guru3dStar Wars: Battlefront Beta VGA graphics performance benchmarks

[thesmokingman]

I know what your point was, I was just making another point my self.

You're point is what? They are a legit review site?

 

[AtenRa]

You're point is what? They are a legit review site?

ehm no, i was talking about them benchmarking the SP and not the MP and that even if the review is legit, it still is irrelevant.

 

[thesmokingman]

ehm no, i was talking about them benchmarking the SP and not the MP and that even if the review is legit, it still is irrelevant.

Damn the internet, its so hard to read between the lines. :thumbsup:

 

[yepp]

Look again it using a ultra high texture pack in your benchmark. Hey I'm going to out and buy a gtx960 or 380 to use a ultra high texture pack in said game? No I don't think so.
I used benchmarks with the release version of the game.

All you have to do is click or tick a few extra box in Steam and you have ultra textures enabled, wolla, other games give you this option too out of the box, Skyrim, Sleeping dogs etc... Its a free DLC, available on release, part of the game package. If your card can handle it, why not? It'll look better. They make it an optional click since some cards can't handle it, saves them the extra download.

Not buying gtx960 or 380 to run ultra high textures, doesn't change the fact that a 4gb R9 380 can do it without tanking, while the 2GB R9 285 cannot which should hold true for 2GB R9 380 also.

Or maybe I was confused about your initial question and you actually meant exactly what you said:

WHat games with what cards with 2gb of memory can actually play games at a reasonable level of fps while passing the 2gb barrier ?"

Well obviously isn't that's the reason to avoid 2gb cards, and is one of the possible scenario where "2gb cards are not enough........." Are you advocating that 2gb cards are not enough? Which is exactly what your question is alluding to, if so then we agree. :thumbsup:

Truth is I don't think game makers are stupid enough to release said game that wont run well on a 2gb card @ 1080p, since 75% of cards out there have 2gb or less memory.

True, which is why they give the options to tinker with the graphic settings.

 

[Face2Face]

I have to say, the game runs great and looks fantastic. I've been playing way too much of it lately...

The game runs at a solid 60FPS @ 1080p with Medium settings on my son's Core i5 and 7790 1GB. At 1440p, with High settings, I'm at 65-75 FPS with my OC'd GTX 780. Ultra brings me down to 50-60 FPS.

 

[RussianSensation]

Other thread. Not this thread. Not Battlefront. Please stop derailment in the name of your 2GB crusade. You have 6 posts on this page and the only 1 relevant is a quote of an older post.

Ya, I don't understand how any PC gamer who loves technology and progress and generally looks forward to next generation graphics would be so inclined as to defend 2GB cards and pretend they are still viable in late 2015 to keep for 2-3 years (i.e., surely someone who is buying budget cards in the $150-200 space is exactly the type of consumer who cares about longevity and so on since this isn't the cutting edge PC gamer buying $650 flagships every 12 months). What exactly is someone's agenda to defend 2GB GPUs? Shouldn't we want for 2GB cards to die as fast as possible so that the mainstream segment has 3-4GB HBM2 cards as a minimum starting base for game developers? :hmm: I pretty much expect GTX970/980 successors to have 8GB of HBM2.

Also, even if it were true that SW BF didn't benefit much from more than 2GB of VRAM, which in itself can only be assessed in all of the game's modes and over extensive multi-player matches with 40 players, given that there already exist AAA games that benefit (require) from more than 2GB of VRAM, it seems way too risky to buy a 2GB card this late in 2015 and not expect even more AAA games to use HQ textures moving forward.

Truth is I don't think game makers are stupid enough to release said game that wont run well on a 2gb card @ 1080p, since 75% of cards out there have 2gb or less memory.

1. Games are made to scale with higher IQ. No one is forcing anyone to use HQ textures in games like Titanfall, Wolfenstein NWO, Batman AK, Shadow of Mordor. No one is forcing anyone to install mods for Skyrim, GTA, FO4, etc. If you just want bare minimum performance, and don't care at all about turning down textures over the next 2-3 years of ownership, a 2GB card suffices. Anyone else is spending $20-30 extra on a 3-4GB card given what has happened with 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB, 8800GT 256MB vs. 512MB, HD4870 512MB vs. HD4870 1GB, etc.

