Battlefield 1 Benchmarks (Gamegpu & the rest)

[tg2708]

Bf1 is a great looking game and plays well but ill have to past 60 fps is not a desirable frame rate.

 

[Red Hawk]

Nice, name calling

Anyway, I run the OpenGL codepath on my Titan X because for some reason, the Vulkan path feels "choppier." This was also the case on a GTX 1080 as well as a GTX 1060.

I didn't call you anything. I was talking about how you were acting -- basically feigning ignorance about how Vulkan improves Nvidia performance when you participated in the discussion I had in mind where I found out that Nvidia's performance in Doom running Vulkan had been improved over OpenGL.

Bf1 is a great looking game and plays well but ill have to past 60 fps is not a desirable frame rate.

Then turn settings down? It's not locked at 30 FPS or anything.

 

[Carfax83]

It truly is. Best performance-per-visuals ever.

I was down with that until I played Gears of War 4. Gears of War 4 is much more impressive than Doom in the visuals department and has way more high end effects, while offering similar performance.. So currently, UE4 > ID Tech 6, but ID6 has a lot of potential.

 

[moonbogg]

It truly is. Best performance-per-visuals ever.

Yeah not sure I can think of a better example. Crysis 3 is very impressive, but DOOM looks just as good and I get about the same performance in DOOM with one GPU as I can in Crysis using two GPUs.

I was down with that until I played Gears of War 4. Gears of War 4 is much more impressive than Doom in the visuals department and has way more high end effects, while offering similar performance.. So currently, UE4 > ID Tech 6, but ID6 has a lot of potential.

I thought I read some people say that gears 4 looks like an old dated xbox game. I forgot where I saw it. I think it was somewhere here actually. They said the textures were bad looking and the game looked old. I was sad. But you just made me happy possibly.
As far as BF1 is concerned, it looks like the game isn't officially out yet and you guys are playing on some special one day early pass or something? So tomorrow you can't play anymore? If I buy it now, do I get to play now?

 

[Carfax83]

I thought I read some people say that gears 4 looks like an old dated xbox game. I forgot where I saw it. I think it was somewhere here actually. They said the textures were bad looking and the game looked old. I was sad. But you just made me happy possibly.

And I'm sure that the people that said Gears 4 looked like an old dated xbox game haven't even played it. To be fair though, Gears 4 does looked dated in the prologue. It's only 20 minutes long, so I suspect they didn't give it any graphical polish as it's only supposed to be an introduction for those that aren't familiar with the Gears of War setting and basic mechanics.

But as you progress through the campaign, the game begins to look more and more impressive and features some very advanced graphical effects like the real time single bounce global illumination used for flashlights, the cleanest temporal AA you've ever seen in your life, volumetric lighting galore, geometry caching for GPU accelerated real time rigid body simulation and a whole bunch of other stuff..

So yeah, the prologue looks dated, but that's on purpose because it's a small part of the game..

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Yeah not sure I can think of a better example. Crysis 3 is very impressive, but DOOM looks just as good and I get about the same performance in DOOM with one GPU as I can in Crysis using two GPUs.

Battlefront/BF1 are really its only competitors. Both of those clearly had a lot more "production" put into them - the art direction is far more detailed, especially in Battlefront and performance is great. 4K60 is possible on Fury X/980 Ti. DOOM is a good looking game, but iD clearly doesn't have the manpower and design scope that DICE has. Still amazing that they can even compare.

iD tech 6 just seems like a perfectly designed engine for that game. Enough detail to easily stack up with other triple A games , an incredible Vulkan implementation and very impressive performance on consoles - though not perfect. Battlefront has near-perfect performance at least on PS4.

 

[Azix]

Which is no different from any other game really.

worse than some other games. but the pace of the game hides it well

 

[tg2708]

Then turn settings down? It's not locked at 30 FPS or anything.

You interpreted that post wrong the game runs way above that on a 1080 but having tested out a 144hz monitor playing the mp is doing this game a disservice at that fps limitation. Thw motion clarity is a lot better and much more desired for me to enjoy the mp aspect of the game.

 

[ozmanb]

Is anybody else facing some MASSIVE FPS drops in BF1? My FPS drops from 104 to 90, then 104 to 60 then back.

Specs:
i7-4790k
8gb ram 1866
GTX 1070

The gpu barely uses more than 3.5gb vram.

Any comments?

 

[Det0x]

Is anybody else facing some MASSIVE FPS drops in BF1? My FPS drops from 104 to 90, then 104 to 60 then back.

Specs:
i7-4790k
8gb ram 1866
GTX 1070

The gpu barely uses more than 3.5gb vram.

Any comments?

Page 4 in this thread

For those not translating the text, Sweclockers talks about DX12 having more stutters and irritating "micro stops" for both AMD and Nvidia, but it's worse for AMD than for Nvidia

The culprit is Sweclockers' test bench which has 8GB of RAM. DX12 tends to increase memory usage, and 16GB is recommended so it's not a surprise. Battlefront also had poor frame times if you had 8GB.

16GB seems to be the new 8GB, at least for gaming.

Oh wow, why would they still be testing with 8GB of system memory? This year has gradually seen more and more games want 16GB.

Is it 2013 in Sweden?

Time to upgrade your gaming rig

 

[ozmanb]

Page 4 in this thread







Time to upgrade your gaming rig

Hi Det0x, thanks for your reply man. Bro I checked if I was using Dx-12 but I was on Dx-11. Does that make a difference?

I did feel my ram might have been the limiting factor, but apparently BF1 was using approx 2.8GB of ram and I had like 1.5Gb still available.

You sure this is a RAM problem?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[guskline]

All of my rigs have 16g of ram so I'm not experiencing the drop in fps.
ozmanb, what OS are you running?

 

[ozmanb]

All of my rigs have 16g of ram so I'm not experiencing the drop in fps.

Gotcha, time to buy more ram.

 

[Red Hawk]

You interpreted that post wrong the game runs way above that on a 1080 but having tested out a 144hz monitor playing the mp is doing this game a disservice at that fps limitation. Thw motion clarity is a lot better and much more desired for me to enjoy the mp aspect of the game.

Then turn settings down? There is no limitation. I'm not seeing what your problem is.

 

[tg2708]

Then turn settings down? There is no limitation. I'm not seeing what your problem is.

I don't have to turn my setting down and you are still not understanding what I'm saying. My current monitor limits my fps to 60, as I have tested out bf4 when I had the 144hz monitor the difference was night and day . Seeing such such a massive difference in smoothness playing a fps game at high hz like this such a limit is not desired and it was nauseating. Granted some games run fine 60 for me. I'm tired of trying to get an acceptable gsync monitor for the price I'm paying so I'm holding out for awhile. Fwiw my gpu is a 1080 and I game at 1440p.

 

[Red Hawk]

I don't have to turn my setting down and you are still not understanding what I'm saying. My current monitor limits my fps to 60, as I have tested out bf4 when I had the 144hz monitor the difference was night and day . Seeing such such a massive difference in smoothness playing a fps game at high hz like this such a limit is not desired and it was nauseating. Granted some games run fine 60 for me. I'm tired of trying to get an acceptable gsync monitor for the price I'm paying so I'm holding out for awhile. Fwiw my gpu is a 1080 and I game at 1440p.

Oh, so it has nothing to do with the actual game then, it's a limitation with your monitor.

 

[tg2708]

Oh, so it has nothing to do with the actual game then, it's a limitation with your monitor.

No and yes I was eager to test it to so paid for ea access and was playing through it for awhile. But when jumped into mp to test that out I came away unimpressed by the games smoothness on my old monitor. I guess the problem is that trying a high hz monitor and then going back to the standard the standard 60 is a bad idea since the difference is very noticeable. All inll it was a good experience which can be better with right gear I just wish asus and acer QC was a bit better on these top end monitors.

 

[ozmanb]

All of my rigs have 16g of ram so I'm not experiencing the drop in fps.
ozmanb, what OS are you running?

Bro I'm on Windows 10, updated to that anniversary update.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[raghu78]

hardware.info BF1 test results. AMD cards perform very well under DX12 Ultra settings with good frametimes. 16GB system RAM used for testing. R9 390X is just outstanding, thrashes Rx 480 / GTX 1060 and edging out even GTX 980 Ti.

https://us.hardware.info/reviews/70...testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080-+-frametimes

 

[moonbogg]

hardware.info BF1 test results. AMD cards perform very well under DX12 Ultra settings with good frametimes. 16GB system RAM used for testing. R9 390X is just outstanding, thrashes Rx 480 / GTX 1060 and edging out even GTX 980 Ti.

https://us.hardware.info/reviews/70...testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080-+-frametimes

They didn't even show the cards at dx11. They only showed a 480 in dx11 and dx12.

 

[Head1985]

1080 vs 1070 in single player.1080 is around 25-30% faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfY2AuHwnRo

 

[Capt Caveman]

1070 is a good card no doubt but for Battlefield 1, since it's so well optimized, you can buy a manufacturer refurbished Sapphire Fury for $225 (after $25 off with MasterPass checkout). Nothing will beat this deal for Battlefield 1.

1070 is finally coming down in price. 4 months after launch it's now possible to buy an AIB 1070 for $380. If BF1 is your main game, I don't see how it's worth it though over the $225 Fury.

Currently, have a R 290 with an i7 3770k to go with an Overlord 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor that's D-DVI only.

What would you recommend as an upgrade?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Currently, have a R 290 with an i7 3770k to go with an Overlord 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor that's D-DVI only.

What would you recommend as an upgrade?

If I were in your position, I'd sit tight with the 290 until something with =>1080 performance comes along for a decent price.

 

[96Firebird]

If you want to stick with DVI, Nvidia is your only option.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

If you want to stick with DVI, Nvidia is your only option.

Every custom 480 has DVI.