[Sweclockers] Benchmarking Battlefront

[Mondozei]

And 4K

If you want more graphs, such as rendering times and CPU process load, I advise you to head to the main article

 

[Teizo]

Radeon cards have a good showing in this game, especially the 390 and 390X.

I have my 980 overclocked to 1500/8000 and I averaged around 80 fps from observing AB internal frame rate monitor (not very scientific I realize). Max was over 100 and minimum was in the mid to upper 60s on Endor.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Such a beautiful game, glad to see performance doesn't suck. I've been watching 4K60 streams on YouTube all week. Does it have a single player campaign?

 

[Azix]

hilarious compared to fallout 4. Just look at the below

https://youtu.be/OK-iyCL-DMQ?t=2m49s

sigh. wish more studios could be like dice. on graphics at least. > 4 years of development on fallout 4.

Nothing to worry about on performance, just potential bugs.

 

[Snafuh]

Does it have a single player campaign?

No single player. In general the amount of content is a bit disappointing especially with the 50$/€ season pass in mind.

The new Frostbite engine is a beast. This is hand down one of the most impressive games visually and soundwise. It runs with stable 60fps and consoles and even a "old" 7970Ghz can run it in 1440p.
You can hate EA as much as you want but investing into one engine and using it across many games was a very good decision.
Ubisoft should think about consolidating their engines, too.

sigh. wish more studios could be like dice. on graphics at least. > 4 years of development on fallout 4.

Nothing to worry about on performance, just potential bugs.

The Dice tech team is probably as big as Bethesda's team for the whole game. I think DICE has a separated office for their tech department. EA pumps a lot of money into it because they want to use it for many games. Bethesda has a very different philosophy. They somehow want to keep their team small. It lacks both in the art department and the tech.

 

[Goatsecks]

hilarious compared to fallout 4. Just look at the below

https://youtu.be/OK-iyCL-DMQ?t=2m49s

sigh. wish more studios could be like dice. on graphics at least. > 4 years of development on fallout 4.

Nothing to worry about on performance, just potential bugs.

Did you play bf4 when it was released, or the 12 months after?

There are bugs in bf4 that have been in the game literally since the release of bf3.

 

[Erenhardt]

To be fair, BF4 netcode problems are nothing compared to 0 netcode in fallout4...

 

[Azix]

Did you play bf4 when it was released, or the 12 months after?

There are bugs in bf4 that have been in the game literally since the release of bf3.

Did say potential bugs. I never had the problems others had with bf4 whenever i played it but I've heard

 

[Goatsecks]

The bug where you randomly stop moving forward even tho the 'w' key is pressed. Was in bf3, bf4 as well as the battlefront beta. Get it about once every 5 mins. It is surprisingly annoying.

Net code has gotten better but still has significant room for improvement.

I don't wish to ramble on. But I have serious issues with dice being cited as a quality dev.

 

[Erenhardt]

Tried fixing the bug on your side?

 

[Phynaz]

hilarious compared to fallout 4. Just look at the below

https://youtu.be/OK-iyCL-DMQ?t=2m49s

sigh. wish more studios could be like dice. on graphics at least. > 4 years of development on fallout 4.

Nothing to worry about on performance, just potential bugs.

I'd rather have the gameplay than the graphics. Battlefront may look pretty, but it's boring.

 

[crisium]

About what I expected given the Beta performance. If websites keep using this title for benchmarks for the new cards released next year it will be interesting to see if Nvidia cards ever close the gap.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you want more graphs, such as rendering times and CPU process load, I advise you to head to the main article

This game would have been so much better with a single-player campaign.

Wow, 49 fps at 1440P on a 7970Ghz in SW:BF vs. 49 fps on a 980 in FO4 on Ultra. Fury X gets 49 fps at 4K in SW:BF but 29 fps in FO4.

SW:BF looks like a true 2015 game, probably the best looking game of 2015. FO:4 looks worse than Crysis games of 2007/2008.
Proof that Bethesda cannot code and optimize for the life of them.

Just imagine FO4 on Frostbite game engine with SW:BF graphics.

This game is ridiculously well optimized given the level of detail and graphics it has. Thank you DICE for showing me that there are still companies that can program games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GbIuc9aMx4

Motion blur actually looks good unlike most games.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...t_GPU-Action-STAR_WARS_Battlefront-game_2.jpg

CF/SLI are working on day 1. ~100 fps on an HD7990 at 1080P and > 70 fps at 1440P. Even a 4-year-old 7970 is hitting 60 fps average.

