Star Wars: Battlefront Benchmarked

[BrushyBill]

Funny how I'm always seeing a stock Titan X against an Overclocked 980 Ti. I would throw down some benchmarks off my Titan X at 1550mhz if this game would have actually been worth the purchase. You don't buy a Titan X, or two, to keep on air at stock speeds.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

AMD has the edge in this game!

 

[ykki]

AMD has the edge in this game!

Its not too surprising when the game is not burdened with GameWorks Tech. I think people should clear their fanboy goggles and see that a game can look this good without the graphic-horsepower parasite that is GameWorks.

 

[king3pj]

AMD has the edge in this game!

Its not too surprising when the game is not burdened with GameWorks Tech. I think people should clear their fanboy goggles and see that a game can look this good without the graphic-horsepower parasite that is GameWorks.

I'm currently an Nvidia user and I'm all for that. My previous card was a Radeon 7850 and I would often find it disheartening that I couldn't run all the graphics options because I was an AMD user. Now I have an Nvidia GPU and I find myself turning those features off pretty often to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p. Sometimes those features look very nice but they are definitely performance hogs.

No doubt about it though, Battlefront is one of the prettiest games I have ever played. While being that pretty it still has great performance. I'm easily seeing 120+ FPS at 1440p. It has great SLI scaling and HWInfo shows all 4 of my overclocked i5-4690k's cores up around 80 percent usage.

People love to bash EA but their studios sure know how to put out some pretty great PC ports.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

AMD has the edge in this game!

Its not too surprising when the game is not burdened with GameWorks Tech. I think people should clear their fanboy goggles and see that a game can look this good without the graphic-horsepower parasite that is GameWorks.

Yes, I'm all for APIs that operate on all graphics cards rather than exclusive APIs that leave out cards not based on Nvidia.

 

[blppt]

" exclusive APIs that leave out cards not based on Nvidia."

Erm, Gameworks does run on AMD cards, its just that a lot of it uses heavy tesselation, which up until Fury X, favors Nvidia cards.

 

[alextheblue]

Rambodas, your CM "500W" PSU may not be. Still, it should safely handle a GTX960.

I probably wouldn't go beyond a higher clocked 950, given the PSU in question.

I doubt his CPU is chewing up much power. TDP on that thing is only 77W. If his CM PSU is at least Bronze, he could run a 380 or 970 no problem. So many people overestimate what they need. The 970 is a bit over his budget (especially for a decent one), but he could get a really nice 380 for under $200. For example, a 4GB Sapphire Nitro with pretty good clocks and a backplate on Newegg for $180 after MIR. Some of the 960s are approaching this price too. Wouldn't bother with the 2GB versions at this point, myself. Not worth the "savings" of like what, $10?

 

[dragonsqrrl]

1. everything is late in Tom's
2. Maybe they are afraid that AMD cards would actually spank nvidia cards this time?

Can you tell us what examples Tom's has in Nvidia bias on GPU reviews? Because if so, I must have missed it and would like to see it. I'll wait.

Well, there was that time Tom's showed blatant Nvidia favoritism by daring to recommend a pair of 6970's over the 6990...

...

 

[ipwitan]

Why do I have a feeling that EA said, hey guys, please do a review of our game showing that even sub level systems can play it at high settings. And even if you cannot play at ultra, it still looks really cool. Oh, and here is 20k in advertising plus a few t-shirts.

Notwithstanding, and even EA didn't have a chat, such an article is great. I actually really like how you can see the relative rank of the various GPUs, even if it is a bit old. I find that sort of thing very useful in helping me decide to upgrade old cards. I suppose it is reasonable to give EA a complement every now and then for a good engine, even if I still resent them personally.

 

[f-14]

why would anybody bench mark this game? it's designed for playstation 2 it's so bad. it's call of duty3 with star wars skin i put it on the hardest mode right at the start and did better than i expected coming close to winning the first try. after figuring out the spawn pattern by game 2 i beat every map my 3rd try. good thing i got it as a x-mas present because it's not even worth $15. i have more fun playing trainz 2009 for $4 than this noob version of console battle front.
and i was playing the pc version.
i really didn't like having to wait 4 hours to download this game because i don't live in the heart of a major city to get an isp that still offers dial up to 70% of it's internet customers.
the internet connection requirement sucks, i'll stick to battlefront1 &2 as this version is too easy and can be won in 5 minutes or less per map.

there is no substitute for lucas and lucas arts.

 

[JVC8bal]

SLI still does not work for me. It worked when launched, broke with Nvidia driver in November, was fixed in December, then stopped functioning correctly a week later. I run the game at 4k (on a Samsung UHD TV) with dual 980Ti - there's pink flickering. Terrible.

Is it only in Battlefront? That is very unusual indeed. How do you update your drivers? Do you go through GeForce Experience or manually from Nvidia directly? Do you do a clean install every time?

I've tried clean installs, geforce update, as well as a clean Windows 10 build. No dice... only does this for Battlefront, too.

 

[JonnyDough]

EA...

 

[CaptainTom]

Jesus I never thought I would see a 290 beat a 780 Ti or a 7970 almost match a 690! Plan ahead people....

 

[Sakkura]

They already explained that they used the newest drivers at the time, it just took too long for the article to get translated and published in English.

 

[HDD-Mod]

I have a Sapphire R9 270X and I run 1080p Ultra FXAA High, don't like TAA, although they're both the same. I'm getting 45-60 FPS, mostly 60 though, so is this the average?

 

[geogan]

Some of the AMD benchmarks make no sense... I have a dual GPU 7990 and for some reason Crossfire does not work at all with this game so I have to literally manually disable Crossfire in a custom profile for this game in CCC panel. So while playing, one GPU is at 90-100% while the other sits there doing nothing at 0% (according to MSI Afterburner).
Now, a 7990 card with a disabled GPU is exactly the same as a 7950 card...

So how are they getting 61FPS for 7990 and only 47FPS for 7950?

They should be identical framerates - the 7990 cannot do Crossfire with this game...

 

[Sakkura]

Some of the AMD benchmarks make no sense... I have a dual GPU 7990 and for some reason Crossfire does not work at all with this game so I have to literally manually disable Crossfire in a custom profile for this game in CCC panel. So while playing, one GPU is at 90-100% while the other sits there doing nothing at 0% (according to MSI Afterburner).
Now, a 7990 card with a disabled GPU is exactly the same as a 7950 card...

So how are they getting 61FPS for 7990 and only 47FPS for 7950?

They should be identical framerates - the 7990 cannot do Crossfire with this game...

The 7990 is equivalent to two 7970s in Crossfire, not two 7950s.