Wednesday, July 4th 2018

AMD Beats NVIDIA's Performance in the Battlefield V Closed Alpha

A report via PCGamesN points to some... interesting performance positioning when it comes to NVIDIA and AMD offerings. Battlefield V is being developed by DICE in collaboration with NVIDIA, but it seems there's some sand in the gears of performance improvements as of now. I say this because according to the report, AMD's RX 580 8 GB graphics card (the only red GPU to be tested) bests NVIDIA's GTX 1060 6GB... by quite a considerable margin at that.

The performance difference across both 1080p and 1440p scenarios (with Ultra settings) ranges in the 30% mark, and as has been usually the case, AMD's offerings are bettering NVIDIA's when a change of render - to DX12 - is made - AMD's cards teeter between consistency or worsening performance under DX 12, but NVIDIA's GTX 1060 consistently delivers worse performance levels. Perhaps we're witnessing some bits of AMD's old collaboration efforts with DICE? Still, It's too early to cry wolf right now - performance will only likely improve between now and the October 19th release date.
Source: PCGamesN
Add your own comment

219 Comments on AMD Beats NVIDIA's Performance in the Battlefield V Closed Alpha

#101
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
"cucker tarlson said:
Frostpunk is a great new game, it should be included and it's AMD problem that they can't optimize it.
Just because a game is "great" doesn't meant it is a good candidate for hardware benchmarking. For benchmarking, it has to have a reliable, repeatable render scene so test runs are consistent. If there's also serious performance issues, the benchmarker needs to contact the hardware manufacturer to verify if the numbers they see are correct. NVIDIA put out a Game Ready driver for it back in April. Prior to that performance was awful. AMD hasn't yet and without contacting AMD for information on their plans for optimizing the game, it shouldn't be used for benchmarks (HU made no statement that they did).
Posted on Reply
#103
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
You're forgetting the type of game it is: strategy. 30 fps is typically enough in those kinds of games so the performance issues aren't hugely reflected in reviews.
Posted on Reply
#104
cucker tarlson
"FordGT90Concept said:
You're forgetting the type of game it is: strategy. 30 fps is typically enough in those kinds of games so the performance issues aren't hugely reflected in reviews.
I didn't play it and neither did you, neither of us know what performance is needed except you think you know it's 30 fps.
Posted on Reply
#105
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
I didn't play it and neither did you, neither of us know what performance is needed except you think you know it's 30 fps.
And I have played it and maxed at out at 1440. I’m getting 75 to 85 FPS in the opening scenario. Only oddity is it absolutely eating all 8GB of VRAM.
Posted on Reply
#106
cucker tarlson
"INSTG8R said:
And I have played it and maxed at out at 1440. I’m getting 75 to 85 FPS in the opening scenario. Only oddity is it absolutely eating all 8GB of VRAM.
Is it in line with other benches ? Do other scenarios play worse ? Seems very good for 1440p. Early benches have Vega with absolutely miserable performance, just like in the last video of 1060 vs 580.

btw how are you liking the game ? I was going to get it on launch but I'm completely occupied with division and battlefront 2.
Posted on Reply
#107
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
Is it in line with other benches ? Do other scenarios play worse ? Seems very good for 1440p.

btw how are you liking the game ? I was going to get it on launch but I'm completely occupied with division and battlefront 2.
I just grabbed it because a mate put some money in my Steam for my birthday last week. I’m really just at that opening scenario and confused. It’s pretty and runs well is my only real opinion right now.
I’ve no reference points against any published benches just my own experience and the FPS counter.
Posted on Reply
#108
MuhammedAbdo
"FordGT90Concept said:
AMD hasn't yet and without contacting AMD for information on their plans for optimizing the game, it shouldn't be used for benchmarks (HU made no statement that they did).
If only you would apply that same logic to BFV alpha!
Posted on Reply
#109
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
AMD has issues too:
<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="HVvFbtXgylA"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HVvFbtXgylA/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVvFbtXgylA" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#110
cucker tarlson
"FordGT90Concept said:
AMD has issues too:
<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="HVvFbtXgylA"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HVvFbtXgylA/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVvFbtXgylA" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Lol. Are the blind amd fanboys in this thread going to open their eyes and see you can't judge performance by alpha now ? This is absolutely unplayable on amd.

btw I follow a few gaming youtube channels and I've seen people getting +100 fps @1440 ultra on their 1080Ti's, I knew the 30-32 fps on 1060 must have been fake.


I suggest two things: either close this thread, or rename it "BF5 unplayable on AMD hardware, fine on nvidia". :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#111
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
Lol. Are the blind amd fanboys in this thread going to open their eyes and see you can't judge performance by alpha now ? This is absolutely unplayable on amd.

btw I follow a few gaming youtube channels and I've seen people getting +100 fps @1440 ultra on their 1080Ti's, I knew the 30-32 fps on 1060 must have been fake.


