guru3dStar Wars: Battlefront Beta VGA graphics performance benchmarks

[csbin]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...ta_vga_graphics_performance_benchmarks,1.html


Article updated October 8th - added more graphics cards, added FCAT frame-time results, added image quality vs performance results.



The graphics cards used in this first iteration of the article are:

• Radeon R9 NANO
• Radeon R9 Fury
• Radeon R9 Fury X
• Radeon R9 390X
• Radeon R9 290X
• Radeon R9 290
• Radeon R9 380 (2GB)
• Radeon R9 285 (2GB)
• GeForce GTX 980 Ti
• GeForce GTX 980
• GeForce GTX 780 Ti
• GeForce GTX 970
• GeForce GTX 960 (2GB)

System Specifications



Our test system is based on the eight-core Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition with Haswell-E based setup on the X99 chipset platform. This setup is running 4.40 GHz on all cores. Next to that we have energy saving functions disabled for this motherboard and processor (to ensure consistent benchmark results). We use Windows 10 all patched up. Each card runs on the same PC with the same operating system clone.

• GeForce cards use the latest 358.50 driver (download).
• AMD Radeon graphics cards we used the latest 15.9.1 Beta driver (download).

 

[railven]

I wonder how things will change when the DX12 patch comes out.

 

[crisium]

Looks like 60fps for 1440 for me. Luckily there's some leeway as I will certainly not play at a vomit inducing 55 FOV though, and cranking it to 90 will hurt performance a bit.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Look at that 290x, beating every Nvidia card but one

 

[railven]

Looks like 60fps for 1440 for me. Luckily there's some leeway as I will certainly not play at a vomit inducing 55 FOV though, and cranking it to 90 will hurt performance a bit.

Is that what was making feel weird watching some of the PS4 captures? I couldn't put my finger on it.

 

[crisium]

Is that what was making feel weird watching some of the PS4 captures? I couldn't put my finger on it.

Probably. I'd assume 55 FOV is the console setting too.

Sitting at a monitor, this full screen makes me sick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R3PEbg5D6g

55 FOV sort of makes sense for consoles since most people sit very, very far away from their TVs. It doesn't look like that slider is locked thankfully, so I will go my standard 90 since I sit very close to my monitor. Anything less than 70 for me really gives me a headache. Alien Isolation is 47 by default for a claustrophobic feel and I almost stopped playing very early on, but luckily I was able to go to 75 and it became by favourite game of last year.

 

[Headfoot]

55 FOV is absolutely nauseating. I cant do anything less than 70, and I usually do 85 or 90 on single screen. I have to set it quite a bit higher when I run 3x1080p eyefinity mode.

Anywho, the game looks awesome and runs well as is expected for a Frostbite 3 game. Im sure nVidia patches will bring nVidia performance up too shortly here. Those screenshots were impressive, the artists have done a really good job making it look like real Star Wars.

All that remains to be seen is if its actually fun and if they kept the Battlefront magic...

 

[gamervivek]

290/390 cards are doing quite well. 780Ti and 970 look beaten.

Fury cards still don't scale well and drop relatively with resolution increase. A 30% improvement over 390X would land Fury X in the oc'ed 980Ti models range.

 

[Mondozei]

Look at that 290x, beating every Nvidia card but one

Yes exactly my initial reaction as well.

I wonder whether this will be fixed with drivers come release or if Battlefront will be seen as an AMD-sided game henceforth.

Either way, AMD needs this.

 

[MrTeal]

I've been looking forward to this, and as long as they don't screw it up it seems that my 290 CF should work very well @ 4k here.

 

[Techhog]

Wow, this is almost AMD's Project Cars. I'm guessing that Nvidia didn't release a driver for it?

 

[railven]

Wow, this is almost AMD's Project Cars. I'm guessing that Nvidia didn't release a driver for it?

They did, it was featured on AT's main page:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9698/...-game-ready-drivers-for-star-wars-battlefront

 

[gamervivek]

Wow, this is almost AMD's Project Cars. I'm guessing that Nvidia didn't release a driver for it?

wat, it's basically fable legends performance + a bit to AMD cards. Not really 290X getting outclassed by 770 tier performance.

