• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Battlefield V Benchmark Performance Analysis

Would like to see the 970 in this seeing how the memory situation works out.
 
wehh, if there is rx 580 i think there should be gtx 1070 ti gpu, why not?

too much nvidia winners..

anyway, i cant ever wonder how lausy junk gpu amd vega gpu series are, vega64 loose 2070 average gpu...well its nothing but vega64 eat almost 100%... yes you read right 100% more power than nvidia 2070
..and for dot.. vega64 eat more than 2080 ti gpu... i think every1 can imagine how lausy junk gpus amd offer as.. i call it piiing eye and lie...

also this kind test should included gpu powerdraws.

Ummm What?

disgstd.gif


Apart from that, thanks for the benchmark Wizzard. :toast:
 
Would like to see the 970 in this seeing how the memory situation works out.
added 970 results just for you

also added 1080, 1070 ti, fury x
 
Last edited:
Who gives a fuck about compute performance of these cards? these are both gaming GPUs, try to understand it dude.
And again, GTX 1080 is a better card in all aspects that actually matter (more overclocking headroom, better overall gaming performance and better efficiency)
did you even watch the video?

Just saying how stupid your comment was, and made me laugh very hard, thanks, and B-Real.

Thanks for the GTX 970 and Vega 56 number, weird how it's barely faster than 1060 3gig in 1080p but in 1440p its significantly faster than 1060.
Good to see Vega 56 trading blows with RTX 2070 in 1440p and 4k.
 
weird how it's barely faster than 1060 3gig in 1080p but in 1440p its significantly faster than 1060.
1060 3 GB still does ok in 1080p, but lack of memory is starting to affect it on 1440p, whereas the 4 GB cards can still handle 1440p
 
1060 3 GB still does ok in 1080p, but lack of memory is starting to affect it on 1440p, whereas the 4 GB cards can still handle 1440p
Thanks for doing your best within the restrictions.

Can we expect more testing at a later date? E.g. how does various 3 GB and 4 GB cards handle lower detail settings?
 
Why do you insist on dx12 while dx11 runs better for both amd and nvidia ? Explain.
 
Why do you insist on dx12 while dx11 runs better for both amd and nvidia ? Explain.
Well if Nvidia wants to show off their RTX they better get it running better on DX12 they shouldn’t get a gimme.
 
Well if Nvidia wants to show off their RTX they better get it running better on DX12 they shouldn’t get a gimme.
yes,this is another downside I just realized today. in order to use dxr, the 20 series cards have to run on this broken api. I ran BF1 on dx12 and the experience was smooth, but it still delivered more fps on dx11.
 
1080ti master race :rockout::rockout::rockout::rockout:

Looking forward to seeing the CPU scaling review
 
Played a bit yesterday and it looks really good, I get between 75-110 fps mostly in the 90's. I will have a 1080Ti in a couple of days and I hope I can have constant 100+ fps
 
Prosthetic arm woman that overpowers men in hand to hand combat, on the Western Front and we have to grow up ? adding womans to a video game, fine.
Adding cyborg-women and calling someone who disagrees with, a child or uneducated, not fine.
My grandfather was an officer, fought in WW2, Eastern Front, got a lot of "recognition" from the communists for it after August 1944, wonder what he would have said about this ... re-writing of history.
I’m quoting droopyRO because I agree and it’s the same topic.

I’ve got to say @W1zzard, for those of us educated in college and beyond with a plethora of history classes, and well versed in studious historians like Stephen Ambrose, to be so dismissive of us and our knowledge of history is rather off-putting.

EA took complete “poetic” or “artistic” license with this, because in actuality, despite 300 million people fighting, this was not historical fact, especially on the Western Front. You had some female partisans, sure, but that’s about it. Every army used their women in support roles, far from the front.

Anyway, your dismissiveness of those who want a historically based game to at least try to be a little accurate really doesn’t belong in a review.

When sticking to the performance matters, you gave a fine review as always.

for me, amd radeon did a good job and clear winner here.
thanks for the review.
Not exactly clear winner, but it was nice to see the Vega64 right up behind the 1080Ti. :)
 
So sad its 2018 and again 16:9 , I thought 21:9 was the minimum standard. Even mobile phones get pass this old 16:9 ratio.
 
So sad its 2018 and again 16:9 , I thought 21:9 was the minimum standard. Even mobile phones get pass this old 16:9 ratio.
Well between 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440 you have 65 to 70% of the monitor market. Both resolutions are 16:9.

You don’t ignore what most people play at.
 
Had I tested in DX11 only, what would you say?
I asked for dx11 so if you tested in dx11, that would please me. PCGH,computerbase and guru3d all tested in dx11 cause it's better. TPU is the only site that always tests in dx12 even if it runs worse. That was the case with BF1 and Deus Ex, though I can kind of understand those since at least it provides some performance improvement for Radeons. BF5 runs better in dx11 on all cards.
 
Last edited:
Had I tested in DX11 only, what would you say?

I am glad you didn't, we gotta move on at some point. The transition from DX11 is slow and painful as it is, I am happy you tested DX12 first.

I thought 21:9 was the minimum standard.

Well, clearly you thought wrong. Monitors/TVs are overwhelmingly still 16:9.
 
I can honestly say as well that dx11 runs better for me...dx12 is stuttering
 
I can honestly say as well that dx11 runs better for me...dx12 is stuttering
DX12 has problems in another recent game that it shipped with and that it is automatically set to run with, Shadow of The Tomb Raider. DX11 ran much better and both looked the same.

I honestly think it will be awhile before developers get it nailed down. And that is going to be bad for RTX features to be implemented.
 
as mentioned before in the comments and in the review, there is only 5 hardware changes possible within 24 hours. how did i bench more than 5 cards? i bought three subscriptions and had to prioritize cards

I hope you've 2FA'd those accounts. There are people who target Origin accounts like yours and take over them to play new games for free and cheat with impunity.
 
GTX 970 @1440p doing great and this is at stock clocks , with a good overclock on the 970 will push it to a GTX1060 6GB performance
 
DX11 is better for BF1 and BFv both runs smoother , and I can't remember a game where dx12 is better than dx11 , maybe a bit more fps but strutting is a killer especially in multiplayer .
 
look at this. dx12 is the biggest piece of dud in the recent years. it's been like 3 years since it was released and it still absolutely sucks.that's why I'm so surprised to see tpu always push dx12 as this thing of the future while other tech sites gave it up a long time ago, testing dx11 where it runs better (almost everywhere)

 
look at this. dx12 is the biggest piece of dud in the recent years. it's been like 3 years since it was released and it still absolutely sucks.that's why I'm so surprised to see tpu always push dx12 as this thing of the future while other tech sites gave it up a long time ago, testing dx11 where it runs better (almost everywhere)
Direct3D 12 is going to continue to suck until we get native Direct3D 12 games, which will not happen until Direct3D 11 support is dropped and they stop using Direct3D 11-like abstraction layers, if it's ever going to be used properly in most games…

This is not Direct3D's fault, it's the developers and of course tech sites giving people the wrong expectations.
 
Back
Top