I suggest two things: either close this thread, or rename it "BF5 unplayable on AMD hardware, fine on nvidia". :laugh:
Do you really think the underlying engine is going to be any different? It’s Frostbite it’s not going to change. Are Nvidia fanboys gonna open their eyes and just accept and AMD product runs it better? I’m sorry your precious crown has been tilted for once but please stop trying to downplay an AMD “win” at any cost. Frostbite was developed pretty closely with AMD so I’m not sure why this is really a big surprise it runs well on their products, just funny watching Green Team making every effort to downplay it despite the fact as a whole the difference is minimal between the 2 cards but just happens to favour AMD slightly.
Posted on Reply
#112
cucker tarlson
"INSTG8R said:
Do you really think the underlying engine is going to be any different? It’s Frostbite it’s not going to change. Are Nvidia fanboys gonna open their eyes and just accept and AMD product runs it better? I’m sorry your precious crown has been tilted for once but please stop trying to downplay an AMD “win” at any cost. Frostbite was developed pretty closely with AMD so I’m not sure why this is really a big surprise it runs well on their products, just funny watching Green Team making every effort to downplay it despite the fact as a whole the difference is minimal between the 2 cards but just happens to favour AMD slightly.


lol did you watch the video ?
and did you see my post saying that it's going to be the same thing as bf1, +5% for nvidia on dx11, +5% for amd on dx12.

apparently you did neither of them.
Posted on Reply
#113
Xaled
"cucker tarlson said:


I suggest two things: either close this thread, or rename it "BF5 unplayable on AMD hardware, fine on nvidia". :laugh:
Or you can either unfollow this thread or logout from tpu forums
Posted on Reply
#114
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:


lol did you watch the video ?
and did you see my post saying that it's going to be the same thing as bf1, +5% for nvidia on dx11, +5% for amd on dx12.

apparently you did neither of them.
I’m just parroting your “fanboy” BS back at you, funny how that works...Like your meaninglessness drivel is any more important than mine... :roll:
Posted on Reply
#115
cucker tarlson
I'm not the one spreading fake alpha benchmarks and making a meal of them. Don't drag me down to Xaled's level of stupidity.

Pcgh uploaded the video, hardwareluxx posted their results too.



Posted on Reply
#116
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
I'm not the one spreading fake alpha benchmarks and making a meal of them. Don't drag me down to this level of stupidity.

Pcgh uploaded the video, hardwareluxx posted their results too.




Then cut the fanboy BS and you won’t look so ignorant...
Posted on Reply
#117
cucker tarlson
I say we leave this thread at all. It's been meaningless since the beginning as we're talking alpha. Yet it was fun to see an amd biased source get crushed by reputable sites. They're the reason for this whole fuss since they think they can poop out any result they want and fanboys would believe them.
Posted on Reply
#118
8tyone
nvidia should step in and cripple the game so that rx580 gets the same fps as that of the gtx1060.
Posted on Reply
#119
Fluffmeister
"FordGT90Concept said:
AMD has issues too:
<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="HVvFbtXgylA"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HVvFbtXgylA/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVvFbtXgylA" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Wow that is horrible on the RX 580, I guess looking at figures on graphs doesn't paint the full picture after all.

If that is the victory some people want, let them have it... i can see why it's a closed alpha!

"8tyone said:
nvidia should step in and cripple the game so that rx580 gets the same fps as that of the gtx1060.
Looking at the vid the 580 gets a higher FPS, enjoy!
Posted on Reply
#120
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator & Combat Squirrel
"Xaled said:
it is 2018/h2 and nVidia fans are still thankful for getting 1080/60 from a 300-400$ card!!..
I can't speak for your country but in mine the Vega 56 is a fair bit pricier than the GTX 1070.
Posted on Reply
#121
INSTG8R
"Tatty_One said:
I can't speak for your country but in mine the Vega 56 is a fair bit pricier than the GTX 1070.
Well I just purchased the hands down best Vega out there(Nitro+) for 7500kr a 1080Ti from any big name is 9000kr+ So I think I’m getting the right performance for what I paid for.
Edit: checked current pricing
Posted on Reply
#122
cucker tarlson
"INSTG8R said:
Well I just purchased the hands down best Vega out there(Nitro+) for 7500kr a 1080Ti from any big name is 9000kr+ So I think I’m getting the right performance for what I paid for.
Edit: checked current pricing
How much is a decent 1080 ? Not talking most expensive aib, talking a decent one.
btw Sapphire are amazing, wish they made coolers for nvidia too. my 290 trixx was whisper quiet despite the power draw.
Posted on Reply
#123
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
How much is a decent 1080 ? Not talking most expensive aib, talking a decent one.
6000kr average.
Posted on Reply
#124
cucker tarlson
"INSTG8R said:
6000kr average.
Then it's a pretty bad deal paying 25% more for v64 with same performance,same amount of vram and huge power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#125
INSTG8R
"cucker tarlson said:
Then it's a pretty bad deal paying 25% more for v64 with same performannce,same amount of vram and huge power consumption.
Sapphire and my FreeSync monitor dictates my purchasing decisions.I had a Fury so my only AMD upgrade path is Vega. I don’t use more than 240W I don’t consider that “huge” Idle is most impressive, 10-11W and 26mhz. I’m not disappointed.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment