Battlefield 1 Benchmarks (Gamegpu & the rest)

[AtenRa]

Imo its a big disappointment if they need more than a month or two this time to iron out the bugs. Its nearly 3 years ago so they should have learned. As it is i am dissapointed it isnt more clean dx12 game like doom and at least work more polished out the gate with such a giant budget.

Still looks pretty darn cool especially art and surely i will play this stuff instead of this tf2 i am playing now....at least for a while. Lol.

I strongly believe that if BF1 was DX-12 ONLY it would be perfect now, but because there are lots and lots of people with DX-11 (and those with DX-12 hardware/software can also play in DX-11 mode) they chose to have DX-11 ready for launch time by devoting all the time they had to it and left DX-12 for later.

 

[Stuka87]

Can anybody point me to an article that mentions how the different Video options/levels affect fps/visual quality. I'm running a 290x (1125mhz) and what like to try to optimize vid options in order to maintain close to 60fps @1440p, in other words optimize my config.

I would start by turning off motion blur, it has a noticeable hit to FPS, and personally I hate the effect. Motion blur is caused by low frame rate on film and does not belong in a game. Next thing I would knock down a notch is shadows. Ultra shadows to High shadows is very little difference, but has a decent sized performance hit.

 

[moonbogg]

They've updated their results today:

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

Looks to basically just have CFX support, don't think they retested anything else (all others appear to match original tests).

Nice Mgpu scaling. I should get about 90-100fps min based on this info. Bah probably a bit less than that really. Big maps, chaos etc etc.

 

[Annisman*]

Playing this on ultra settings, 1440p (plus 140% resolution scaling) and even in 64 player servers I don't know if I go lower than 80 fps

 

[moonbogg]

Playing this on ultra settings, 1440p (plus 140% resolution scaling) and even in 64 player servers I don't know if I go lower than 80 fps

You still rocking that 3930k too? Serious? I thought I was the only one left. I thought I was like the last guy on earth still gaming with that thing. It kicks ass, that's why. Does it bottleneck your Titan X?

 

[raghu78]

purepc.pl benchmark results

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...tlefield_1_pc_wymagania_pod_kontrola?page=0,7
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...tlefield_1_pc_wymagania_pod_kontrola?page=0,8

R9 390X DX12 perf > GTX 980 DX11 perf. Rx 480 DX12 performance in between GTX 980 DX11 and GTX 1060 DX11 perf. Rx 470 DX12 perf in between GTX 1060 3GB DX11 and GTX 970 DX11 perf. Fury X DX12 slower than 980 Ti DX11 perf.

 

[Azix]

I hope they include a decent benchmark. Because I can't bother with all these review site results without accompanying benchmark run videos, clock speeds etc.

 

[Annisman*]

You still rocking that 3930k too? Serious? I thought I was the only one left. I thought I was like the last guy on earth still gaming with that thing. It kicks ass, that's why. Does it bottleneck your Titan X?

Haha loved the 3930k but I upgraded a couple months ago to a 6700k @ 4.7 just haven't updated my sig.

 

[Headfoot]

Imo its a big disappointment if they need more than a month or two this time to iron out the bugs. Its nearly 3 years ago so they should have learned. As it is i am dissapointed it isnt more clean dx12 game like doom and at least work more polished out the gate with such a giant budget.

Still looks pretty darn cool especially art and surely i will play this stuff instead of this tf2 i am playing now....at least for a while. Lol.

My opinion still is that developers should release the game without known issues in the first place. But it seems to be the way business is done now that you have to wait 6 months for the truly "finished" version of the game to be available.

Strangely enough, the last game I can remember where it was done on release from a technical standpoint was StarWars Battlefront by the same company. The content wasn't done though, so maybe this is just another symptom of the same disease.

 

[krumme]

My opinion still is that developers should release the game without known issues in the first place. But it seems to be the way business is done now that you have to wait 6 months for the truly "finished" version of the game to be available.

Strangely enough, the last game I can remember where it was done on release from a technical standpoint was StarWars Battlefront by the same company. The content wasn't done though, so maybe this is just another symptom of the same disease.

Yes. One can also say we should just wait.
The problem is though if we choose to enter bf1 just 2 month late when most bugs is ironed out and the first package is there and content is set all the rest of the guys in the game will just flat out beat you to deat. Literally. Its not fun. All the open beta testing need to stop for the same reason. It takes away the magic.
I think for those reasons it would be better to wait as you say.

Now i am on the business side and know how expensive it is to wait. Unfortunately its a problem not only from software but to other products as well eg cars. Product development is getting more and more complex. Especially software but the time we have for development goes down.

Part of the problem of late/timely release of products seems to be not only wasted revenue and cash flow but also compettitors releasing before you.

If someone knows management tricks how to obercome the dilemmas in TTM and bug free software pls let me know

 

[Headfoot]

Yes. One can also say we should just wait.
The problem is though if we choose to enter bf1 just 2 month late when most bugs is ironed out and the first package is there and content is set all the rest of the guys in the game will just flat out beat you to deat. Literally. Its not fun. All the open beta testing need to stop for the same reason. It takes away the magic.
I think for those reasons it would be better to wait as you say.

Now i am on the business side and know how expensive it is to wait. Unfortunately its a problem not only from software but to other products as well eg cars. Product development is getting more and more complex. Especially software but the time we have for development goes down.

Part of the problem of late/timely release of products seems to be not only wasted revenue and cash flow but also compettitors releasing before you.

If someone knows management tricks how to obercome the dilemmas in TTM and bug free software pls let me know

Totally agree. For titles like this, if it doesn't work well out of the gate I wont buy it ever because everyone will be leveled up and good at the game, so I'll just get stomped and have no fun. I won't be buying BF1 anyways because I literally didnt enjoy a single moment of the beta. It felt stale right off the bat. Like a mix of the simple gameplay of SWBF meets the vestige that battlefield has become. Yet another "realistic" shooter where all people do is constantly snipe which is absolute no fun at all.

That's why the only shooter i've bought and enjoyed in recent memory has been Overwatch, and before that TF2. I loved BF1942, BF2, BF2142 and BFBC2. Played a ton of those. But it's gotten really stale since then.

 

[pcslookout]

New BF1 benchmarks!

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/battlefield-1-benchmarks-20-gpus-tested-at-1080p-1440p-4k/

 

[pcslookout]

I saw someone level 50 in BF1 yesterday!

 

[pcslookout]

I noticed this in the bf1 review.

Conclusion
Well there you have it, Battlefield 1 is an awesome looking game that is very well optimised. The only headache we encountered was the account limitation which locks you out for 24 hours after five hardware changes, that made testing a pain and rather expensive as three copies of the game were required.

That sucks

 

[happy medium]

New BF1 benchmarks!

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/battlefield-1-benchmarks-20-gpus-tested-at-1080p-1440p-4k/

hey thanks, I really liked that review. Every card seems to be in line where its supposed to be. I have been subscribed to that channel for quite a while now.

He said an i3 6100 and gtx960 4gb can play @ 1080p ultra detail very well.

 

[moonbogg]

Haha loved the 3930k but I upgraded a couple months ago to a 6700k @ 4.7 just haven't updated my sig.

Ah crap. I guess I am alone. Skylake-E and KabyX can't come soon enough. I am just about ready to snatch up something new and I still have quite a long wait here.

 

[pcslookout]

I wish review sites would benchmark a older processor like the i5 2500k and tell us what results they get with a GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 on BF1 on a 64 slot multiplayer server!

That or someone here had a i5 2500k and a GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 and could tell me what their minimum fps is on a 64 slot multiplayer server ?

 

[BHZ-GTR]

Hi Guys

This is New Review From TT , Showing acceptable from AMD .

AMD's Radeon RX 480 is 30% faster than the GTX 1060 in DX12 on Battlefield 1 at the Ultra preset in 1080p , This is Great For AMD

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/115/rx-480-dominates-gtx-1060-dx12-battlefield/index.html

 

[3DVagabond]

So still a 85W+ difference picking the most power hungry GTX 1070s and comparing it to reference Fury Xs, got it. Not impressed.

Edit - Some custom cards draw less power than FE:

What does any of that have to do with the Nano?

 

[Unreal123]

Hi Guys

This is New Review From TT , Showing acceptable from AMD .

AMD's Radeon RX 480 is 30% faster than the GTX 1060 in DX12 on Battlefield 1 at the Ultra preset in 1080p , This is Great For AMD

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/115/rx-480-dominates-gtx-1060-dx12-battlefield/index.html

Next time please post some proper details as well. They used 2 months old driver for Nvidia and they used 15 days old driver of AMD.

 

[namx01]

I saw a new Nvidia driver a while ago but will have to get it this afternoon. Carfax83 posted it.

 

[antihelten]

Next time please post some proper details as well. They used 2 months old driver for Nvidia and they used 15 days old driver of AMD.

More importantly though, neither the Nvidia drivers nor the AMD drivers used were game ready for BF1 (although the Nvidia drivers used are listed as game ready for the BF1 beta).

375.57 and 16.10.2 are the game ready drivers from Nvidia and AMD respectively.

 

[Unreal123]

This is the reason you must wait for the actual game ready driver to know the actual performance of the game.
https://twitter.com/JokerReview/status/789449016182509568?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[Despoiler]

More importantly though, neither the Nvidia drivers nor the AMD drivers used were game ready for BF1 (although the Nvidia drivers used are listed as game ready for the BF1 beta).

375.57 and 16.10.2 are the game ready drivers from Nvidia and AMD respectively.

AMD released a BF1 beta driver a couple months ago (16.8.3). Technically speaking it's a fair comparison in terms of the first effort driver during a beta. Obviously, the final drivers and launch version of the game is going to give a more accurate assessment.

 

[antihelten]

AMD released a BF1 beta driver a couple months ago (16.8.3). Technically speaking it's a fair comparison in terms of the first effort driver during a beta. Obviously, the final drivers and launch version of the game is going to give a more accurate assessment.

Cool, I honestly didn't know AMD had a driver with beta support (the only reason I noticed it with the Nvidia driver was because the exact driver used by tweaktown was also the one that first brought beta support).