Battlefield 2042 Benchmarked

EA's latest Battlefield championship recently debuted and it's arrived to some gameplay and connectivity bug, just we're not going to waste time talking about gameplay or review this title, instead we'll take the opportunity to measure graphics carte performance, then you can get an thought of what you'll need to become into the action.

Battlefield 2042 is powered past the Frostbite game engine, developer DICE is relying on the third iteration of the engine which was besides used by Battlefield 5, Battlefield one, Battlefield Hardline and Battlefield 4. If you've seen whatever gameplay of this latest title, you can expect a modified or upgraded version of Frostbite that supports new weather furnishings amid other things.

Visually, Battleground 2042 is scenic and certainly i of the best-looking games we've experienced. Nosotros first jumped in with an RTX 3090 at 4K and frame rates were decent, non as high as we'd similar for competitive gameplay, but they were surprisingly skillful given the visuals. Still, nosotros couldn't help just call back the game was going to murder mid-range hardware and even 1080p would be a struggle with a minor graphics card, but we've got to say, information technology's far better optimized than we were expecting.

That isn't to say the game is without issues and of course, we had to deal with the crappy Origin launcher and the 5 hardware lockout DRM trash, just after ownership a little over half a dozen EA Play accounts for a month, plus my personal Steam version, I have been able to test a good number of GPUs over the by 3 days.

Then, permit'southward talk about testing, as Battlefield games are e'er fun in that regard. Given this is a multiplayer-just game, we're forced to exam that and while I'grand certain many of you would dearest us to leap into a 64-actor Conquest friction match to do all of our testing, it's simply non feasible nor accurate.

Even if we were to only compare ii unlike hardware configurations, yous'd all the same demand dozens of benchmark runs only to get a ballpark comparison. That's due to the dynamic nature of multiplayer games, depending on where other players are on the map and what they're doing, system performance can vary quite a lot, making run-to-run variance inconsistent.

Our piece of work around here was to use the new 'Portal' style to create our own criterion server with AI, every bit this would be both CPU and GPU heavy and likely practice a expert job of accurately representing real-world operation. Sadly, this existence an EA game, that feature didn't work for the first 2 days of testing, so we were unable to try it.

Instead, we've used the Arica Harbor 'free-for-all' custom feel without any other players. At present, before yous stamp your feet in protest, claiming this isn't an accurate fashion to exam as information technology doesn't replicate the kind of load you'll see in a big multiplier game, that's non actually true for a GPU exam. I know this because I spent a lot of time comparing both modes on the same map.

The reason for this is that boosted players don't massively increase the GPU load, but rather the CPU load, and because we're testing with a Ryzen 9 5950X using depression-latency memory, at no point was either examination mode budgeted anywhere most CPU-limited performance. In fact, the frame rates were almost always close, merely it was easier to control the test scene without players shooting at me.

To be clear, for GPU testing this mode is perfectly fine and since we're merely interested in GPU performance for this video, the method works. What information technology's non suitable for is CPU testing and for that we'll use a completely different method, hopefully using Portal to create a custom match.

For testing we take data from 33 different GPUs at 3 resolutions and two visual quality presets. Then for a bonus, we've included ray tracing results likewise. Our testbed is powered by the Ryzen 9 5950X and 32GB of dual-rank, dual-aqueduct DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. Now allow'south jump into the information.

Benchmarks

Ultra Quality Performance

Starting with the 1080p ultra quality information we find that the GeForce RTX 3090, 3080 Ti, Radeon RX 6900 XT and RTX 3080 all pushed up over 150 fps while keeping the 1% depression above 100 fps, so groovy operation at that place given the visuals.

The 6800 XT was also right there, basically matching the RTX 3080.

Then we see a scrap of a drop down to the RX 6800 and RTX 3070 Ti, only again both did maintain over 100 fps at all times. The RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 3070, 6700 XT and 3060 Ti were all fairly comparable and did boilerplate over 100 fps.

And so we drop down another performance tier with the RTX 2080, 2070 Super, 5700 XT, 6600 XT, 1080 Ti and RTX 3060. Here we have however some other new game where the 5700 XT is institute punching well above its weight, beating not just the 1080 Ti, but basically matching the 2070 Super, a product if yous call up price $100 more. A very impressive result from the 5700 XT, while the 6600 XT was a lot less impressive, but we've come to expect that.

