‘Star Wars Battlefront’ Benchmarks: A Beautiful Galaxy Far, Far Away

Status
Not open for further replies.

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
718
106
19,170
4
Honestly? I think that not having AMD CPUs on a game benchmark is a serious omission.

Fallout 4 suffered from the same thing, and even the AMD official twitch channel used an Intel CPU. It was very strange, so I dug up, and found that AMD CPUs suffer a lot in it, and especially the 9590, which had lots of stuttering.

How can we know that doesn't happen in SWB?
 

AdviserKulikov

Honorable
Jan 13, 2015
1,099
0
11,960
263
Any game benchmark that doesn't include AMD FX processors is worthless to almost half of the gaming community. AMD GPUs are pretty solid, but their CPU performance often leaves games running very slowly.
 

burkhartmj

Honorable
Aug 31, 2012
111
0
10,680
0


AMD makes up less than 20% of the CPU market share. It's like saying benchmarks are useless if they don't include OSX or Linux. Sure, for some people that may be true, and I feel for you, but the vast majority are served just fine by Wintel testing platforms.
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,627
0
21,160
119
Buying Battlefront (for $110 for the full experience) reminds me a lot of buying a singer's Christmas album.

Seems like it'd wear out fast and collect a lot of dust. It's also EA, so there's that going against it as well.

My nephew played the beta on his iMac and loved it, so kudos to development.
 

Quixit

Reputable
Dec 22, 2014
1,359
0
5,960
275


AMD makes up less than 20% of the CPU market share. It's like saying benchmarks are useless if they don't include OSX or Linux. Sure, for some people that may be true, and I feel for you, but the vast majority are served just fine by Wintel testing platforms.
Apple is only about 7.5% of the worldwide PC market so... you're not exactly comparing Apples to Apples here. ;)
 

Kenneth Barker

Reputable
Aug 17, 2015
378
0
4,860
48
You guys really really need to get better quality writers and reviewers on this site. It is sort of embarrassing really...

The first graph shows the systems (with mixed specs from the ones listed above. Show me again where the system with the 980 and the i3-4160 and 8 GB of RAM is again. There isn't one, but its listed that way in the graph. The first graph is also running the game at different settings! You have low, medium, high, and ultra settings all crammed into the same graph. With the "highest" performer being the 970 and 4790K system, but its only running on High, and "second place" being run on ultra. You guys are amateurs.

Seriously, you are terrible at what you do.
 

Kenneth Barker

Reputable
Aug 17, 2015
378
0
4,860
48
I now see where the 980 system was tucked away in a GPU2 mention. The layout and description is still way off. Not sure why it wasn't listed as a completely separate system. Considering it was changed from an AMD card to an NVIDIA card and needed to make significant changes to the system via drivers, not sure why it was lumped together as a single system. It is certainly not. Also not too sure why the 980 was stuffed into the i3 system.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
718
106
19,170
4


Steam statistics say that ~25% of its users have an AMD CPU. The article uses 5 machines. Not one of them has an AMD CPU.
On another note, 95% of its users are on Windows.

The "vast majority" are three quarters of their viewers. 25% of them were frustrated for not finding anything that relates to their system. In my book, that's a very bad decision for a company.

Also, don't forget that Tom's recommends low-priced AMD CPUs for budget gaming for years, and that AMD CPUs for laptops are more than adequate and well worth the money. Suddenly they only bring Intel? Hundreds of CPU reviews over the years, and all they had were five Intel machines? Give me a break, I've been a Tom's reader for years, and they never, ever left AMD out.

The least they should do is get an FX-8320 or an A10-7870k (I'm sure they have at least one of those) and update the article with the results.
 

Wrought

Reputable
Oct 11, 2015
11
0
4,510
0
Mr. Barker, I find the article very informative. For a user aiming to get 60 fps minimum, plus some headroom for future-proofing, the i3 graphs are a goldmine. I'm not sure anyone builds a system with the aim for low graphics, so if you consider medium the bottom extreme and ultra the high, one would simply need to consider their budget and the level of graphics quality to concede and then scale the GPU somewhere within the posted graphs. I just wish they had more systems to test running the gamut of CPU/GPU combination extremes.