Kepler cards perform well. WOW, CPU+GPU optimization 11/10!

No "I cannot code out of a paper bag" draw call bottlenecks here. That's what you call great CPU scaling optimization.

This is the best graphics to performance optimized game of 2015 without a doubt.

I'd rather have the gameplay than the graphics. Battlefront may look pretty, but it's boring.

I'll take both -> TW3 = GOTY.

 

[Azix]

I'd rather have the gameplay than the graphics. Battlefront may look pretty, but it's boring.

I'd rather have both. Call me greedy.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

I remember reading somewhere that the Frostbite engine actually dynamically scales depending on how much VRAM you have, so unlike other games, having 2GB doesn't limit you here in framerate anyway.

It seems to run beautifully on my wife's PC (with the 770) and its about to finish downloading on my main PC. Gameplay is pretty casual, laid back, easy to get into. Boba Fett is OP.

 

[lavaheadache]

Woah... Look at that 7970 go. Those cards are aging pretty well if you ask me

 

[tential]

Why do people hate battlefield games? They are usually GREAT graphics for the performance. Looking at Battlefront, that's the MAIN reason I want it. To play mulitplayer 4K. But with no singleplayer 4K experience, I'm disappointed.

Pretty much, this game is overpriced for me personally although many people will enjoy the multiplayer but now that I rarely multiplayer game, I want a good singleplayer experience.

I wish they'd make a game with this engine, but with a great singleplayer.

 

[raghu78]

Woah... Look at that 7970 go. Those cards are aging pretty well if you ask me

AMD and DICE show The Way its Meant to be Developed.

 

[Teizo]

I'd rather have the gameplay than the graphics. Battlefront may look pretty, but it's boring.

This is true. It is not worth $70, even more so $120. I went ahead and got a refund. Game looks great, but no way in heck I can justify spending that much money on a game with such terrible gameplay.

 

[Red Hawk]

Nice looking Star Wars-themed tech demo DICE has there. I hope those good looks carry over to a game I actually care to play, ie Mass Effect Andromeda.

 

[tential]

AMD and DICE show The Way its Meant to be Developed.

Is there a downside to using Frostbite? So far, it seems like the engine I have the BEST performance on. I just turned this game, and chose a random supersampling resolution. Perfectly smooth. I didn't have to screw with the settings. Everything to Ultra, Rendering Resolution to 150%, and still locked 60FPS. Did I mention the game looked gorgeous?

I don't know what other games are trying to do, but they suck at it when it comes to graphics.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

A very well optimized game not loaded with gimpworks, and AMD is crushing it. Coincidence? I think not..

Is there a downside to using Frostbite? So far, it seems like the engine I have the BEST performance on. I just turned this game, and chose a random supersampling resolution. Perfectly smooth. I didn't have to screw with the settings. Everything to Ultra, Rendering Resolution to 150%, and still locked 60FPS. Did I mention the game looked gorgeous?

I don't know what other games are trying to do, but they suck at it when it comes to graphics.

Well it helps when Nvidia isn't involved sabotaging performance.

 

[SPBHM]

I remember reading somewhere that the Frostbite engine actually dynamically scales depending on how much VRAM you have, so unlike other games, having 2GB doesn't limit you here in framerate anyway.

It seems to run beautifully on my wife's PC (with the 770) and its about to finish downloading on my main PC. Gameplay is pretty casual, laid back, easy to get into. Boba Fett is OP.

even with 1GB it handles well, the game scales well with hardware and settings,

I just wish it was a new republic commando or something, Battlefield style game can only hold me for a few hours, it looks great but... I was tired after 1 hour of beta.

 

[Red Hawk]

Is there a downside to using Frostbite? So far, it seems like the engine I have the BEST performance on. I just turned this game, and chose a random supersampling resolution. Perfectly smooth. I didn't have to screw with the settings. Everything to Ultra, Rendering Resolution to 150%, and still locked 60FPS. Did I mention the game looked gorgeous?

I don't know what other games are trying to do, but they suck at it when it comes to graphics.

One possible downside is that it isn't very moddable.

 

[tential]

One possible downside is that it isn't very moddable.

Was just going to ask how moldable I'd it so we can get ultra HD textures in this or some other type of mods. Guess not.