Star Wars Battlefront: PC Performance Thread

#1

The box is a joke. So please keep calm.
PC Systems Requirements:

Minimum:

Intel i3 6300T
GTX 660 / HD 7850
2GB of Video RAM
8GB of System RAM
40 GB free HDD Space
Windows 7 - 64bit
DX11.0
Recommended:
Core i5-6600
GTX 970 / R9 290
4GB of Video RAM
16GB of System RAM
40 GB free HDD Space
Windows 10 - 64bit
DX11.0
Benchmarks:

First Benchmark from Poland
Pcgameshardware.de (ongoing)

The graphic is excellent. But that's not enough, because the performance is very good too. You don’t need high-end hardware to experience Star Wars: Battlefront in this quality (high or even maximum details) with smooth 60fps on your own screen. According to our first performance analysis high-end GPUs are even able to render most demanding scenes in Ultra HD with slightly reduced details and still achieve very fluid frame rates. We have chosen one of those very demanding scenes for our first benchmarks: The training mission - Hunt for Endor. Here we start as an imperial soldier on a speeder bike and race at breakneck speed through the idyllic forest. The graphic load is extremely high in this mission, also the streaming and CPU load is very high and brings our overclocked to 4.5 GHz i7-6700K into sweating.

Other stuff:

CPU load on an I7 6700k @4.5ghz during the Speeder Bike training mission on endor.

RAM Performance (BETA):
PCgameshardware.de BETA performance article:

Quick translation:
Nevertheless, the difference (between 8 and 16gb of RAM) is clearly visible and at times even to feel : The frametimes with only 8 GB of RAM are worse (even more so with slower clocked RAM) . The 16 GB of recommended RAM , certainly seem reasonable for a steady experience.However, the performance with 8 GB is certainly not too bad to stop you from enjoying the game . You just have to suffer through a little stuttering from time to time
TAA vs FXAA and sharpening

To those disappointed in TAA and FXAA, using SweetFX's LUMASHARPEN works to re-sharpen the image to give back detail that the AA turns into blurry Vaseline.

I followed the same steps here as for Fallout 4. Just changed the exe to Battlefront's. I also recommend this for FO4, of course. You download one program and follow just a handful of simple steps to get much improved AA.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Fallout4_1.html

Here are the comparisons. 1440p (cropped smaller) all Ultra:

TAA

TAA + Sharp

FXAA High

FXAA High + Sharp

No AA and no sharpening


All are using 1.90 sharp_strength in LUMASHARPEN - SweetFX.

Although FXAA High + Sharp looks the best in stills (imo), I find that in motion TAA+Sharp has the best results. FXAA, even with resharpening, has noticeable shimmering. I'll be rolling with TAA + Sharp for now.
Digital Foundry
Digital Foundry: Star Wars Battlefront GTX 970 vs R9 390 1080p Ultra Benchmarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwfVnj0t8zc
DF: Star Wars: Battlefront PS4 vs Budget PC (Core i3 4130/GTX 750 Ti/GTX 950)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L-jVhZg0G8
DF:Star Wars Battlefront PC/PS4/Xbox One Comparison/Tech Analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV71X0H0jn0
.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
#3
I have an i5-2500s @ 2.70GHz with 8 GB of RAM and a 970. I'm hoping for 60 fps @ high settings.
 
#4
im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?
Was waiting for this thread and a stupid ass comment like this. Nobody can say until its out, your $700 graphics card can probably hit ultra, what resolution is the question.
 
#5
Really wondering if the whole 16GB RAM thing is necessary. It seems as though the GTX 970 is the fan favorite graphics card right now, and seeing as it seems to handle the game well - I'd be willing to bet it's a moderately well made PC game.
 
#7
i5 3570 @ 3.4Ghz, GTX 970, 16gb of ram.

I should be able to hold 60fps at 1080p on Ultra. If not probably a mix of Ultra/High. I'll report back once the game is out.
 
#12
im on a 980ti with a i7 4790k, but i only have 8 gigs of ram. im guessing i wont be able to hit ultra settings huh?
From the PCgameshardware.de BETA performance article:

Nevertheless, the difference (between 8 and 16gb of RAM) is clearly visible and at times even to feel : The frametimes with only 8 GB of RAM are worse (even more so with slower clocked RAM) . The 16 GB of recommended RAM , certainly seem reasonable for a steady experience.However, the performance with 8 GB is certainly not too bad to stop you from enjoying the game . You just have to suffer through a little stuttering from time to time
I think overall you'll be fine.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
#15
You should be good, I have the same set up as you other than an i5 4690 instead of a 2500, and in the beta I was getting an average of 85~ fps on ultra.
Thanks, that's certainly nice to hear! This engine is really something.
 