2. There are already games that benefit from > 2GB of VRAM, even at 1080P. Many members have already provided examples and you ignore every single post related to this topic.

According to Steam, if we look at the top 15 most DX11 popular GPUs in the rankings, outside of 770, 7900 and 970, most stuff is super outdated/low-end. Despite this a lot of modern games coming out would not run well on 70%+ of the top 15 list of GPUs based on Steam. That's why when developers make games, there are minimum and recommended specs and a well-coded game should scale with faster hardware. If developers waited until a particular GPU level/CPU level was achieved by at least 75% of PC gamers, it would take way too long for PC gaming graphics to evolve. That's not what happens as PC games continue to look better with time.

Chances are most developers today making cross-platform AAA games are going to use Xbox One as the bare minimum spec and go from there. However, many console-to-PC ports are often far more demanding and less optimized which means a modern PC with an FX4300/i3 and an HD7770/7790 GPU would struggle to reach 1080P @ 60 fps with High settings.

I also don't see much point in building a 2015 PC to barely match Xbox One/PS4 in games like SW BF. That's why taking all of this into account, 2GB GPUs need to die and die ASAP so that PC game developers can start to make even better games and target 3-4GB as the bare minimum.

To give you an idea, it was already possible to buy an HD6950 2GB for $299 as of December 2010, nearly 5 years ago. Sorry, but 2GB VRAM GPUs need to die. It's actually shocking it's taking this long for the PC industry to move already. Hopefully with next generation 2GB is completely out of the picture.

 

[3DVagabond]

Look again it using a ultra high texture pack in your benchmark. Hey I'm going to out and buy a gtx960 or 380 to use a ultra high texture pack in said game? No I don't think so.
I used benchmarks with the release version of the game.
Keep trying.

Truth is I don't think game makers are stupid enough to release said game that wont run well on a 2gb card @ 1080p, since 75% of cards out there have 2gb or less memory.

We aren't using consoles. Modding games is 1/2 the fun.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Chances are most developers today making cross-platform AAA games are going to use Xbox One as the bare minimum spec and go from there. However, many console-to-PC ports are often far more demanding and less optimized which means a modern PC with an FX4300/i3 and an HD7770/7790 GPU would struggle to reach 1080P @ 60 fps with High settings.

Battlefront runs at 720p on xbone, so obviously you're not going to do 1080 high with a 7790.

I don't see how lack of vram is holding developers back. The graphically impressive games all stream textures in and out dynamically, on 2GB card you'll see slightly lower overall texture detail, but generating these lower texture details doesn't cost dev time.

 

[Face2Face]

Battlefront runs at 720p on xbone, so obviously you're not going to do 1080 high with a 7790.

I don't see how lack of vram is holding developers back. The graphically impressive games all stream textures in and out dynamically, on 2GB card you'll see slightly lower overall texture detail, but generating these lower texture details doesn't cost dev time.

A 7790 1GB clocked @ 1GHz has no problem doing 1080/60 on Medium settings. I can give her some more and see if it's even possible to do 1080/60 @ with High settings. I doubt it, but I'll try.

 

[AtenRa]

System

AMD FX8350 @ 4GHz (turbo off)
ASUS M5A97 R2.0
2x 4GB Kingston DDR-3 1866MHz 11-12-11
HD7950 @ 1GHz, 1500MHz memory

Win 10 64bit
Cat 15.9.1Beta

 

[Headfoot]

The game looks great, runs great, its really pretty fun, and the sound design is incredible. Even though its got less stuff than Battlefront 1 or 2 did, the stuff that's in it (at least in the Beta) has been extremely polished and well done.

In usual DICE fashion, the actual game is really solid but the lobby/server joining mechanisms breaks when you try and join consistently with friends.

 

[AtenRa]

OK another run with the FX8350 but OC to 4.2GHz (Turbo off) and memory at 1866MHz 10-11-10.
Default Heat-sink.