Now if nosotros head downwards towards 60 fps on average, nosotros notice the GTX 1080, 1660 Ti and Vega 56. Vega also does well here as traditionally you would have expected Vega 56 to virtually match the GTX 1080, merely that's what we're seeing here and that meant information technology did crush the GTX 1070, which only managed to average 60 fps.

So nosotros accept the 5500 XT 8GB hanging in there with 54 fps on average, making information technology only slightly faster than the never-say-die RX 580, which edged out its competitor, the GTX 1060. Meanwhile the 4GB cards all died a slow and painful death with the 5500 XT unable to deliver playable functioning, while the GTX 1650 serial were almost impossible to exam.

Jumping up to 1440p we come across that the Ampere GPUs beginning to take over with the RTX 3090, 3080 Ti and 3080 all pulling alee of the 6900 XT in our examination. The 6900 XT averaged 112 fps, making it a few frames faster than the 6800 XT which was 10% faster than the vanilla 6800.

The Radeon RX 6800 did compete well with the RTX 3070 Ti and 3070, and I got the feeling that VRAM was starting to become an issue hither for some of the faster 8GB cards. The 2080 Ti, for example, felt smoother than the newer RTX 3070, despite the frame rates being nearly identical. It's possible afterward a longer test menses that the 3070 would start to struggle with retentiveness usage.

Again, frame time consistency was better with the 12GB 6700 XT though as we driblet downwards the list, the slower 8GB cards seem less phased by VRAM consumption, at least in our fairly short 3-run average testing. The 5700 XT tin can exist plant punching above its weight again, almost matching the 2070 Super, making it a skillful bit faster than the RTX 2060 Super and 2070.

The RTX 3060 also performed well with just over 60 fps on average and so we see the 2060 Super and 2070 basically striking 60 fps. The 5600 XT and 6600 were able to deliver a good playable experience just shy of threescore fps. The RTX 2060 did well at 1440p despite the more limited 6GB VRAM buffer.

Interestingly, the movement up to 1440p saw Vega 56 match the GTX 1080, an impressive effect for the old GCN architecture. Most of the Pascal GPUs struggled at this resolution and nosotros run into below the GTX 1070 that the 5500 XT and 580 weren't that playable, at least past competitive online shooter standards. Anything with merely 4GB of VRAM was unplayable using the ultra quality settings.

Moving to 4K, we have a lot less usable data, the RTX 3090 pumped out an impressive 80 fps which made for a scenic experience. This may be less than what I'd want for a multiplayer shooter, but as far as the visual experience goes it was incredible. The same can be said nearly the 3080 Ti and fifty-fifty the standard RTX 3080. The 6900 XT and 6800 XT were less impressive as the 1% depression wasn't kept higher up threescore fps, but overall however a nice experience.

For those wanting to go on the average over threescore fps, you'll find yourself struggling with an RTX 3070 Ti or RX 6800, and by the time we become downwards to the 5700 XT and 2070 Super we were struggling to keep frames per second in a higher place 40.

Medium Quality Performance

Let's punch back the quality preset a few notches from 'Ultra' to 'Medium'. Doing so greatly reduces VRAM requirements, and of form, overall GPU horsepower. As a result, the 6900 XT is now pushing near 200 fps at 1080p with most current generation loftier-end GPUs good for over 170 fps. In fact, if we scroll down to previous generation mid-range parts similar the 5600 XT and RTX 2060, we detect that nether these weather condition those parts are skillful for just over 100 fps.

Incredibly, about graphics cards are able to deliver highly playable performance at 1080p using the medium quality preset. For lx fps you need merely an RX 580, 1650 Super or GTX 1060.

Jumping upward to 1440p still sees most GPUs able to evangelize highly playable operation with the medium quality preset. Once again the high-end current generation GPUs are pushing over 140 fps with previous gen models all the same easily breaking the 100 fps bulwark.

Nosotros encounter that the 2070 Super is a bit faster than the 5700 XT with 95 fps on average versus 87, while the 1080 Ti was expert for 82 fps. Fifty-fifty Vega 56 performed well with 66 fps on average and incredibly that got information technology very close to the 2060 Super. Meanwhile the RX 580 did dip down to 47 fps on average, but that still meant information technology was 18% faster than the GTX 1060 6GB.

At 4K resolution the high-terminate Ampere GPUs come up simply short of 100 fps which is a cracking result, especially given the 6900 XT averaged 86 fps, making it slower than the RTX 3080. Further down the stack, the RX 6800 did well edging out the 3070 Ti and comfortably chirapsia the standard 3070.

For around 60 fps, you'll require the RTX 3060 Ti, 2080 Ti or 3070, with the Radeon RX 6700 XT but falling brusk with 58 average fps. Below that you lot are all-time off just lowering the resolution.

Ultra Quality Performance with Ray Tracing

It's time to take a look at operation using the ultra quality preset with ray traced ambient occlusion enabled. In the case of the RTX 3080, nosotros're looking at a 22% reject in performance at 1080p and a 19% turn down for the RTX 3060. Then from AMD we're looking at a 26% functioning striking for the 6800 XT and a 27% functioning drib for the RX 6600.

A slightly larger operation hit for AMD every bit you'd expect. In fact, you might take expected a bigger drop off for the Ruddy Team. Anyhow, at 1080p the game was even so very playable with ray tracing enabled, with any of the graphics cards tested. That said, I'd actually but recommend playing with RT enabled with college-end models, though you might be fine with a threescore fps average, but that's ultimately upwards to y'all to determine.

Now at 1440p, we're looking at a ~30% performance striking for Radeon GPUs with RT enabled and a xx% hit for GeForce GPUs. This meant the 6900 XT was now 17% slower than the RTX 3090, while the 6800 XT was also 17% slower than the RTX 3080. Those seeking 60 fps will get away with the RTX 2080 or 2070 Super, and from AMD you lot'll take to make do with the 6700 XT.

No surprises at 4K, you'll desire the RTX 3090, 3080 Ti or 3080 for the best performance while you tin sort of relish the game with the 6900 XT or 6800 XT simply the experience is much better with RT disabled.

Image Quality Comparison

At present that we know how a few dozen AMD and Nvidia GPUs perform in Battlefield 2042, the question is how much difference those tested quality settings make to the visuals. And so permit'south take a await at that...

The deviation betwixt medium and ultra is substantial, though the changes won't always spring out at yous. Essentially everything is improved: textures, lighting, post processing, vegetation, and and then on. Depending on the scene, the differences may be and then evident that volition justify a 20-30% decrease in performance.

Then nosotros have ray traced ambience occlusion, which does have quite a significant impact on visuals, though not always for the all-time, and the example in the video illustrates that well. The debris effectually the burnt out machine looks better with ray tracing enabled as the greater emphasis on shading really jumps out at you, as objects gain depth.

That'due south the good stuff. The bad can be seen when looking at the floating debris, which has an unpleasant ghosting upshot. It looks bad and completely breaks immersion. Surely they need to set up this.

Overall, ray tracing helps in making the game await more than realistic, so if they tin can ready the dynamic particle issue, it would certainly exist worth using. I practise feel near Battlefield gamers volition exist favoring frame rates over visual quality though. Not only that, merely the medium preset by and large makes it easier to spot enemies, and then while ultra with ray tracing looks amazing, it'due south non the "best" mode to play the game, at least competitively.

How Does It Run?

That's our await at GPU performance in Battlefield 2042 and what a nightmare this game has been to test, but we recollect the data's been worth information technology (and hopefully the game, but that's up for y'all to decide).

Those of you targeting 1080p gaming, the good news is just most anything works with the medium quality preset, assuming yous have the CPU power to fully unleash the GPU and we'll presently look at CPU functioning using a unlike test method.

Something along the lines of a GTX 1650 Super or Radeon RX 580 at 1080p using medium settings should do it. And so for those wanting to experience ultra, the GTX 1070 or Vega 56 will be required. Needless to say, all currently released current generation GPUs piece of work actually well.

For 1440p medium settings, a GTX 1660 Ti or GTX 1080 will enable a 60 fps feel, equally volition Vega 56. But if you want to crank the visuals up hither with the ultra preset, you lot'll want an RTX 2060 Super, RTX 3060 or 6600 XT / RX 5700.

On that note, AMD's previous-gen RDNA GPUs performed exceptionally well and information technology was expert to run across the 5700 XT hanging in there with the 2070 Super.

Overall, Battlefield 2042 looks very promising and is no doubt set to become a standard championship amongst our benchmarks. For at present, nosotros're keen to get-go comparison AMD and Intel CPUs and mess around with the Portal mode to see what the options are there for testing, fingers crossed it's working now.