Review: Battlefield V: PC graphics performance benchmarks analysis

290x (390x) still going strong.

 

Awesome brother, not done with my 980ti,s yet maybe when the rtx cards have matured

 

hey boss wouldnt it be cool to test against AMD's driver cpu overhead a bit? as in like running a g4560 instead of x99 cpu to test say the rx 570 470 480 580 vs 1050 ti 1060, considering this is such a cpu intensive game

using a high end cpu makes the amd cards look soo good, not to take credit from them since the cards themselves are that good really, but the drivers can make it or break it for the end user, and that user is most likely matching such cards(100-250$ usd) with a 150$ usd cpu at best, like a ryzen 5 2600, and i've seen a friend already go for such a setup only to be left down(i3 6100+rx470) in a fair amount of games

 

Silly EA and their retarded licensing practices. Dont they realize that tech reviewers basically give them free marketing when reviewing their games performance? A 'hardware change' should only affect licensing when it involves multi-components (mobo, cpu, hard drives, etc). A PC with same mobo and hard drive IDs is almost certainly the same machine regardless of multiple GPUs changed.

 

Still have my 290x CFX , just could not pass up on a good deal on a new Gigabyte gaming oc 1080ti for $629.00.

 

Sure Vega 64 runs great but in the opening i getting mutch more fps i think 15-20

It runs great but i dont see avg fps.

 

Great price on the 1080 Ti, and nice system too.

I have the same Windforce 3x cooler, and it keeps my OC 290x at around 70c load - which isn't easy with these cards using 240 watts power.

The Windforce 3x is also one of the quietest coolers going, which is great because my system's all water cooled and I get to do everything in near silence.

p.s.

I'm guessing that's a Zalman on your CPU - I used to have one of those before I went water.

Edit:
Fixed spelling.

 

390X goes still strong. Happy that I never got a newer lower mid range gpu. Best investment!

But with my cpu these numbers are way off.

 

Hi! anyone tested bf5 on the Evga Tiatan X SO(Maxwell)?

 

Just ran it on my R9 fury nitro.
performance is all over the place - lows in the 50's and highs in the 100's but absolutely no consistency.
though my avg is better than here, 45 fps avg on 1080p is really low.
heres to hoping it will get better.

 

Not for nothing but I really wish they threw up some dx11 benchmarks.

For instance I play with a 980TI Classy with around 1500mhz core clock in DX 11 and am averaging around 100fps in 64 player maps at ultra 1080p.

The DX12 numbers say my card only puts out 55fps average which is about half of what I am getting, and IMO kinda misleading.

We really need some DX11 numbers for an accurate representation of cards pre pascal.

 

Yeah I thought so it runs better then that.. more like in 1070ti region, like you are getting.

 

Yea, even in singleplayer I don't see dips below 80fps and since I have gsync monitor anything about 80+fps is silky smooth.

I am actually amazed at how long this GPU has lasted, and yea I know I'm still rocking 1080p but, at least to me personally, I much take a higher framerate than a higher res ( and this is someone who came from a 1440p 60hz IPS panel).

I'm planning on picking up a 1080ti/2080 and a nice 1440p gsync panel. But as of now its not really necessary ( my eyes aren't that great and I feel that 1440p is still the sweet spot for most people.

 

Hilbert Hagedoorn

No rush, but what would be interesting these days is a CPU core comparison for some games. Turn 2 cores off in the BIOS and test 2-4-6-8 CPU cores in the game and see what the FPS difference is (although apparently with 2 CPU cores the game can't load maps, but I can't find accurate data from 8 cores on the internet atm).

It's mostly for 4 cores and upwards, so we can see a point of diminishing returns (which will most likely exist).

 

Well, played some time as have Oaccess.
Not a bad. Nod good either. Runs rather smoothly, in 100FPS range at 1080p, sometimes dips to 80. With 1080 and 8086@5ghz. Weird thing is I think dx11 is enabled, not dx12. Doesn't matter really though.
But
Fkn TXAA that cannot be disabled and making blurry mess completely unusable for snipers or even normal soldier, coz u can spot foes like in 60m range only. Which is bs.
I know, I can use reshade, inject sharpen filter...but...Never liked AA, as almost always it blurrs view, and results in lower perf. I rather prefer see edges, than no see foe in front of me.

And unless there are VERRYYY GOOD players, that can normally throw 42:3 kd ratio, this game from begining suffers from aimaids programs...

 

I get 40 to 50 more frames at ultra 1080p dx11 vs dx12 than a 6gb 1060 with my 3gb ,, games uses 2.8gb vram for me at least thats what afterburner reports

In dx12 I get about the same as this benchmark

 

42/3 KD's are usually campers or really good vehicle players. Or the enemy team is extremely bad. Playing pure infantry and actually trying to cap objectives often leads to dying more. Some of the best infantry players (when it counts) I've seen in BF4 often didn't have 5+ KD's, but more in the range of 2.5-3.5 KD, they're more aggressive and try to push objectives more.

 

Just thought I would add another post, apparently I had forgotten to update graphics driver when I tested my GTX 980 the first time on 1080p High settings Dx11 mode.

After driver update I'm getting 90-100FPS even in single player on High settings with a 1454mhz core and 7600mhz memory (I tweaked my overclock some so it runs cooler than in my profile).

Multiplayer its a bit more random, normal running around its generally 85-90, in areas with nothing going on its closer to 100, and in the sky when flying its 100-120, big explosions and high action scenes I'm normally too focused to check fps, but I'm not feeling slowdowns so probably still in the 75-85 range.

High at 1080p is very similar to ultra to my eyes, ultra does look better but has a huuuuge performance hit as I drop bellow 50 all the time on ultra.

Oh and I'm running on a 120hz monitor so I do see the difference when the frames approach 100fps.

 

Sounds good, I'm interested in seeing the 9900K operating at 4 and 6 cores (hyperthreading on) - to imitate the 7700K and the 8700K. Or better yet, seperate real 7700K & 8700K testing, but disabling cores on 9900K is kinda valid still, although it does have a bigger cache. Thanks for including the 9900K & 2700X results already, now I'm looking forward to seeing the core disabling tests to get an idea of where my overclocked 6700K might stack up! So far the 9900K is proving it's worth for high refresh rate gaming, for my sake I hope this holds true still once 2 and 4 cores have been disabled!