 

[dogen1]

Battlefront runs at 720p on xbone, so obviously you're not going to do 1080 high with a 7790.

I don't see how lack of vram is holding developers back. The graphically impressive games all stream textures in and out dynamically, on 2GB card you'll see slightly lower overall texture detail, but generating these lower texture details doesn't cost dev time.

Most games stream in whole textures as far as I know(except for rage, wolfentsein, gta v, trials evo. and fusion). Virtual texturing is more efficient, since you just stream in chunks of textures as required. The quality and size of textures essentially becomes irrelevant, except for the required disk space, because the amount of memory you use is basically determined by the size of the screen. It would be awesome if more games used techniques like this. Loading in whole textures, especially ones that you might not even be able to see fully, is not a very efficient use of memory.

 

[guskline]

I see the beta has been extended to 10/13/15

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I see the beta has been extended to 10/13/15

Hopefully they use that time to figure out why everyone keeps losing connection to EA servers.

 

[Headfoot]

Hopefully they use that time to figure out why everyone keeps losing connection to EA servers.

Agreed. That and fix joining with a partner so that they dont get left behind half the time

 

[monstercameron]

The game looks great, runs great, its really pretty fun, and the sound design is incredible. Even though its got less stuff than Battlefront 1 or 2 did, the stuff that's in it (at least in the Beta) has been extremely polished and well done.

In usual DICE fashion, the actual game is really solid but the lobby/server joining mechanisms breaks when you try and join consistently with friends.

I don't think it is fun. It does have impressive atmosphere.

 

[Despoiler]

The fan treatment in the game is great. The look, feel, and sound are all excellent. The game runs great on my rig. There is some stuttering when the game is loading, but no issues once it's loaded.

The balance is terrible on Walker Assault. The spawn points make no sense. Spawn camping is SO easy.

 

[Makaveli]

.

The balance is terrible on Walker Assault. The spawn points make no sense. Spawn camping is SO easy.

I play more of the 8vs8 map for this reason. Hoth really sucks when you play as the rebels.

I've enjoyed the hell out of the beta the last couple days minus the random freezing which seems to be a R9 200/300 series issues based on info on the net.

 

[dogen1]

I play more of the 8vs8 map for this reason. Hoth really sucks when you play as the rebels.

I've enjoyed the hell out of the beta the last couple days minus the random freezing which seems to be a R9 200/300 series issues based on info on the net.

I get it on my 660.

 

[tential]

I play more of the 8vs8 map for this reason. Hoth really sucks when you play as the rebels.

I've enjoyed the hell out of the beta the last couple days minus the random freezing which seems to be a R9 200/300 series issues based on info on the net.

Not getting it at all over here.
I actually was about to buy the game. Then I remembered I'll never play it lol. I'll get it when it's cheap though as it is fun to toss in and play a couple rounds of. It's definitely a fun game to just pick up and play whenever you want to.

 

[railven]

Not getting it at all over here.
I actually was about to buy the game. Then I remembered I'll never play it lol. I'll get it when it's cheap though as it is fun to toss in and play a couple rounds of. It's definitely a fun game to just pick up and play whenever you want to.

This. GF loved the few sessions we had, but then she quickly went to ArcheAge. Not gonna drop $120 bones for that random night of togetherness. Haha.

 

[Silverforce11]

Did you guys ever see a Rebel play pilot and take down an AT-AT instantly?

https://youtu.be/tv144-OdqXQ?t=2m22s

Seriously once people realize that and get good at it, it will be impossible for Imperials to win the assault.

 

[Erenhardt]

I see the beta has been extended to 10/13/15

You sure? Year has 12 months only.

 

[railven]

Did you guys ever see a Rebel play pilot and take down an AT-AT instantly?

https://youtu.be/tv144-OdqXQ?t=2m22s

Seriously once people realize that and get good at it, it will be impossible for Imperials to win the assault.

What makes this hilarious is DEFEAT just a few seconds later.

If you ask me, the battles that will have "canon" references should stay as so. Rebels should NEVER win Hoth. BUT, that don't mean there can be a hidden bonus to the defeat, or remove the win bonus from imperials.