Battlefield 1 PC graphics benchmark review

Game reviews 127 Page 1 of 1 Published by

Click here to post a comment for Battlefield 1 PC graphics benchmark review on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
Thanks for bothering with EA's crappy limits Hilbert, it's much appreciated! I also like the graphs with dx11 and dx12 right next to each other. It's also nice to see that this game seems to be good looking and still able to cope with less than 6/8GB VRAM ๐Ÿ™„
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260828.jpg
Great review as always, is nice to see DX11 and DX12 next to each other. Its weird how the Fury X gets higher FPS in DX11 than 12, but the non x and the nano get higher FPS in DX12 than 11 Is nice to see that the 390(290) is still a good card for this kind of games
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery. As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game. Only Intruder -> that was an older alpha screenshot now that i think of it. What you see is VSYNC OFF, screen tearing. I'll remove the image though as it is not representative of the final game.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/115/115462.jpg
It's a very optimized game, at 1440p with a 1070 I can max it out easily. And this on DX11. I always knew that Frostbite will become a very good looking engine, and BF1 is another proof for that.
data/avatar/default/avatar21.webp
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12. I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower? But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/180/180081.jpg
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12. I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower? But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
Yea - that was a bit odd to me as well. Well, I'll find out soon enough. Just bought a Sapphire RX480 Nitro and BF1 last night.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
On RX480, it is what it is and what I measure. AMD also released some numbers this afternoon based on similar ultra settings and they match my result set. I just compared a bit with an AMD reviewers guide, and they also shows DX11 to be a notch faster opposed to DX12 in both 1440p and 2160P, but not in 1080P ๐Ÿ™‚ The differences are subtle, perhaps certain scenes might behave a bit differently.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260828.jpg
There always will be small anomalies. The result sets are so close to each other that a nearby explosion or movement already can have an effect and drag down or up FPS a bit. You'll notice that for yourself when you game and monitor FPS, it will be varying quite a bit due to the intense, active and complex scenery. As always, these articles are a nice indication of performance. However if you zoom in at 1~2 FPS differences, well that is a tough cookie to tackle with an FPS game where so much stuff is happening in-game.
Thank you very much for the prompt reply
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/245/245409.jpg
Shadow Warrior 2 and this for christmas? Hells yeah! ๐Ÿ˜€ Thanks for the excellent review as always.
data/avatar/default/avatar19.webp
Very nice looking game and great review! Nice to see this game playable for many setups.
data/avatar/default/avatar25.webp
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12. I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower? But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I'd say it depends on the benchmark used, and of course the CPU, as higher end systems aren't going to benefit as much from DX12 as those with slower CPUs. Would be interesting to see a comparison between say the Haswell 4790K running on only four cores (HT disabled) vs the 5820K running all all cores at a slower clockspeed, in DX11 and DX12 seeing how slower clocked multi-core processors should benefit more from DX12.
data/avatar/default/avatar25.webp
I will be waiting for the 1080 Ti unless I go with two 1080 in SLI which is OK. I truly hope that 1080 Ti will be released in Q1 2017 with close performance to Titan XP.
data/avatar/default/avatar37.webp
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
you are right 980Ti performance is really strange here, 1070 and fury x absolutely destroys 980Ti in guru3d benchies. on other websites 980Ti is a lot closer to 1070 and fury x.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
Correct - I already made note of that. It might have been a driver issue or failed optimization. The 980 Ti is on the to-do list for a retest tomorrow, I am out of activations/swaps for today.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/254/254725.jpg
I don't know why GTX 980ti is only 5% ahead of GTX 980 in this benchmark. is there any explanation?
I believe nVidia stops optimizing (as heavily at least) their drivers for cards as soon as they aren't the newest series.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/209/209146.jpg
Nice review but I'm somewhat confused about the 480 and DX12. I already read/watched two reviews and in both the 480 was about 5-10% faster in DX12. Here its slower? But i just can confirme that the game runs and looks great on my 1070. 1080p, All Ultra 150% Resolution Scaling and never drops below 60fps.
I have to push the game a bit extra via the resolution scaling slider but at 150% (3840x2160 to 2560x1440) there's a small improvement with DirectX 12 in more demanding areas of the game (The foggy forest I tested with had DX11 at 43 - 44 and DX12 at 45 - 46 so pretty minor difference.) otherwise yeah it's pretty close between the two API's but I'd imagine that as usual DirectX 12 mainly helps with CPU limitations and can optionally also be used for multi-GPU support (But currently doesn't seem to be using anything of that?) but that tends to lag behind for several of the current D3D12 capable games out at the moment.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/31/31371.jpg
So EA is still doing the same old crappy limits what is why we need to stop buying there crappy games in first place we all put the squeeze on them maybe just maybe they get the message.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259564.jpg
It is actually 'their' but besides the point, this game is not crappy , probably will be one of the best games this year. I have over 600 hours in BF4 alone. Honestly, this DRM will affect almost no one. Other than this particular benchmarking case I can't see how this DRM will adversely affect anyone.
I agree, 5 systems in less than 24 hours seems perfectly reasonable. That said, they probably should have some way of deactivating it for reviews on request, but it's hardly the end of the world.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259654.jpg
Thanks Hilbert! I'm more eager to see the CPU tests with DX12, to be honest. A lot of people disregard DX12 because GPU results seem similar in optimized titles, but I believe that it's more important because it enables people with weaker CPUs to play modern games, and game creators to do more with CPU stuff in general.