• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Battlefront beta - PC Performance Benchmarks

T

Turin Turambar

Member
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...ta-vga-graphics-performance-benchmarks,1.html

Lu2vb1m.png


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/
(In german, but with frametime analysis, difference between 8GB vs 16gb ram,etc)

ONWzSbQ.png


Core scaling

o93UxEP.png
 
Regardless of what some might say about console versions DICE have done a phenomenal job with the PC version.

This game just likes strong hardware.
 
I'm getting anywhere from 55-80 FPS normally

and explosions do bring it down to around 30fps, but it gets over that quick.

GTX 670
i5 3570k

Everything Ultra with medium post process and ambient occlusion
low FXAA

Thought I was gonna around 30fps with my setup tbh. But nah, game has great performance in the beta.
 
I wish someone also tested CPU core scaling at normal (or preferably reasonably overclocked) speeds. It's nice to see that it scales well with multiple cores at 1.2GHz, but that has nothing to do with real world performance.
 
I have to admit I am very much looking forward to trying out this game on my 980Ti, I've only had it just over a month and never had a gaming PC before it so I'm hoping with the sound it's going to be glorious.
 
So an OC'd 770 should still be enough for 60fps at 1080p? That's pretty awesome.

I really need that QHD G-sync monitor.
 
Hip Hop said:
I'm getting anywhere from 55-80 FPS normally

and explosions do bring it down to around 30fps, but it gets over that quick.

GTX 670
i5 3570k

Everything Ultra with medium post process and ambient occlusion
low FXAA

Thought I was gonna around 30fps with my setup tbh. But nah, game has great performance in the beta.
Click to expand...

Damn. This is encouraging for my ageing OC'd 680 / 2500K combo, can't wait to try it out tonight!
 
more and more games starting to take advantage of 6 cores in a noticeable way, I was about to pull the trigger on a 6700K CPU but I will wait until Skylake goes 6 (or more) cores, future-proof and all that jazz.
 
Tenebrous said:
So an OC'd 770 should still be enough for 60fps at 1080p? That's pretty awesome.

I really need that QHD G-sync monitor.
Click to expand...
I don't think a 360p Gsync monitor exists ;p

This sounds really good, I didn't even get the initial outrage about the requirements. 16GB RAM and a 970 are really not that far fetched as recommended requirements for delivering what seems to be 1080p60 @ Ultra. Hope the full game will perform equally good.
 
As someone on a 5870 its interesting to see that apparently at 1080 on 'max' it still averages at 26fps in the beta going by that chart. Makes me wonder how well it would run on say medium across the board - anything above 30fps would be fine as long as it was semi stable. Tho for all I know their cpu they used is also way better mine (and probably is, didn't see it listed unless I missed it). Also I can't deny the 1gb vram prob holds it back - I would kill for mobos to just have a vram slot like the normal ram ones you could just stick a stick in to increase it with.

Regardless after BF4 I don't think I can ever justify buying another DICE PC game at launch, at least not until they rebuild that trust again.
 
Corpsepyre said:
I can't get the 8/16 GB RAM difference. Someone explain? Where is the difference posted up there?
Click to expand...

Search for 'Frametimes mit 8 und 16 GiByte RAM' in the PCGH article.

They're saying you'll see some very small stutters with 8GB and generally slightly worse frametimes.
 
Phinor said:
I wish someone also tested CPU core scaling at normal (or preferably reasonably overclocked) speeds. It's nice to see that it scales well with multiple cores at 1.2GHz, but that has nothing to do with real world performance.
Click to expand...

At least it serves to show the game is very well coded, as it's increasing linearly in performance from 4 cores to 6 cores.
 
This is how a very solid PC port looks like. Good to see that it scales so well, as this will help the online population on PC.

I can't wait to get home and test it on my 6700k 980ti 16GB. First real test of it.
 
Kezen said:
Regardless of what some might say about console versions DICE have done a phenomenal job with the PC version.

This game just likes strong hardware.
Click to expand...

The way it scales on CPU is pretty sweet. I wonder if the DX12 .exe they eventually release will see 4 cores + HT be higher up then it currently is. In fact.. I wonder how in depth their DX12 version will be. In fact, the game's usage of SMT is weird...
Corpsepyre said:
Wow. Is this the first time 8 GB RAM has turned up less for a game?
Click to expand...

Star Citizen.
Locuza said:
PCGH don't have a Fury X anymore.
They had to send it further.
Click to expand...

They only had it temporarily? Bummer.
 
It's a little disapointing though, that they seemed to have lowered player counts and physics effects, almost certianly because those things perform poorly on consoles.

Previous BF games at least, were not afraid to allow the PC room to breathe, and simply not offer or downplay those elements on consoles.

Unless I heard wrong, but the player counts are not 64 anymore, right?
 
Kinthalis said:
It's a little disapointing though, that they seemed to have lowered player counts and physics effects, almost certianly because those things perform poorly on consoles.

Previous BF games at least, were not afraid to allow the PC room to breathe, and simply not offer or downplay those elements on consoles.

Unless I heard wrong, but the player counts are not 64 anymore, right?
Click to expand...
Yea it's 40.

Still the system req is higher than BF4.
 
PizzaRollGoo said:
HT has significant benefits outside of gaming, Code compilation, video-encoding, virtualization, etc.
Click to expand...