#16
Are the recommended hardware for ultra settings or high settings? (At 1080p.)

Wondering as i match them pretty much exactly but have better GPU (390).
 
#17
Will be posting impressions later this evening when I get home from work.

4790k @ 4.8
16GB ram
GTX 980 FTW
Win 8.1
1440p

I ran the beta with everything maxed and it was a SOLID 60fps. Expecting more of the same.
 
#20
Are the recommended hardware for ultra settings or high settings? (At 1080p.)

Wondering as i match them pretty much exactly but have better GPU (390).
I am very close to the recommended settings and I get between 75-110 fps (1080p) on ultra in singleplayer mode.

i5 3570k
970
16gb ram
 
#21
I am very close to the recommended settings and I get between 75-110 fps (1080p) on ultra in singleplayer mode.

i5 3570k
970
16gb ram
Online is presumably a bit more demanding, i guess?
So i should be good to go, especially since i'm fine with 60 FPS (and Freesync helps a lot with uneven framerate).

Will be good to have a game that will really utilize my PC (SC2 runs like crap at times but doesn't actually seem to be very demanding...).
 
#22
Online is presumably a bit more demanding, i guess?
So i should be good to go, especially since i'm fine with 60 FPS (and Freesync helps a lot with uneven framerate).

Will be good to have a game that will really utilize my PC (SC2 runs like crap at times but doesn't actually seem to be very demanding...).
Probably yes, but the difference shouldn't be too bad ('SP' vs MP). AMD cards already performed well in the beta. I don't think you have any reason to worry.
 
#25
Probably yes, but the difference shouldn't too bad ('SP' vs MP). AMD cards already performed well in the beta. I don't you have any reason to worry.
Didn't think i'd have any reason to worry (especially since i had heard that AMD thing before).
But man, recommended hardware specs are such a mystery, since devs never seem to suggest what kind of graphics one can run if matching them.
(Or min specs for that matter, i recall there being games where minimum basically means the game starts but isn't really playable.)
 
#31
I played the Beta on:

i5 3570K
GTX 680 2GB (Reference)
16GB RAM.
@1080p.

Been holding out on building a new build till Pascal or AMD's GPU's next year. It ran fine on my machine...I BELIEVE everything was maxxed out. probably was running between 30-50fps I think.
 
#35
People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.
I sure hope my LaFerrari can make it to the mall. Does anyone know if a LaFerrari can make it to the mall?


In all seriousness though, my 680gtx did solid 60fps on the beta at ultra @1080p. Was kind of surprised to see the minimum being a 660 but I suppose that's quite a drop down.
 
#41
GTX970@1405 and a I7-870@3.60
BETA NUMBERS:
Ultra 1080p: Stable 75 FPS with drops down to 65 when a thermal thingy goes off.
High 1080p: stable 90 fps on hoth with an 80-90fps on the lava map, again with thermal thingy drops but closer to a 5fps hit.
*Custom mix of Ultra/High/Med: Stable 90 fps without a noticeable drop on either map
low 1080p: 130-170 fps I am not sure why this was all over the place, but it could be because I was not forcing maximum power mode in the driver.

these are beta numbers but its runs exactly the same. Endor and sultest are harder to run than hoth and tatoine
 
#42
People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.
Well what do you want people to talk about instead? The game is not out. You post your specs and then say "well I hope it'll run."

Otherwise there is nothing else to discuss.
 
#43
People with $700 graphics cards shouldn't be questioning if they can run thing's max'd out for a game that isn't publicly availible. If you spend that much on parts, you should know better.
And yet someone above your posts proved that 8gb of ram is not enough for this game without sounding like an ass. I agree when someone asks "hey can my titan x run this at 720p at 30fps" is beyond stupid, but he asked a legitimate question about his RAM and someone gave him a proper answer.
 
#47
It's crazy how well this game is optimized.
I reckon it has to do with accessibility, which seems to be a running theme with the game.
Polished, optimized game means many can just jump into it without extensive tweaking or testing.
Plus it will restore DICE's reputation after BF4.
 
#48
during the beta i had no problem running the game at ultra at 70-90 fps

i7 920 OC to 3.8
12gb ram
290x

added a second 290x i picked up cheap now crossfire so i hope the final game runs just as good as the beta and once they get drivers optimized it should be fine 100+ fps at 1080p and if thats the case i might get a 1440p freesync monitor down the road