With respect to the different settings being in the same graph, I think your reading comprehension might be the amateur part of this piece as it was stated very clearly they let the systems auto-detect the graphics settings. Is it really that hard to read the setting for each system?
 
Honestly? I think that not having AMD CPUs on a game benchmark is a serious omission.

Fallout 4 suffered from the same thing, and even the AMD official twitch channel used an Intel CPU. It was very strange, so I dug up, and found that AMD CPUs suffer a lot in it, and especially the 9590, which had lots of stuttering.

How can we know that doesn't happen in SWB?
Hey Guys,

I'm Michael Justin Allen Sexton (as you may already know). I wanted to chime in on behalf of the editorial staff that worked on this project and say that we certainly do agree with you that we should have an AMD listing in the mix. We weren't able to get it setup in time to make this article. We still don't have an AMD FX system setup, but our AMD A10-6800K system is prepped and should make it into similar articles to this in the future.

@Kenneth Barker: Our goal in these articles isn't to compare one GPU against another. If that were the case we would load all of the systems up with the same settings and run with it. Our goal is instead to give our readers incite into what they could realistically see out of systems similar to these. We have graphics card reviews which already test GPU performance. Our readers don't need this article to demonstrate the GTX 980 Ti is faster than the GTX 970 for example, everyone already knows that. What our readers didn't know prior to this article the answer to questions like "If I have a Core i5 and a GTX 760, what settings can I run this game at?". Now they do. There is reason behind our testing method here, you just aren't seeing it.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
718
106
19,170
4
Hey Guys,

I'm Michael Justin Allen Sexton (as you may already know). I wanted to chime in on behalf of the editorial staff that worked on this project and say that we certainly do agree with you that we should have an AMD listing in the mix. We weren't able to get it setup in time to make this article. We still don't have an AMD FX system setup, but our AMD A10-6800K system is prepped and should make it into similar articles to this in the future.
Thanks for the answer! It's nice to know you're building an AMD system. Is there a chance you will update the Fallout article and this one with it?

In the meantime, if you want to test on an FX 8120/HD7970, I'm available :)
 

Rhinofart

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
977
0
19,360
106
My r9 290x and Intel 980x @ 4.2Ghz runs flawlessly on 2560 x 1440 with everything cranked up.
Also, I'd like to point out that incite isn't the word you would have used there. That would be insight.
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,627
0
21,160
119


What is your forum avatar from?
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,627
0
21,160
119


Nice. I thought so. I played it on xbox 360 a long time ago, missing textures and all from the emulator ;)
 


Try it on PC or the original Xbox. It actually has a rather nice mod set out for it on PC. Despite it's age, the scenery in the game is still a work of art in my eyes. It would be a shame to have to run it with missing textures.
 

nayrnayr1

Reputable
Aug 8, 2015
333
0
4,860
41
Why does no-one try with an AMD FX? I got playable frame rates with my FX-4300... I had to chance it not running because no-one will bench with AMD!!!!!!
 

SkyBill40

Distinguished
I, too, was surprised to see no AMD CPU in the test. Despite that, I know that my 8350 @ 4.2 w/16GB DDR3 played the beta flawlessly. While my 660Ti OC is getting a bit long in the tooth, it worked well on high settings and showed no stutter. So, this CPU and RAM with a 970 or so would easily put it in range of the similar i7 build I would imagine.
 

n1k0

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2010
17
0
18,510
0
Why does one of your review PCs have a "K" series processor at stock frequencies? I might have to stop visiting TOMS .... :/
 

surphninja

Honorable
May 14, 2013
207
0
10,680
0
Not worth installing Origin or paying so much for the DLC. I'll just wait for the console GOTY version.

I'm hoping this is a franchise that will have a more reasonable release schedule, rather than the typical new FPS sequel released every year. Let's have a couple years until Battlefront 2 comes out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS