• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Star Wars Battlefront Beta GFX benchmarks.

Games runs like total horse **** on my system, single card is fine average about 80fps (1440p-max settings) if I enable cf my fps is terrible, never goes above a hundred and stutters like crazy..
 
Very happy with performance so far. Full ultra 1440p i7 3770k single 290 stays abobe 60fps
For me though I like just little more fps so what I do is drop AO down to high, shadows high and lighting to high everything else is Ultra very nice looking game.
 
shankly1985 said:
Battlefront Graphics and Audio are top quality but thats where it ends for me. decent gameplay but I just couldn't see me playing for long.
Click to expand...

I'm really not impressed by it, you don't get given a place to spawn option, instead it chooses that place for you and invariably if you die in that place it puts you right back in it over and over again, often in a place thats completely over run and it will drop you right in the middle of your enemy position.

One time a pillbox killed me, its spawned me in exactly the same place it killed me, it killed me again instantly, the game spawned me in the same place yet again, this time the pillbox was waiting for me to appear there and killed me as soon as i did, and one more time it did the same thing again before on the fifth time it spawned me inside so i could continue with the game.

Completely insane and i will not be buying it if this is DICE idea of a fun game.
 
So some numbers. I am talking about multiplayer with 40 slots full. GTX 570 1080p low: 100-130 fps, medium around 100 and high 80-100 fps . I haven't tried ultra settings yet. I bet i will be around 50 easy.

So i did i quick run at ultra settings and 1080p. FPS between 50-80.
 
Really nice performance @ 1440P with single 980 Ti, well above the magical 60 FPS :P

Liking the game, fun and very very pretty. Played it on the X1 on the massive lounge telly as well, looked pretty awesome on there as well.

Hope the way they made the game assets / graphics models can translate over to BF5. The graphics on this game really are a bit stunning.
 
Liking the style, sound design in particular, other than that it's a poor game. 980 Ti churning up fps well above 120 on average, at 1080p with FXAA and everything set on ultra.
 
Looks good, plays nice but not interested sadly. No idea what is missing but I just wasn't feeling it and in no time at all, I was bored.
 
ICDP said:
The 980Ti (reference and AIB) will generally OC to 1450-1500ish. The issue is keeping those clocks, while it may seem logical that AIB custom cooled version will hold OCs longer this is not my experience. My 980Ti EVGA SC+ ACX will happily OC to 1450 but will drop to mid 1300s after 15-20 minutes in W3. The AIBs dump air into the case and this does not help keeping the GPU cool.

I only managed to eliminate this core clock dropping by adding AIO WC Accellero Xtreme Hybrid. This kept the core clock at 1430-1450 OC.

Obviously the 980Ti is an excellent overclockers compared to AMD Fury X, AKA "overclockers dream" (still makes me laugh). Though it must be considered that base boost clocks on even reference 980Ti cards are generally 1270-1300 or so. They just don't stay there long, though most reviews cottoned on to this Nvidia unsustainable speed boost that only lasted 10-15 minutes at best.

So in general most review sites will run their cards for a heat up period. When they do the 980Ti is still overall a superior card to an R9 Fury X. The Fury X is still an excellent GPU, just overpriced compared to 980Ti IMHO.
Click to expand...

That I can agree on and im not defending the furyx. The 980ti is the better card I just dont get this stock argument is all. The fury x and nano need price drops to be taken seriously and they need voltage control too.
 
ICDP said:
The 980Ti (reference and AIB) will generally OC to 1450-1500ish. The issue is keeping those clocks, while it may seem logical that AIB custom cooled version will hold OCs longer this is not my experience. My 980Ti EVGA SC+ ACX will happily OC to 1450 but will drop to mid 1300s after 15-20 minutes in W3. The AIBs dump air into the case and this does not help keeping the GPU cool.

I only managed to eliminate this core clock dropping by adding AIO WC Accellero Xtreme Hybrid. This kept the core clock at 1430-1450 OC.

Obviously the 980Ti is an excellent overclockers compared to AMD Fury X, AKA "overclockers dream" (still makes me laugh). Though it must be considered that base boost clocks on even reference 980Ti cards are generally 1270-1300 or so. They just don't stay there long, though most reviews cottoned on to this Nvidia unsustainable speed boost that only lasted 10-15 minutes at best.

So in general most review sites will run their cards for a heat up period. When they do the 980Ti is still overall a superior card to an R9 Fury X. The Fury X is still an excellent GPU, just overpriced compared to 980Ti IMHO.
Click to expand...

You must have very poor case airflow then, as both my MSI and Asus cards will do 1500's locked or 1450 in SLI with no core dropping no matter the time spent
 
r7slayer said:
Actually yes I was. Dnt tell me what I wasnt or was talking about. If anyone knows its obviously me and if u read I was talking about this whole stock crap ppl bangin onabout... when reference models overclock well past thier stated Base line clock. Aibs cards only do a extra couple hundred on air at best. Well Nvidia 980ti does anyways. The Amd cards dont do this. So saying errr but nerrr its reference... Is a stupid argument when the reference 980ti dosnt even stay near its reference clocks.
Click to expand...

The cards and results in the reviews are reference cards on stock settings, so they'll be running at 1200ish... They will overclock to 1400 but that's not the results in the review
Then you have the fact that most cards sold are not reference cards, so will be running at 1300-1400 out of the box, so my original comment was that even without manual overclocking, most actual owners will be running the game with better results than the review shows.

The end result is that for most people, the results in the review will have been understated by around 15%, and more if you allow for manual overclocking.
 
Last edited:
Getting a solid 70+fps @ 4k 100% max settings (with AA) with 980ti SLI (1530 +550 mem) & 5930k CPU @ 5.75ghz - lowest drop is to about 58fps so far I saw, but no visible hitching.

I'll run a proper benchmark later, but the results so far seem very good (judging by the MSI afteburner overlay frames).
 
Last edited:
Well, it seems at this stage, the empire always wins the Hoth battle. I would just have Luke as a hero option and drop Vader. There were seven of us surrounding him blasting away and he just cut through us.
My 290 still doing a stella job on 1080p which is good news.
 
I'm getting 60fps vsync ed with only minor dips at 1440p ultra with 120% resolution scaling. At 100% it's locked solid to 60fps seems fairly low requirement tbh
 
Devrij said:
I'm getting 60fps vsync ed with only minor dips at 1440p ultra with 120% resolution scaling. At 100% it's locked solid to 60fps seems fairly low requirement tbh
Click to expand...

I'm getting the same! 60fps using v-sync no drops from what I can see, running 980Ti with a 4790k
 
Yeah Lok. Strong performance visually but the game itself is ... beyond disappointing. I suppose it'd keep 5-10 year olds happy though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom