Best video card for Battlefield 1 ?

[pcslookout]

Sense Battlefield 1 starts in a few days what is the best video card to get for it please ?

 

[pcslookout]

Oh yeah I forgot resolution sorry. 1920x1080 with all details on ultra.

 

[2is]

Titan X (Pascal) most likely

 

[crisium]

Budget, and country? And other hardware components?

Otherwise 2is is quite correct.

 

[vissarix]

A gtx1060 or a rx480 its enough for bf1 at 1080p for a solid 60fps...

 

[crisium]

But it's not the best. Don't forget this game has built in resolutions scaling. Gotta answer the OP as true as possible - Titan X P will be the best for 1080p 60fps.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

A 1060 or 480 should be fine for 1080p ultra (All forms of AA off) with FPS mostly above 60 FPS. However, you'll also need a Core i7.

 

[Azix]

A 1060 or 480 should be fine for 1080p ultra (All forms of AA off) with FPS mostly above 60 FPS. However, you'll also need a Core i7.

dx12 says hi.

480 probably for 1080p multiplayer. sp might be different

 

[happy medium]

Sense Battlefield 1 starts in a few days what is the best video card to get for it please ?

fast cpu and a gtx1070 should do the trick.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I was able to get 70-80 fps on the open beta with a GTX 970 at 1080p ultra, so I'd imagine the GTX 1060 or RX 480 should be great for it. Though I also have a hyperthreaded quadcore cpu (Xeon E3-1231v3, which runs at 3.6 GHz on all cores in quadcore loads).

 

[kawi6rr]

RX 480 should do the trick!

 

[Bacon1]

Benchmarks should start showing up soon. It is released for EA Vault subscribers for 10hr, but Origin does lock down hardware swaps so sites like pcgh will probably have results up in the next few days and add more as they continue testing.

It did run great on any mid-range card @ 1080p in beta, and should have even better optimizations + dx12 at release.

 

[Ranulf]

Game ran quite well during the beta in 1080p Ultra on my rx 480 and 8350 cpu. If I recall correctly, mostly above 60 fps, lowest dips down to high 30s. As others have said, a 970/1060 or 480 should be fine.

 

[guskline]

The BF1 beta ran well on all three of my rigs below.

 

[Stuka87]

dx12 says hi.

480 probably for 1080p multiplayer. sp might be different

Have you ever played a Battlefield game in multiplayer? It requires a massive amount of CPU, and its not because of draw calls. Even with graphics at bare minimum, it wants lots of fast cores. BF1 will nearly peg out my 4690K @4.5GHz in 64 player games.

In this game, a faster CPU has a bigger impact on playing than a fast GPU. And for me, at 1080P, my RX480 handles it just fine. Sure a 1080 will run it faster, and with more AA on. But most of those settings have little visual impact (Shadow quality and such)

 

[Bacon1]

Yep CPU is very important for BF1 multiplayer.

Here is the first BF1 review: http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

 

[RussianSensation]

fast cpu and a gtx1070 should do the trick.

GTX1070 seems like a massive overkill unless playing at 1440p.

Benchmarks as of today:

R9 380X is 32% faster than GTX960 4GB.
RX 480 beats both the 1060 and 980.

RX 480 is 22% faster than GTX1060 at 1440p DX12.
R9 290 beats 780Ti by 10%.

Perfect scaling from R9 290X to Fury X - 53%.

i7 2600K > i5 6600. HT FTW!

DX12 gives a nice boost to AMD CPUs.

 

[Stuka87]

GTX1070 seems like a massive overkill unless playing at 1440p.

Benchmarks as of today:

R9 380X is 32% faster than GTX960 4GB.
RX 480 beats both the 1060 and 980.

Interesting that a card like the RX480 gets a HUGE boost from DX12, but the GTX980/1080/etc gets a huge hit from it.

 

[happy medium]

These benchmarks make me happy, my 18 month old $170 gtx960 4gb with a 30% overclock still going strong. I should be averaging about 60fps @ 1080p with ultra settings.
I thought I was gonna need an gpu upgrade for this game.

ANd the old i3 6100 still going strong too.

 

[RussianSensation]

These benchmarks make me happy, my 18 month old $170 gtx960 4gb with a 30% overclock still going strong.

GTX960 4GB launched March 2015 and MSRP was closer to $229, because G1 Gaming 960 2GB was $199.99 after $10 MIR. I don't see how it you got a GTX960 4GB 18 months ago and at $170 unless you sold The Witcher 3 that came with it?

30% overclock you are quoting is misleading. AIB 960s boosted to 1300mhz out of the box, while the G1 Gaming 960 boosted to 1455mhz out of the box (factory pre-overclocked). Only 7% separated the slowest and the fastest AIB 960.

The fastest factory pre-overclocked 960 Computerbase tested, was still 8% slower than a stock R9 280X.

Today, an R9 290 = R9 390 is a whopping 78% faster than a GTX960 is for 1080p gaming.

I remember back then I was quoting conservative 50-60% faster and suggested gamers just man up and spend $250 for an AIB R9 290; but you still kept recommending the 960 card and spent months bashing the R9 290's power usage.

I should be averaging about 60fps @ 1080p with ultra settings.
I thought I was gonna need an gpu upgrade for this game.

Ya, and what about all the other modern games released since January 2015?

Part 1: R9 380 non-X @ 1100mhz beats 960 @ 1500mhz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLeLgDpdigo

Part 2: In more recent AAA games, 960 managed to win just 1 test against the R9 380.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAlIAfwyvo4

ANd the old i3 6100 still going strong too.

i3 6100 is barely 14 months old. How is that "old"?

BF1 isn't very CPU demanding, but you forgot to talk about i3 6100 bottlenecking R9 380X/960 level card in Assassin's Creed Syndicate, ARMA 3, Rome 2 and sub-30 fps dips all over Crysis 3. Now to upgrade that PC you have, you need to sell i3 6100 with a loss in resale value and buy an i7 7700K, when you could have just purchased i7 6700K in the first place and enjoyed 14 months of superior performance. Chances are 7700K will not overclock much better than 300mhz over the average 4.7Ghz overclock of the 6700K.

There is nothing wrong with a budget i3 6100 + GTX960 but constantly paint this system only from the positive side and ignore all the benchmarks where i3 6100 or GTX960 aren't performing that well.

 

[happy medium]

GTX960 4GB launched March 2015 and MSRP was closer to $229, because G1 Gaming 960 2GB was $199.99 after $10 MIR. I don't see how it you got a GTX960 4GB 18 months ago and at $170 unless you sold The Witcher 3 that came with it?

30% overclock you are quoting is misleading. AIB 960s boosted to 1300mhz out of the box, while the G1 Gaming 960 boosted to 1455mhz out of the box (factory pre-overclocked). Only 7% separated the slowest and the fastest AIB 960.

The fastest factory pre-overclocked 960 Computerbase tested, was still 8% slower than a stock R9 280X.

Today, an R9 290 = R9 390 is a whopping 78% faster than a GTX960 is for 1080p gaming.

I remember back then I was quoting conservative 50-60% faster and suggested gamers just man up and spend $250 for an AIB R9 290; but you still kept recommending the 960 card and spent months bashing the R9 290's power usage.



Ya, and what about all the other modern games released since January 2015?

Part 1: R9 380 non-X @ 1100mhz beats 960 @ 1500mhz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLeLgDpdigo

Part 2: In more recent AAA games, 960 managed to win just 1 test against the R9 380.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAlIAfwyvo4



i3 6100 is barely 14 months old. How is that "old"?

BF1 isn't very CPU demanding, but you forgot to talk about i3 6100 bottlenecking R9 380X/960 level card in Assassin's Creed Syndicate, ARMA 3, Rome 2 and sub-30 fps dips all over Crysis 3. Now to upgrade that PC you have, you need to sell i3 6100 with a loss in resale value and buy an i7 7700K, when you could have just purchased i7 6700K in the first place and enjoyed 14 months of superior performance. Chances are 7700K will not overclock much better than 300mhz over the average 4.7Ghz overclock of the 6700K.

You do know this is what you quoted?

"These benchmarks make me happy, my 18 month old $170 gtx960 4gb with a 30% overclock still going strong. I should be averaging about 60fps @ 1080p with ultra settings.
I thought I was gonna need an gpu upgrade for this game.

ANd the old i3 6100 still going strong too. "



I'm scratching my head wondering why you wrote all that?
Does that somehow make my gpu get less than 60 fps in this game.
wait don't answer that! I'm tired of reading already.

 

[Maverick177]

I'm scratching my head wondering why you wrote all that?
Does that somehow make my gpu get less than 60 fps in this game.
wait don't answer that! I'm tired of reading already.

You just tired of reading what you don't like.

 

[happy medium]

There is nothing wrong with a budget i3 6100 + GTX960 but constantly paint this system only from the positive side and ignore all the benchmarks where i3 6100 or GTX960 aren't performing that well.

Please tell me a game that I play that this combo does not perform well with?
I have at least 20 of them on my drive. You can use your crystal ball if you want.
So somehow you know how much I need to spend, what I use my gpu for, and what is better for my needs?
I think I've been around long enough to know what performance I need , what power usage I like , how quiet I want my card to be and how high I want to overclock it.

To put it simply, I didn't ask for your help , I have a job and I buy what I want,spend a much as I want and when I want.
thanks anyway.

back on topic.......sorry mods

 

[mohit9206]

These benchmarks make me happy, my 18 month old $170 gtx960 4gb with a 30% overclock still going strong. I should be averaging about 60fps @ 1080p with ultra settings.
I thought I was gonna need an gpu upgrade for this game.

ANd the old i3 6100 still going strong too.

That makes me optimistic for the upcoming 1050Ti. i3-6100+1050ti should be a great budget combination under $300.

 

[happy medium]

That makes me optimistic for the upcoming 1050Ti. i3-6100+1050ti should be a great budget combination under $300.

yea man we should be good to go..