back to FXAA.
Ah yes, did not see that, thanks though! Well my game crashes on startup, or crawls single digit fps numbers on menus, and then crashes. Disabling CF and it works like a charm. (2x 7950)
I will get a R9 390 today anway
Ah yes, did not see that, thanks though! Well my game crashes on startup, or crawls single digit fps numbers on menus, and then crashes. Disabling CF and it works like a charm. (2x 7950)
I will get a R9 390 today anway
ISee
Member
TAA is nice but the artifacting/swimming during movement is just too much for me to switch back to FXAA.
Ah yes, did not see that, thanks though! Well my game crashes on startup, or crawls single digit fps numbers on menus, and then crashes. Disabling CF and it works like a charm. (2x 7950)
I will get a R9 390 today anway
updated.
It's always a joy to get and test a new GPU. Have fun
And report back to share your improved performance info.Smushroomed
Banned
Mother fuck this game looks good.
After spending HOURS to get fallout 4 to run like not shit, this is a breath of fresh air
i5 4670k oc to 4.4
980ti sli
16gb ram
ssd
win 10
After spending HOURS to get fallout 4 to run like not shit, this is a breath of fresh air
i5 4670k oc to 4.4
980ti sli
16gb ram
ssd
win 10
Although most games should run fine with 8, but it is clear 16 will result in a better experience for AAA stuff.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I was thinking "huh maybe I should buy another couple 4GB sticks and hit 16GB".
Then I remembered I'm using 4x2GB sticks, each at 1600MHz.
Boo.
Then I remembered I'm using 4x2GB sticks, each at 1600MHz.
Boo.
Thought so too for a very long time. But faster ram seems to make a difference in, at least, some games.
Just watch the whole Digital Foundry Video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-7bfPG2dE
There were also some interesting RAM Benchmarks for FO4.
^^. Very sadly you need to redo this every time you close origin or shut down your PC.
God dammit, i need to watch this video more closely in home, but i think, i'm going to the shop next week for RAM sticks. My current setup can really be limiting me ;/
Kaffeemann
Banned
Maybe this was already answered, but was performance improved compared to the beta?
ISee
Member
I did some testing myself and downclocked my (16gb) ddr3 2400 to 1600.
SW:Battlefront performed the same on ddr3 1600 and ddr3 2400. But I only tested during Single Player (Darth Vader Training mission).
Witcher 3 on the other side was more interesting. The performance went up from 56-57fps (ddr3 1600), 60-61 (2133) to 64-65 (2400).
DDR3 1600 1.50V
DDR3 2133 1.60V
DDR3 2400 1.65V
My conclusion so far (and take it for what it's worth, probably nothing). Faster RAM really seems to help during CPU heavy times in certain games. But won't do much in other games/situation and most probably it's not worth to upgrade to faster RAM for SW:Battlefront.
BUT I really wish bigger sites/magazines would start to investigate this (I am also talking to you Digital Foundry).
Yes on consoles. No idea on PC. Still waiting for new benchmarks.
Yeah, the problem is that i'm on 800mhz right now due to disabled dual channel, so my performance could be quite degraded.
I also would like to have some investigation from tech sites and maybe we'll get it after Fallout stats.
I think, we are not the only one who are curious about that.