( Updated )Star Wars Battlefront Benchmarked On Nvidia And AMD, Runs Best On Radeon – Exceptionally Well Optimized Across The Board

[don_svetlio]

IMO Titan X was a poorly designed card. Asides from that, its way overpriced. 980ti gets about the same performance for $350 cheaper. Titan X actually got worse frame rates than the 980ti running this game.

 

Usually when a 980 Ti outperforms a Titan X, there's some thermal throttling at play. Though I suppose that is consistent with the "poorly designed" point.

Titan X thermal throttles like a true champ. It NEEDS a good cooler in order to get ahead. 980 Ti reference is the same.

Normally this is where I'd point out how much more practical using a AiO for a flagship card is but I don't want to start a flame war or anything so yeah

[Prysin]

Sorry, but this is just not true for most Maxwell cards. You are showing factory OC'd cards that boost higher. Understand, reference GTX 960 is clocked in at 1127mhz, boost clock is 1178, but real world boost is somewhere in the ball park of 1200-1225 depending on multiple factors (thermals, lottery, etc). Each of the cards you linked, has a factory OC of 100mhz or more, and after market coolers designed to handle that extra cooling. They are not only clocked higher out of the box, but the improved coolers allow them to boost even higher too. 

 

Looking at Maxwell across the full spectrum of their lineup (from the GTX 750, all the way to the GTX Titan X) it's safe to say your 1400mhz number is not accurate for all Maxwell cards. 

then again, the most sold cards ARE custom version and not reference versions. So his point is more relevant anyway.

 

you do not go out to buy a reference 960 or whatever, hell dunno if you can even find any more reference cards at all or if they even are sold anymore. you go out to buy a Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte, MSI, Zotac, Palit or Gainward card.... which in 99.9% of cases is not using a reference blower type cooler.

[ACatWithThumbs]

 

 

Also there reason why they don't use those features like MFAA is because that is comparing Apples to oranges. AMD cards don't even support MFAA, Nvidia cards don't support Mantle etc. Benchmarks have to be in a Apples to Apples comparison otherwise we can't objectively compare the cards. Further more games have to support features like MFAA and not many do just like a lot of games don't support TXAA or AMDs EQAA.

Everyone is well aware that Nvidia does not use the same methodology with their technologies that AMD does. I'm not gonna be like "oh black boxed middleware," it's like TressFX vs HairWorks while Hairworks looks better IMO, but TressFX is open source as a programmer it much easier to optimize for code you can actually look at (At least in my experience as a developer).

The majority of the cards are sold way above stock from third party vendors.

MFAA doesn't need game support you turn it on in the control panel and it changes the way the GPU handles MSAA so it should be 100% included in every benchmark that has AA turned on otherwise it is showing false performance.

 

[PortentousLad]

I can't believe the bench is with DX11.

I would like to see DX12 benches as well though.

I'm gonna enjoy showing my flatmate just how much better it looks on my 285 then his Xbone

[FratStar]

The majority of the cards are sold way above stock from third party vendors.

MFAA doesn't need game support you turn it on in the control panel and it changes the way the GPU handles MSAA so it should be 100% included in every benchmark that has AA turned on otherwise it is showing false performance.

 

 

Exactly, if as many people took the time to manually OC their graphics cards we wouldn't need GPU Boost.

The bit about MFAA I did not know since I don't own a NV graphics cards, my point about apples to apples comparisons still stands. No one would ever take benchmarks like that seriously, unless you aren't using those types of benchmarks to compare graphics cards from AMD & NV.

[RagnarokDel]

Im sure custom 980tis will lead the field.

I wish there were R9 fury Xs overclocked by 30%+ too

[Praesi]

I wish there were R9 fury Xs overclocked by 30%+ too

Ya, strange AMD dont try something like that.

[Prysin]

Ya, strange AMD dont try something like that.

if they had done that... Nvidia wouldnt have any cards to sell.... would be unfair for Nvidia...

[Clyne]

That's NVidia for you with planned obsolescence and weak architecture.

That's like old previous generation cards.

Tesla was like, you want dx11 then buy a new card.

Fermi and Kepler lacked enough VRAM to use now.

Maxwell is just a power efficient generation and Nvidia didn't a lot in improving raw performance.

[Notional]

That's like old previous generation cards.

Tesla was like, you want dx11 then buy a new card.

Fermi and Kepler lacked enough VRAM to use now.

Maxwell is just a power efficient generation and Nvidia didn't a lot in improving raw performance.

 

Maxwell's power efficiency came at great cost, with poor compute, poor hardware schedulers, not being able to do concurrent async compute, etc.

 

I've just tried this beta and can confirm the numbers. With everything on ultra at 1080p, my 290 beats a 780ti. A 780ti!! The card that used to beat a 290x and came with a hefty price premium. It's a joke now, because it won't get the necessary driver optimizations anymore, as needed when these cards are more dependant on driver updates/optimizations, than proper hardware.

[Briggsy]

That's like old previous generation cards.

Tesla was like, you want dx11 then buy a new card.

Fermi and Kepler lacked enough VRAM to use now.

Maxwell is just a power efficient generation and Nvidia didn't a lot in improving raw performance.

 

Maxwell was also a huge cost cutting measure by Nvidia. If i recall, they had to sell 2 Kepler cards to make the same profit of one equally priced Maxwell card.

 

The efficiency was a one two punch with Maxwell. They implemented their 3rd Gen Delta color compression (comparable to AMD's Tonga and Fiji color compression), but they also went full out with shader recompiling, where the cpu recompiles/compresses graphic shaders, lowering the amount of draw calls needed per frame as the GPU contains the hardware necessary to work with the recompiled shader. Nvidia removed the schedulers from the Maxwell GPU, and used the spare cpu cycles saved from reduced draw calls to schedule the graphic pipeline in the GPU. Really clever, but it also means Nvidia has to optimize their drivers for every single game to get the best performance. 

[Clyne]

Maxwell's power efficiency came at great cost, with poor compute, poor hardware schedulers, not being able to do concurrent async compute, etc.

I've just tried this beta and can confirm the numbers. With everything on ultra at 1080p, my 290 beats a 780ti. A 780ti!! The card that used to beat a 290x and came with a hefty price premium. It's a joke now, because it won't get the necessary driver optimizations anymore, as needed when these cards are more dependant on driver updates/optimizations, than proper hardware.

My gtx 280 is a old card and can't even use it now. I feel like Nvidia gave up on pre maxwell cards and just focused on optimizing maxwell to have similar performance to CGN cards...

[Clyne]

Maxwell was also a huge cost cutting measure by Nvidia. If i recall, they had to sell 2 Kepler cards to make the same profit of one equally priced Maxwell card.

The efficiency was a one two punch with Maxwell. They implemented their 3rd Gen Delta color compression (comparable to AMD's Tonga and Fiji color compression), but they also went full out with shader recompiling, where the cpu recompiles/compresses graphic shaders, lowering the amount of draw calls needed per frame as the GPU contains the hardware necessary to work with the recompiled shader. Nvidia removed the schedulers from the Maxwell GPU, and used the spare cpu cycles saved from reduced draw calls to schedule the graphic pipeline in the GPU. Really clever, but it also means Nvidia has to optimize their drivers for every single game to get the best performance.

Since they removed some features/shaders things to improve power efficiently, they had to optimize the card well or else it would be a dead card/wouldn't perform well. That's why I hate Maxwell. Basically what you posted is what I'm trying to say about Maxwell.

I'm glad it had color tho...if you get what I mean if you refer to James Maxwell with photos.[emoji6]

[Prysin]

Maxwell's power efficiency came at great cost, with poor compute, poor hardware schedulers, not being able to do concurrent async compute, etc.

 

I've just tried this beta and can confirm the numbers. With everything on ultra at 1080p, my 290 beats a 780ti. A 780ti!! The card that used to beat a 290x and came with a hefty price premium. It's a joke now, because it won't get the necessary driver optimizations anymore, as needed when these cards are more dependant on driver updates/optimizations, than proper hardware.

i did some testing of the Beta too..

 

R9 295x2 fires up at 100% load on both GPUs...

Crossfire works in fullscreen.... my overlay is broken so i cannot see my FPS atm ;(

[TorqueS]

Fraps?

 

Edit: Oh wait...295x2...EA(dice)....mantle, yeah...sorry.

[Notional]

Fraps?

 

Edit: Oh wait...295x2...EA(dice)....mantle, yeah...sorry.

 

Battlefront is DX11 only.

[MageTank]

A reference 970/980 cannot OC for shit - THERMAL GATE PARTY!

Really though - if you compare reference vs reference then the Fury X > 980 Ti as the GM200 core throttles like a boss.

If you want to compare reference vs reference then Maxwell are not worth a damn considering they MUST be OCed to stand their ground.

And a page or so back a guy got 1450 on his Maxwell GPU without touching shit. Go educate yourself, run along now.

You may want to treat people that are not hostile towards you with a little more respect. Being arrogant only ends badly around me. You specifically said "GPU boost 2.0 can get a Maxwell card to 1400 out of the box". It's simply not true. Even if we look at non-reference. Show me a GTX 750, 750 Ti, 950, etc that can hit 1400 out of the box. The only cards that do, are the exotic factory overclocked cards. You are also the uneducated one, because the reference coolers CAN OC quite well. Your "Thermal Gate" nonsense is just you being a biased fanboy. 