Yea for sure if you are steaming your gameplay you want that i7

Or if you are crazy like twitch.tv/lethalfrag you build a Dual CPU with these for your multicam setup

Intel Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz 10-Core Processor
 
PizzaRollGoo said:
HT has significant benefits outside of gaming, Code compilation, video-encoding, virtualization, etc.
Click to expand...

bloodyroarxx said:
Yea for sure if you are steaming your gameplay you want that i7

Or if you are crazy like twitch.tv/lethalfrag you build a Dual CPU with these for your multicam setup

Intel Xeon E5-2687W V3 3.1GHz 10-Core Processor
Click to expand...

The i7, in a number of games improves performance rather significantly due to HT. Something in FB is not right IMO...
 
Kinthalis said:
It's a little disapointing though, that they seemed to have lowered player counts and physics effects, almost certianly because those things perform poorly on consoles.

Previous BF games at least, were not afraid to allow the PC room to breathe, and simply not offer or downplay those elements on consoles.

Unless I heard wrong, but the player counts are not 64 anymore, right?
Click to expand...

I don't really like high playercounts anyway. I like being able to get a sense of who is playing and to remember specific teammates or opponents.
 
samn said:
I don't really like high playercounts anyway. I like being able to get a sense of who is playing and to remember specific teammates or opponents.
Click to expand...

Thats well and good, but a lot of other people liked the higher player counts. Also the absence of higher physics effects in combat make the experience less immersive.

Nothing that ruins the game for sure, but tou can see how theyve scaled back from previous games.
 
Seems like alpha always caused big FPS drops on console.

On MGSV PS4, just mess around with smoke and dust and watching it dive.

(edit: sorry posted on wrong thread)
 
BY2K said:
If I want to use super sampling can I turn off FXAA? Shouldn't it have the same effect?
Click to expand...

FXAA is actually not complete garbage when used together with downsampling. Some people like to use it to get rid of the small amount of aliasing that can be there even after downsampling.
 
Hip Hop said:
I'm getting anywhere from 55-80 FPS normally

and explosions do bring it down to around 30fps, but it gets over that quick.

GTX 670
i5 3570k

Everything Ultra with medium post process and ambient occlusion
low FXAA

Thought I was gonna around 30fps with my setup tbh. But nah, game has great performance in the beta.
Click to expand...

That's good! I've got an i5 4690 with a GTX 760 (2GB) and 8GB RAM, I'd hope to get a solid 60fps on 1080p at a mix of medium-high settings.

That should be doable, no?
 
Kinthalis said:
I find it weird. Never saw something like this before, usually, if you go to RAM while rendering, you get stutters, not just a few frame rate drops.
Click to expand...

8GB here with a 980ti, will be curious if I notice any stutters due to RAM when I clear the 60fps mark. Can't wait to test the beta.
 
My 4790k/16GB RAM/290x are ready for this. Using a 1080p 144Hz monitor, nice to see I should be able to keep 90+ FPS especially if I turn down a few settings.
 
Getting stable 60 on a Giga 970 Gaming 4G, 4690K, 16GB ram with everything on Ultra, TAA and 130% resolution (so 2496 x 1404). Bumping it up to 140% causes drops into the 50s.

Can't try Walker Assault yet because servers seem to be fucked. This is on the singleplayer survival map, which does have AT-STs and a bunch of AI enemies, but I expect the frame rate to take more of a hit on Hoth.

Looks and sounds fucking amazing. The audio options leave much to be desired though. You can't change audio mix, only master volume and selecting different ranges depending on headphones or speaker setup.
Other minor gripe is that you can't mess with HUD scaling, which would be really nice.
 
Does anyone know if there's an SLi profile I can use for this?

Also is framerate locked?

I'd love a solid 60 - 100 FPS @ 4k but I don't think it'll happen without a solid SLi profile.
 
Pretty much right on part with that first performance chart. 2600k @ 4.4, 16GB RAM, GTX 980ti. Running at 1440p I get between 70 and 90 fps, sitting mainly in the 80's. 4k runs at about 40, up to 45 or so FPS.

It looks and runs like a dream and is a lot smoother compared to BF4, less of the engine hiccups when explosions hit and stuff like that. Great job DICE!
 
SmashN'Grab said:
That's good! I've got an i5 4690 with a GTX 760 (2GB) and 8GB RAM, I'd hope to get a solid 60fps on 1080p at a mix of medium-high settings.

That should be doable, no?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you should have no issues. My graphics card is also a 2GB and it's comparable to the GTX 760, but you also have a better processor.
I'm doing 1080p too.

No problems at all, totally doable.
 
On my 980ti +300mhz oc it runs buttery soft @ 1440p w gsync

I dip down into the 30-40s when a large explosion happens but I blame my 2500k for that.


Wtb new cpu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steam Machine Benchmarks Leaked, Mediocre Performance Raises Concerns Among Gamers
Rumor Analysis  5 6 7 8 9
417
691
Humdinger replied
Hardware Unboxed - Forza Horizon 6 GPU benchmarks
Hardware 
1
164
realcool replied
FSR performance cost
9
319
vkbest replied
Pragmata PC Performance Raises Concerns for 8 GB GPU Users, Digital Foundry Reports
2 3 4 5 6
253
3K
cinnamonandgravy replied
Digital Foundry: Halo Campaign Evolved First Look - Xbox/PC/Ally X - OG vs New Game, Performance + More
30
527
SardineBreath replied
Top Bottom