Battlefield 1 Performance In DirectX 12: 29 Cards Tested

[renz496]

It might have been nice if this performance comparison also tested DX11 mode though, since I know Nvidia's cards took a performance hit for DX12 back at the game's launch. I was also a bit surprised to see how poorly Nvidia's 2GB cards fared here though, while AMD's seemed to handle the lack of VRAM more gracefully. The 2GB GTX 1050 dropped below 30fps for an extended length of time even at medium settings, and all of Nvidia's 2GB cards plummeted to single digits at anything higher than that. Meanwhile, the 2GB Radeons stayed above 30fps even at high settings. It kind of makes me wonder how these 3GB GTX 1060s will fare a year or so from now, especially when you consider that the RX 480s and even 470s all come equipped with at least 4GB.

this problem might be isolated to AMD platform. because from tom's hardware GTX1050ti & GTX1050 initial review the GTX1050 2GB is nowhere near this bad in battlefield 1 using DX12. the test back then were using intel platform (6700K):

https://img.purch.com/r/600x450/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9HL1cvNjIyNjg4L29yaWdpbmFsL2JmMS1mci5wbmc=

 

[pokeman]

Again 680 1080 oc sli gave 100hz smooth at 3440by1440...

 

[randomizer]

I love that my 970 can still comfortably play this game at 2560x1440. There aren't many games post-2015 where that is possible without really dialling back the detail.

 

[Tech_TTT]

-1 for not including AMD Ryzen in the test...

-1 for not including i5 in the CPU Scaling ...

 

[Shalee1970]

I'm a console player but would love to go pc but the fastest internet i can get is 40mps is this fast enough ??

 

[Shalee1970]

I'm a console player but would love to go pc, but I have only 43mps internet speed would this be fast enough ???

 

[80-watt Hamster]

And then you run in DX11 mode and it runs faster than DX12 across the board. Thanks for effort you put in this but rather pointless since DX12 has been nothing but pile of crap.

Do you ever have anything positive to contribute?

 

[Zombies Eat You]

When B1 was released, I was only getting 11-12 FPS on Low with my i5-3570K and Fury Nano! Only got good frames after I OC'd my proc 400 Ghz over base. Odd.

 

[Braindead154]

Would be nice to see a least one AMD SLI benchmark with Ryzen

 

[crateria]

I mean great article... if you released it 2 months ago. You release it now with no 1080 ti benchmarks? Tom please...

 

[renz496]

Would be nice to see a least one AMD SLI benchmark with Ryzen

then this video will interest you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqEnwwHC5n4

 

[CMac019]

Are all GPUs running at reference speeds or what?

 

[CMac019]

Mostly curious about the 980 TI and 1070 clock speeds because the gap seems pretty large.

 

[renz496]

Mostly curious about the 980 TI and 1070 clock speeds because the gap seems pretty large.

most reviewer using reference 980ti for testing. 1070 was supposed to be faster than titan x maxwell according to nvidia marketing.

 

[CMac019]

Mostly curious about the 980 TI and 1070 clock speeds because the gap seems pretty large.

most reviewer using reference 980ti for testing. 1070 was supposed to be faster than titan x maxwell according to nvidia marketing.

At launch OCed 980 TIs were either beating or tied with OCed 1070s depending on the game. I was just wondering if this changed with driver updates, if it was a result of dx12 between 2 different architectures, or if it was just a reference 980 TI.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

I would like to see more benchmarks with older GPUs for comparison in the future. Great for those of us comparing our old cards to the new stuff.

 

[mahone7]

Could you do something similar with the i5 of that time - 3570k?

thanks

 

[Britincali]

Good but why didn't you throw in a quad core for the scaling? A huge number of people are using quads still.
Also, how about triple screen gaming benchmark?

 

[tyr8338]

Cpu makes HUGE diffrence in 64 man multiplayer, i7 is vastly superior in that case compared to i5. I know because I swapped my i5-4670k @ 4GHz for i7-4770k @ 4ghz and my fps is much more stable now.

 

[ThisWasATriumph]

As an R9 390 owner, I am now very happy with my purchase.

I mean, I was before, but wow, beating the RX 480 and GTX 1060 on ultra?

And the 390X was within striking distance of the 1070.

 

[dfg555]

Good job, just remember that these "GPU showdowns" don't tell the whole story b/c cards are running at Stock, and there are GPU's that can get huge overclocks thus performing significantly better.

Case in point: GTX 780TI

The 780TI featured here runs at stock which was 875 MHz Base Clock and 928 MHz Boost Clock, whereas the 3rd party GPU's produced ran at 1150 MHz and boosted up to 1250-1300 MHz. We are talking about 30-35% more performance here for this card which you ain't seeing here at all.

"30-35% more performance" Which doesn't translate to realistic scenarios. Stop lying

"3rd party GPU's produced ran at 1150 MHz and boosted up to 1250-1300 MHz" Stop lying.

28% OC, 18% Actual Gain https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780_Ti/30.html

7% OC, 6%% Actual Gain https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_780_Ti_Classified/27.html

"boosted up to 1250-1300 MHz" Stop lying.

https://www.bjorn3d.com/2014/01/gigabyte-gtx-780-ti-ghz-edition-review-super-overclock-now-sleeker-cooler/4/

https://www.eteknix.com/gigabyte-gtx-780-ti-ghz-edition-3gb-graphics-card-review/19/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/64491-gigabyte-gtx-780-ti-ghz-edition-review-8.html

 

[envy14tpe]

Cpu makes HUGE diffrence in 64 man multiplayer, i7 is vastly superior in that case compared to i5. I know because I swapped my i5-4670k @ 4GHz for i7-4770k @ 4ghz and my fps is much more stable now.

I gotta agree. I went from my 2500k @4.4GHz to a i7-7700k@4.5GHz. Wow. With the same GPU, 980ti, I saw massive improvements. In 64 player maps I went from High settings getting 75fps to Ultra 90fps. And now the GPU runs at 100% instead of being variable (i.e. bottleneck solved).

 

[renz496]

Cpu makes HUGE diffrence in 64 man multiplayer, i7 is vastly superior in that case compared to i5. I know because I swapped my i5-4670k @ 4GHz for i7-4770k @ 4ghz and my fps is much more stable now.

I gotta agree. I went from my 2500k @4.4GHz to a i7-7700k@4.5GHz. Wow. With the same GPU, 980ti, I saw massive improvements. In 64 player maps I went from High settings getting 75fps to Ultra 90fps. And now the GPU runs at 100% instead of being variable (i.e. bottleneck solved).

i think you got better performance not just because it was i5 vs i7. but also because you got CPU that is a whole lot better architecture wise. we did not see massive improvement going one generation to another since Sandy but from Sandy to Kaby definitely quite a jump. for games that did not hit the CPU hard it might not that noticeable. but for game that did it really shows how old Sandy is vs Kaby. even stock 7600K (3.8ghz with turbo boost up to 4.2Ghz) will beat 2500K at 4.5Ghz!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2792-intel-i5-7600k-review-ft-2500k-3570k-more/page-3