Support NeoGAF

[Lemonade727]

Starting to get anxious reading those impressions with my not-overclocked i5 3570k

When did CPUs become relevant again?

I played about 40 minutes last night with a 3570k at 4.4GHz, and I saw framerate drops down to ~40-45fps in 64 player multiplayer matches. This was at 1080p ultra with 100% scaling, but I tried dropping settings and it wasn't making a difference, it was all cpu bottleneck, my 980ti was hovering around 60% utilization.

I didn't get to test DX12 to see if I noticed an improvement, I will be doing that tonight. The SP portions were just fine at locked 60 with a bit of breathing room, and I did not try a smaller lobby to see how improvements were with less people.

 

[Dalibor68]

That seems so weird. I hope it's not the same as with Mirror's Edge Catalyst which for some reason ran like shit on my system despite looking worse than the first game. But I believe that game might've had some W7 vs W10 issues, in the beta at least.

 

[MuchoMalo]

How are yall playing this? Doesn't it come out next week?

Read the OP

 

[Herne]

I didn't know Origin got an update. It looks slick which is something I never thought I'd say about it.

Slick and slow, in my experience.

 

[| Praxis |]

At the current state of the game my 6600k @ 4.6ghz bottleneck my gtx 1080. I use G-Sync so that's not really a big problem, but this games is really cpu hungry.

That is sad to hear. I was always assumed the cpu wouldn't bottleneck on any game (within reason) on a single card. I hope they can optimise it a bit better.

I get to try this after work, so I guess I will find out then.

 

[OfTheOverflow]

It's going to be a short thread. This game runs amazing out of the box.

Gotta hand it to you, I think so far it's pretty solid. Playing the campaign on High and easily getting 60+ w/ R9290X + FX8370

 

[Enclose]

I played about 40 minutes last night with a 3570k at 4.4GHz, and I saw framerate drops down to ~40-45fps in 64 player multiplayer matches. This was at 1080p ultra with 100% scaling, but I tried dropping settings and it wasn't making a difference, it was all cpu bottleneck, my 980ti was hovering around 60% utilization.

I didn't get to test DX12 to see if I noticed an improvement, I will be doing that tonight. The SP portions were just fine at locked 60 with a bit of breathing room, and I did not try a smaller lobby to see how improvements were with less people.

Same Problem, same System. CPU Usage at 100% everytime for unknown Reason. Graphic Card at 50-60%.

 

[Alexious]

I captured the first ten minutes in 4K 60fps with everything set to Ultra.
https://youtu.be/IoBf4zTk3lo
Core i7 4790k @ 4.4ghz
Nvidia Titan X Pascal
Samsung 850 EVO
16gb DDR 3

Are you using DX12 or DX11? Which is better in your opinion for high-end Pascal (I have a GTX 1080)?

 

[Axial]

I played about 40 minutes last night with a 3570k at 4.4GHz, and I saw framerate drops down to ~40-45fps in 64 player multiplayer matches. This was at 1080p ultra with 100% scaling, but I tried dropping settings and it wasn't making a difference, it was all cpu bottleneck, my 980ti was hovering around 60% utilization.

This sounds like the current version is running worse than the open beta.
I have a i5 3570k clocked at 4.2ghz, 12 gigs ram and a GTX970. The beta at high settings and 1080p was a steady 60fps for me. Something sounds way off.

 

[Thrillhouse]

I played about 40 minutes last night with a 3570k at 4.4GHz, and I saw framerate drops down to ~40-45fps in 64 player multiplayer matches. This was at 1080p ultra with 100% scaling, but I tried dropping settings and it wasn't making a difference, it was all cpu bottleneck, my 980ti was hovering around 60% utilization.

I didn't get to test DX12 to see if I noticed an improvement, I will be doing that tonight. The SP portions were just fine at locked 60 with a bit of breathing room, and I did not try a smaller lobby to see how improvements were with less people.

How on earth does this run on consoles then? The ps4 cpu is much worse than a 3570k, and cpu load isn't scaleable in the same way as gpu. Can someone explain this? Poor port, or an i missing something?

 

[Nekrono]

This sounds like the current version is running worse than the open beta.
I have a i5 3570k clocked at 4.2ghz, 12 gigs ram and a GTX970. The beta at high settings and 1080p was a steady 60fps for me. Something sounds way off.

