Battlefield 5: Video - Graphics - No HUD 4K 60fps

Looks pretty sweet. Haven't played any MP Battlefield since 4.

 

Those graphics look great! The lighting and the way the snow interacted with vehicles felt realistic. Yep, looks good! I wonder how much graphics power you need to run it at 1080p at those same graphics settings - wondering if 144Hz 1080p maxed out is gonna be as easy to achieve as with BF1? With an overclocked GTX 1070 I run BF1 at pretty much 144 fps stable at max graphics settings apart from no AA, Lighting Quality High - wonder if this will be possible with BF5?

(In fact yesterday I overclocked my monitor and was running BF1 at 178fps on the same settings described above, but with the addition of reducing Post Processing to Low).

 

I would love to know what hardware was used in that video. They said 4k and maxed settings. I watched it on my 65" 4K OLED and it looked amazing.

 

4K & maxed settings I'm thinking maybe a 1080ti sli or something! I think would need to be sli. Could probably get away with 1080 sli if it's the same as BF1. EDIT: Praps a heavily overclocked 1080ti could do it, as 1080ti stock is just shy of 60fps at 4K in BF1 according to Toms Hardware.

 

No way, my 1080ti holds 60fps at 4k pretty easily in BF1. On my 120hz ultrawide running 3440x1440 I hold 100-120 fps.

 

My 1080 sli setup does about 110 fps in bf1 at 4k 100% render res with ultra settings. As my display is 60 hz though, i instead bump up the render resolution to 130 %, and enjoy amazing graphics at locked 58 fps (g-sync display)

Bf5 is a bit more demanding though, judging from the alpha, but it should still be manageable

 

That's some impressive performance you're getting.

 

Dunno about that, it's just a very well optimized game engine.

Here is a screenie of my pc running bf1 amiens map at 4k 100% render res, ultra settings.

 

Do you know how much fps you lose when compared to BF1, or the percentage peformance loss? (Just trying to predict how it will run on my setup).

 

Well I'm going off the Toms Hardware review where I guess they have a Founders Edition GTX 1080ti, your Zotac would run substantially faster (especially if it's the AMP Extreme version) due to the better cooler, increased clocks & increased power limit.

 

From what i've seen, it's like 10-20 % more demanding. A 1060 runs at sub 60 fps at 1080p ultra in bf5, where it runs at like 65 fps in bf1.

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-vo-imya-tsarya-test-gpu-cpu



So it shouldn't be that much of a difference

 

Cool, thanks, so I might have to turn down one or two more settings in comparison to BF1 to keep 142 fps then on my GTX 1070. The game looks good though graphically, and I don't expect a big drop in quality with a few lesser graphics options. Just need to decide whether or not to buy this game at launch or not!

 

Yeah, you should be fine with your 1070

I'm gonna decide wether or not to buy it during the beta.

 

Shows clearly how poor per pixel IQ there is. While 4K delivers nice details for far away geometry. Close objects show that texturing and shaders are insufficient.
Gun looks like it either needs some good shader effect or at least 8x more detailed texture. As one texture pixel spans like 8 pixels on screen. It looks like some blurry dots transitions.
Even sidewalk textures which are already quite far show insufficient per pixel quality. Parallax maping on walls is nice in 4K.

But question is: Where did all the antialiasing work went on Ultra? I can see it on eaves bent on top of right building. But most of other geometry edges are jagged as hell.
It must definitely look better when you use 130% rendering.

 

TAA doesn't work when using sli, so that is disabled... so it is indeed alot more jagged, when i don't use downsampling.

While i agree about what you said about gun texture, i think everything else looks great tbh. Guns vary a whole lot in textures though - some have a much higher quality texture, such as this one







This is with 130% render res btw - as you can see, a whole lot less jaggies, and a much more clear, clean and detailed image.

 

Forest screenshot would need like 200% render resolution with all those branches and transparency. A lot of potential for improvement with 4K. I wonder if some of new methods used in next BF will improve on that.
But looking at those screenshots in downsampled state on forum (which is like 1200 pixels across)... that's per-pixel-quality I would like to have in games. Looks almost photo-realistic.

 

You can take my word for it or not, but on a 27 / 32 inch 4k display, you really don't see any jaggies with 130% render resolution. You have to remember, that when you view 4k screenshots on a less than 4k display, it will look nothing like it does on a 4k display.

In regards to the screenshots in minimized forum version, that pixel density is the equivelant to like downsampling from 12k.

But just for lolz, i took a screenie in the exact same place, using 100%, 130%, 150% and 200% render res.

100%



130%



150%



200%



Obviously image quality improves with each step, but i can't see anything running 4k with 200% render res any time soon, especially not as bf5 will be a bit more demanding. I think there is a good chance i can run bf5 at 150 % render res with 1180 sli though

 

When you click embedded screenshot, it will stretch to 1:1 pixel ratio. And on lower resolution it means, you can scroll several screens to side/up/down. Difference is that smaller resolution screen may have bigger pixels. Allowing you to see jaggies more clearly.

As of why you do not see those obvious jaggies from screenshots in game. It is in motion, each frame is different and there is tiny bit of pixel persistence. Transitions smooth frames a bit.
But I am sure, you would clearly notice difference between missing geometry on 100%. At 200% you can see additional wires hanging and parts of lamp being present. And in forest, far away branches may add some more details.
I do hope that one day we will have that kind of HW which will deliver it all.

 

Yeah, fewer pixels on the same size screens means less pixel density, which means less detail, and more jaggies

As to why i don't see the jaggies... the pixel density is simply so high, that you can't see the indiviual pixels. I have to enlarge the image, to the the jaggies.

I think you need to try a 27 inch 4k display for yourself, to really get how much of a difference it makes

But i don't think anything will be able to run 4k 200 render res (aka 8k) for a looooooong time - gpu advancements are slowing down after all.