Maybe dx12 can change that. :whiste:

 

[Piroko]

Came to see benchmarks in VGA resolution. Was disappointed.

 

[railven]

I'd figure once the DX12 patch would hit, AMD cards could get another performance benefit. How much, though?

Long as my 980 Ti isn't floundering, it's all good with me

 

[RussianSensation]

Wow, this is almost AMD's Project Cars. I'm guessing that Nvidia didn't release a driver for it?

When PC came out, GTX680 beat a 290X OC. Also, GTX960 was a hair within 780Ti's performance.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/project-cars-guide-grafikkarte-prozessor-vergleich/2/

If this game was akin to PC, it would have R9 280/285 beating 780Ti OC and say R9 280X would be a hair behind the 980.

Also, unlike PC, while AMD cards are faster, both AMD and NV deliver excellent performance. The only card that has poor performance is the GTX960 2GB but we know why that is = 960 is not a good videocard. I suspected for a long time that 960 would start falling apart rather quickly looking over various benchmarks online and seeing the trends. If you remove the 960 from those benchmarks, 970/780Ti/980 still offer great performance.

I hope more people start to see how crippling the 960 is as an x60 series NV card and stop recommending this card. It's turning into a major disaster for anyone who fell for NV marketing/hype related to that card. It's just unfortunate that professional reviewers lapped up that card and hyped it by giving it gold and silver awards, which even further mislead the average gamer into thinking it was a safe purchase. I guess I can't say I didn't provide warnings since January 2015. :ninja:

I do expect real world performance in a map with 20-40 people to be much worse than what's portrayed in these preliminary benches. I doubt that 290/970 will be able to hit 75-80 fps at 1080P with maxed out settings on a full map with many players and action happening. I would expect that to drop closer to 45-50 fps.

 

[Azix]

960 vs 285/380 looks pretty bad.

 

[Gikaseixas]

960 vs 285/380 looks pretty bad.

Very anemic card. Don't know why Nvidia decided it had to be called 960 when the 970 is miles away. This should have been called GTX 950

 

[96Firebird]

960 vs 285/380 looks pretty bad.

960 gets double the FPS @ 4K!

:awe:

 

[Techhog]

960 gets double the FPS @ 4K!

:awe:

Actually, yeah. What the heck's going on there?

 

[railven]

960 gets double the FPS @ 4K!

:awe:

Holy crap, I didn't even see that. Something fishy is going on there. Haha.

This puts the whole argument "a card that scores better at higher resolution tends to last longer" completely on its head.

 

[Head1985]

960 vs 285/380 looks pretty bad.

GTX980 vs 290x even worse considering 550USD GTX980 vs 300USD 290x

 

[Udgnim]

Very anemic card. Don't know why Nvidia decided it had to be called 960 when the 970 is miles away. This should have been called GTX 950

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

because the number 960 is greater than 950 so people that can't afford a gtx 970 will get a GTX 960 since AMD does not exist to them

GTX 970 @ 3.5%

GTX 960 @ 1.57%

all R9 2XX cards @ 1.03%

GTX 980 @ 0.84%

 

[crisium]

960 gets double the FPS @ 4K!

:awe:

The 960 must be managing the memory better. With the exception of 980 Ti vs Fury X, AMD has had equal or better memory in the past few generations so I guess the Nvidia driver team targeted memory management.

From the article:

In Ultra HD you'll need a lot more memory as we jump towards close to 4 GB of VRAM usage. But hey, that's Ultra HD. A GeForce GTX 780 Ti with its 3 GB of graphics memory normally should run into issues, but that's not the case in Ultra HD. So the game engine adapts and we think caches a little less to compensate.

Not that 14 FPS is playable, but Nvidia may be doing a better job caching memory. Overall their performance is down though relative to AMD, so they still have some driver work to do.

 

[moonbogg]

Looks like I can max it. I don't have to worry or care how it runs, because it will run perfect. I paid for the privilege of not caring, therefore, I will not care because it will run perfect, and it will run perfect regardless of if I care or don't care, because I paid for that kind of magic and its a sort of 1440p magic from epic land. I'm in a food coma.