I don't think this is the case, at least not for me.

I have an i5 2500k running at 4.0GHz (for the beta I was running 4.2GHz), 8GB RAM and a stock G1 970.

I'm running at 1080p with these settings:

And I'm getting 60 FPS just about anywhere, I've tried the prologue and a bit of the tank mission, I've tried 64 player Amiens (which to be seems the most demanding due to the city and how much there is on screen), St, Quentin's Scar and Suez and they all run at 60 FPS 98% of the time with GPU/CPU usage at around 90% each, sometimes a bit more or a bit less depending on what's on the screen. I didn't notice any stuttering, etc, just slight frame drops but this was due to having a lot of explosions, etc, on screen at the moment.

What I did notice however is that the IQ is a bit of a hit and miss, sometimes it looks absolutely amazing but if you start looking at details you will see some things are looking way off, especially for 1080p or whatever the resolution is at 110$ scaling. Things like the wires running from the poles, or trees, etc, it looks not as crisp and you see a lot of jaggies, I don't know it looks a bit off sometimes, I wish I could illustrate better but the screenshot I took somehow came up with compression artifacts, I'm off to work right now but when I have time I'll take another.

Either way the game looks fantastic and DICE is pulling some sort of black magic with the IQ or they are kings of optimization because my performance should not be this good with what I'm seeing on screen.

 

[EatChildren]

Anybody else get weird stuttering when flying high, usually while in third person?

It's an issue that was introduced in Battlefront, and I'm not seeing it here. I had no issues in the beta.

I wonder if it's a driver issue or something to do with frostbite's handling of terrain streaming. My FPS is 100+.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Really hoping my machine can run this at least on High at 1080 at 60fps.

I was able to max out Battlefront so I am keeping my fingers crossed. I ran the beta on Medium and some High and the game rant at 60 but that was before I replaced my 660ti with a 1060.

 

[Bravoexo]

is SLI working now?

 

[dr_rus]

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

DX12 still doesn't really worth it for anyone in this game.

 

[luffeN]

Starting to get anxious reading those impressions with my not-overclocked i5 3570k

When did CPUs become relevant again?

I think for shooters CPUs are always relevant, but I could be wrong.

 

[TaintedHotSauce]

DX12 still doesn't really worth it ...t it may once they refine the implementation.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

First impressions:

While it is a step behind Battlefront, it's still the most visually stunning game to release in 2016. I don't quite give it the highest overall mark because some textures look a little flat and muddy when viewed up close, but other than that, it's a visual spectacle.

On the performance side of things, everything was mostly smooth. A couple of hitches here and there, but overall, a polished experience on my rig!

i7 5960X @ 3.5GHz
NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal) x2
32GB DDR4 2133
DX12 (haven't tried it with DX11 yet)

 

[Alexious]

First impressions:

While it is a step behind Battlefront, it's still the most visually stunning game to release in 2016. I don't quite give it the highest overall mark because some textures look a little flat and muddy when viewed up close, but other than that, it's a visual spectacle.

On the performance side of things, everything was mostly smooth. A couple of hitches here and there, but overall, a polished experience on my rig!

i7 5960X @ 3.5GHz
NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal) x2
32GB DDR4 2133
DX12 (haven't tried it with DX11 yet)

Did you enable SLI? By the way, Battlefront was far smaller in terms of player count, map size and also had non-existent destructibility. So it's perfectly understandable.

 

[chinoXL]

First impressions:

While it is a step behind Battlefront, it's still the most visually stunning game to release in 2016. I don't quite give it the highest overall mark because some textures look a little flat and muddy when viewed up close, but other than that, it's a visual spectacle.

On the performance side of things, everything was mostly smooth. A couple of hitches here and there, but overall, a polished experience on my rig!

i7 5960X @ 3.5GHz
NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal) x2
32GB DDR4 2133
DX12 (haven't tried it with DX11 yet)

it better be polished with that beast GPU setup...and here i am thinking 700 for my 1080 was overkill lol enjoy those Titans!!

 

[Gormenghast]

I think it's impressive considering how this is like the 9th iteration of the same engine and they still managed to make it a mess.

On the other side BF4 is pretty good now. It only took them a few years. Maybe by 2020 BF1 will be good too!

 

[Afro]

I think it's impressive considering how this is like the 9th iteration of the same engine and they still managed to make it a mess.

On the other side BF4 is pretty good now. It only took them a few years. Maybe by 2020 BF1 will be good too!

Wait, how is BF1 a mess?

 

[| Praxis |]

Played the forced single player mission and silky smooth at 4k60 maxed. Not expecting the same in multiplayer.

6600K 4.5
16gb RAM
Titan XP

 

[Gormenghast]

By the way, Battlefront was far smaller in terms of player count, map size and also had non-existent destructibility. So it's perfectly understandable.

This comment absolutely makes no sense.

Isn't BF1 supporting 64 players on the same consoles? If so there's no reason why a PC toaster shouldn't run it. The game logic is the same regardless of platform, and if a game can run on console but has high CPU usage the reason is solely that the game was very badly coded.

 

[ACE 1991]

So the minimum CPU requirement is a load of bullshit, right? I have a 980ti and a 6600K @ 4.4, I'm hoping to get 60fps+ at mostly max settings at 1440p in 64 player MP.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Did you enable SLI? By the way, Battlefront was far smaller in terms of player count, map size and also had non-existent destructibility. So it's perfectly understandable.

Of course it's understandable, but in terms of what my eyes see, it looks a little better than Battlefield.

 

[Alexious]

This comment absolutely makes no sense.

Isn't BF1 supporting 64 players on the same consoles? If so there's no reason why a PC toaster shouldn't run it. The game logic is the same regardless of platform, and if a game can run on console but has high CPU usage the reason is solely that the game was very badly coded.

Read the reply below. That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the comparison between Battlefront vs Battlefield in terms of visuals.

 

[SapientWolf]

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

DX12 still doesn't really worth it for anyone in this game.

DX12 is better for low end CPUs than it is for top end parts. AMD also gets a free boost. The Fury X beats the 980ti in DX12.

Also, I want to see frametimes. That's a huge issue for low end CPUs.

edit: AMD CPUs get a nice boost in DX12 as well:

 

[Jack John]

I do notice some smoke flickering when using SLI that's not present when I only use one card. But there is a slight boost right now to using both cards. Hoping new drives will give a boost and fix this.

 

[TheRed]

Damn wtf is wrong with my cpu looking at those charts. My i5 4670K with the same gpu is constantly in the 40s and 50s of fps. It sucks no matter what settings used.

Did they only test single player? That would explain it.

 

[dr_rus]

DX12 is better for low end CPUs than it is for top end parts. AMD also gets a free boost. The Fury X beats the 980ti in DX12.

Also, I want to see frametimes. That's a huge issue for low end CPUs.

edit: AMD CPUs get a nice boost in DX12 as well:

Yeah, I guess that if you're CPU limited you're likely to see some benefits. But on the i5/i7 the only cards which actually show some measurable gain are RX470/480. Fury is gaining same fps wise but it's quite a bit lower percentage wise. And the only reason Fury X beats 980Ti in DX12 is because DX12 here is badly optimized for NV again. There are no reasons why 980Ti should be 10% slower in DX12 compared to DX11.

 

[SapientWolf]

Yeah, I guess that if you're CPU limited you're likely to see some benefits. But on the i5/i7 the only cards which actually show some measurable gain are RX470/480. Fury is gaining same fps wise but it's quite a bit lower percentage wise. And the only reason Fury X beats 980Ti in DX12 is because DX12 here is badly optimized for NV again. There are no reasons why 980Ti should be 10% slower in DX12 compared to DX11.

The Fury X in DX12 beats the 980ti in DX11.

 

[Hooches]

My game won't even launch. When I try to start it it crashes immediately and says: "Battlefield 1 doesn't work anymore."

I got the following specs:

I7 6700k stock
GTX 1080 Gigabyte
16GB DDR4 Ram
Windows 10 Anniversary

Latest GPU drivers installed.

I already tried:
-forcing to launch in fullscreen mode
-reinstalling origin
-reinstalling battlefield 1
-disabling origin in-game/ Windows DVR
-starting as administrator

I guess the Anniversary update is the problem, but I can't rollback anymore because the updates is more than 10 days old. Already lost 2 hours of the trial time because Origin counts it as game time when I try to launch it. I guess I have a problem.

 

[Chris_Rivera]

Clean reinstall of your Nvidia drivers. Use the latest.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

i5 3570k @ 3.4 GHz, 16 GB of RAM, GTX 1080 FTW, Windows 10. I have the latest driver installed. Everything is maxed and 1080p. For the majority of the time I get 80-120 FPS depending on the map. I do drop down to ~45 randomly for a few seconds. Which I want to assume is my CPU bottleneck issues since its usage is at 100.

 

[hoserx]

i5 3570k @ 3.4 GHz, 16 GB of RAM, GTX 1080 FTW, Windows 10. I have the latest driver installed. Everything is maxed and 1080p. For the majority of the time I get 80-120 FPS depending on the map. I do drop down to ~45 randomly for a few seconds. Which I want to assume is my CPU bottleneck issues since its usage is at 100.

You've got the K, overclock a little bit.

 

[SoldierIce64]

GTX 1080 EVGA SC
i7-6700k stock
16gb DDR4 RAM
1080p

The game runs beautifully, no problems here.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

You've got the K, overclock a little bit.

Never OC before, but I am sure there are tons of guides out there.

 

[Gaz_RB]

How important is the 16 GB RAM? I have a 1070 + 4670k and 8GB RAM.

 

[NyMartin90]

i5 2500k
560 Ti
8 GB DDR3

Is it possible to run on low for my system?

 

[wwm0nkey]

Never OC before, but I am sure there are tons of guides out there.

Your BIOS might have an auto OC option, check that

 

[Lemonade727]

This sounds like the current version is running worse than the open beta.
I have a i5 3570k clocked at 4.2ghz, 12 gigs ram and a GTX970. The beta at high settings and 1080p was a steady 60fps for me. Something sounds way off.

I don't have the fastest RAM in the world, 1600MHz LP Vengeance sticks that are very finicky running faster or even with adjusted timings so I'm just keeping those at defaults. I know someone else made mention of RAM speed making a difference in Frostbite, maybe that's coming into play somewhere?

I'll be trying Dx12 later when my kids are in bed later, maybe I'll get lucky and see just enough low end grunt to keep that minimum rate closer to 60 in multi-player, because that's definitely the only area I saw problems.

 

[Tovarisc]

What average performance looks like when 1080p @ Ultra with;
i5 6600K @ 4.2GHz
16GB
980Ti

 

[Shady859]

Was thinking about trying EA Access on PC but wow the day is here.......my exact video card is now bare minimum on the list.

DAMN YOU SONY FOR TELLING US WHAT WE DON'T NEED! :/

 

[Sequiel]

I'm having gameplay stutter in DX12 and smooth gameplay in DX11, but cutscenes are smooth in DX12 and choppy in DX11, same "looks like 10fps" effect cutscenes in Alien Isolation had.

Is there any way to solve this?

 

[Karspankey]

GTX 1060 6GB
AMD FX-6300
16GB DDR3 RAM
1080p

Playing MP with my setup now and boy, the game does not like my CPU that much. 100% utilization and the FPS can go as low as 30 and as high as 60. Averages around 40-50 though. GPU usage is in the 60's which seems right although I only just started paying attention to these things last week. Really want to upgrade to an i5-6600k, but the whole process of switching motherboards is stressful to me. Will probably get the game on PS4.

 

[mario_O]

The Fury X in DX12 beats the 980ti in DX11.

Not the minimum frames. And average is only 2 frames difference.

 

[Renekton]

Looking at the charts, seems AMD is more DX12 friendly. Got some gains.

 

[flipswitch]

So with an 980Ti/3770k, I should stick to DX.11?

 

[TheRed]

Bleh my performance is still complete shit. I stood somewhere where i was getting 40 fps. Changed resolution scale to 200% and was still getting 40 fps. It's completely CPU bound and pretty much unplayable to me at least with 64 players, I've yet to try 40.

I really can't upgrade my CPU at the moment and it just sucks because I spent a lot on this game and premium, the beta ran super well for me and I played over 50 hours of it. Now I can't even be bothered to play these 10 hours because it's so bad..