 

You see, the stock reference cooler's fan curve is so low, that it doesn't even make a noise, even at 80-84C. You can throw it to 70% fan speed, and still surpass the advertised boost speed without ever seeing a boost throttle of 84C. 

 

then again, the most sold cards ARE custom version and not reference versions. So his point is more relevant anyway.

 

you do not go out to buy a reference 960 or whatever, hell dunno if you can even find any more reference cards at all or if they even are sold anymore. you go out to buy a Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte, MSI, Zotac, Palit or Gainward card.... which in 99.9% of cases is not using a reference blower type cooler.

I don't know where you get your statistics from, but they are also not true. You can find reference Nvidia cards anywhere online, and at stores such as Best Buy and even Staples here in the US. Remember, reference x60 cards do not have the magnesium shroud that the x70, x80's and titan class cards have. 

 

960 reference cards (They are reference, just manufactured by MSI and PNY)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pny-gtx-960-2048mb-gddr5-pci-e-3-0-graphics-card-multi/1313112985.p?id=mp1313112985&skuId=1313112985

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/msi-geforce-gtx-960-graphic-card-multi/1313264851.p?id=mp1313264851&skuId=1313264851

 

970 reference card

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-4gb-gddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card-silver-black/9855169.p?id=1219441201895&skuId=9855169

 

Plethora of reference cards on newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127842

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133579

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133563

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487067

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487068 (Superclocked edition with stock cooler? but..but... thermal problems!?!?!)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133611

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500376

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487139

 

Face it. Reference cards exist, and they work. You can't find a better card to handle SLI than reference blowers (unless you put a water block on them, or invest in those ASUS turbo cards that they don't make for the 980 or 980 Ti yet). Yes, they run hotter, its a known fact. The reason they run hotter is because their fan curves are very tame. If you don't mind your card sounding like a jet engine, you can throw your fan speeds to 100% and OC just as well as even the best G1 or Strix cards (Maxwell scales well with high ASIC numbers, so keep that in mind). 

 

Point is, not every Maxwell card boosts to 1400 out of the box. If you OC them, yes, 1400 is quite easily achievable. 1300 would be a much safer, and accurate statement when comparing the averages of every Maxwell family card. Remember, Maxwell starts with the GTX 750, and ends with the Titan X. To say all of those can boost to 1400 out of the box is just silly, don't you think?

 

Now @don_svetlio, be sure to really dig into me. Just remember to ask me for sources to my claims. I'll happily oblige. Just make sure you have the time to deal with me. The last two people that tried gave up before i could even stretch my legs.

[MageTank]

@don_svetlio

 

I was impatient and did my own googling. Found some 950's that boost into 1400's.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487159&cm_re=gtx_950-_-14-487-159-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500387&cm_re=gtx_950-_-14-500-387-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487158&cm_re=gtx_950-_-14-487-158-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125823&cm_re=gtx_950-_-14-125-823-_-Product

 

Feel free to use this against me.

[DaRk0]

I actually like how DICE is optimizing their games. BF4 runs smoothly on my 780. Yes, they're EA studio, however, they have some top notch developers. One of the best in the gaming industry I would say.

[captain cactus]

An EA game that runs well? No way. /s

[XTankSlayerX]

I actually like how DICE is optimizing their games. BF4 runs smoothly on my 780. Yes, they're EA studio, however, they have some top notch developers. One of the best in the gaming industry I would say.

Yeah, I'd say they're the best for the devs (They have some legit bloody awesome studios) and they're all one of the best for gamers too.

 

An EA game that runs well? No way. /s

Your username suits you.

[Doobeedoo]

I've been playing it on both maps. More or less same performance.
1080p @ Ultra
FX 8350 stock clock
R9 290  stock clock
16GB

It was 60+ FPS
 

[Thony]

Its in beta and it already runs just like BF 4, 2 years after release

33-56 FPS on my PC, 1080p Ultra.

I wonder if at 4K the game uses more than 8GB of RAM. On my system at ultra it only uses litle under 4GB.

[SeanBond]

780ti beating a 970 on all 3 tests, poor 970s.  I guess technically the 780ti is more powerful than a 970, I never knew the gap was so large

Sounds like someone was feeding you steaming piles off the maxwell bandwagon. In reality the 980 is only a bit better than 780ti if you overclock both cards. Maxwell only looks so good because of the really aggresive clocks, which also lead to not so high percentage of overclocks compared to the 700 series. 

[Prysin]

awesome to see how it performs even on a low end CPU

i got some nice numbers for you guys..

R9 295x2, at 3440x1440p

i get around 54 to 61 FPS at best, it does dip down to 30s during intense clashes.