Battlefield V Benchmark Performance Analysis

[ArbitraryAffection]

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

Damn, well thanks for doing it so we can see how the cards perform. Much appreciated.

 

[SIGSEGV]

for me, amd radeon did a good job and clear winner here.
thanks for the review.

 

[bug]

Playable at Ultra up to 1440p is quite a nice showing from both 1060 6GB and 580.

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

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

Id be willing to offer my account for a 24h period to allow you more flexibility in testing. Just take these stars away and we can make a deal.

 

[cadaveca]

DX12.

Couldn't do CPU testing this time because of the gay 5 activations limit.. and I even bought three memberships, so 15 activations total

Wait whut!?! Only 5 activations? How...

That definitely makes testing their games harder... but maybe they don't care about people reviewing their games for performance.

 

[the54thvoid]

Given that I'm probably going to buy Anthem and another game in the next year, I just paid £90 for EA Premium for the year. Cheaper than buying games, even at discounted price. Might even install ME Andromeda. Downloading the deluxe edition now...

 

[MercJ]

Ran into the stupid 5-system activation limit when trying to find out CPU differences in the beta. Wanted to see if I could get away with a Haswell i5 for some friends' builds, or even an i3. Couldn't fully test

From what I remember though - and like most Battlefields - core count >= 8 is nice, and CPU architecture doesn't matter too much, the rest is GPU... Ryzen 2700X was right up there with my i7-7700K @ 5GHz too I think.

Anyway, thanks for the GPU breakdown! Sorry to hear there wasn't any way around the activation limit, I thought for sure reviewers would be provided a way around this but no DICE I guess...

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

Ran into the stupid 5-system activation limit when trying to find out CPU differences in the beta. Wanted to see if I could get away with a Haswell i5 for some friends' builds, or even an i3. Couldn't fully test

From what I remember though - and like most Battlefields - core count >= 8 is nice, and CPU architecture doesn't matter too much, the rest is GPU... Ryzen 2700X was right up there with my i7-7700K @ 5GHz too I think.

Anyway, thanks for the GPU breakdown! Sorry to hear there wasn't any way around the activation limit, I thought for sure reviewers would be provided a way around this but no DICE I guess...

I didn't play the Beta but I read the Ryzen 2700x was underperforming and under utilized. I was impressed to see the game using 60-70% on all 16 cores yesterday.

 

[B-Real]

Vega 64 on par with the RTX 2070 in 1440P and beating it on FHD, LOL! Nice job.

 

[newtekie1]

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

So does that mean that after 24 hours you can go back and bench more cards if you wanted to? Obviously I know you only have a certain amount of time to dedicated to each thing, and you're very busy with other reviews. But just thinking it might be cool to come back to revisit this review and maybe add in a few more cards. For example I'd really like to see an RX 580 4GB to see exactly how much the 4GB really affects the performance.

The reason I say that is because the RX 570 4GB doesn't really seem to suffer much from only have 4GB. It's performance is about what I would expect from the RX 570 compared to the RX 580. So while the game seems to use more than 4GB, even at 1080p, only have 4GB of memory doesn't seem to be an issue. However, obviously only have 3GB of memory is a major issue because the GTX 1060 3GB really suffers compared to the GTX 1060 6GB, way more than it should be suffering if memory amount wasn't an issue.

 

[W1zzard]

So does that mean that after 24 hours you can go back and bench more cards if you wanted to?

Yup, that's what I'm waiting for

 

[Bjørgersson]

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

Nevermind, you just replied while I was writing my comment.

 

[newtekie1]

Yup, that's what I'm waiting for

Awesome!

 

[Sasqui]

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.

I think this:

Battlefield V's DRM won't allow more than five hardware changes per 24 hours, which includes switching the graphics card. We will add more graphics cards and suitably revise our conclusion within the next 24 hours.

Crazy stupid DRM mechanism

 

[B-Real]

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.

Pretty little lies.

1. RX 580 against a 1070 Ti? What the...?
2. Vega 64 is on par with the 1080 back to a 1,5 year old Techpowerup review. Since then in most games they are on par or the Vega 64 is a bit faster in more games than the 1080 is than the Vega 64. Those are games supported by NV or just being always better than NV (Assassin's Creed Series). I do NOT say that Vega 64 is better on its own, but if you consider a Sync monitor (and when we speak about a GPU this expensive, it's not a rare thing), it's absolutely the better price-performance option.
3. Vega 64 has ~270W power consumption without manual undervolting, the 2070 draws ~190W That's 40-45% more power consumption, not your lied 100%. With undervolt you can reach around 210-230W without losing performance.

Why should these benchmarks include power draws? You can see it in every GPU review here and on other sites.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

I'm all set with my EVGA FTW2 1070 Ti. Or maybe not, as I don't buy games new, will wait a month or two and pick this up cheaper.

 

[M2B]

Pretty little lies.

1. RX 580 against a 1070 Ti? What the...?
2. Vega 64 is on par with the 1080 back to a 1,5 year old Techpowerup review. Since then in most games they are on par or the Vega 64 is a bit faster in more games than the 1080 is than the Vega 64. Those are games supported by NV or just being always better than NV (Assassin's Creed Series). I do NOT say that Vega 64 is better on its own, but if you consider a Sync monitor (and when we speak about a GPU this expensive, it's not a rare thing), it's absolutely the better price-performance option.
3. Vega 64 has ~270W power consumption without manual undervolting, the 2070 draws ~190W That's 40-45% more power consumption, not your lied 100%. With undervolt you can reach around 210-230W without losing performance.

Why should these benchmarks include power draws? You can see it in every GPU review here and on other sites.

You made me laugh.
GTX 1080 is a better card in all aspects.
It's faster, way more efficient and cheaper at the same time. the cheapest custom design Vega 64 I could find at NewEgg was 500$ while you can find custom 1080s for cheaper. (buying a reference design Vega 64 is a horrible idea because it's utter garbage)
GTX 1080 is also a much better overclocker and gains significantly more performance when overclocked compared with the Vega 64.

B-Real

 

[Octopuss]

Id be willing to offer my account for a 24h period to allow you more flexibility in testing. Just take these stars away and we can make a deal.

I could do that as well.
Hit me up @W1zzard if you want.
(unless I misunderstood and the account needs to own the damn game, heh)

 

[Pewzor]

You made me laugh.
GTX 1080 is a better card in all aspects.


B-Real

This made me laugh.

GTX 1080 struggles against Vega 64 in well made games that's not sponsored by Nvidia like Wolfenstein and in many cutting edge API games that properly utilize Vulkan and DX12.

GTX 1080 does not support FreeSync, fans are screwed out of $200 to 300 extra for the same thing.

GTX 1080 is a far less compute card than any of the Vega cards. Actually Vega 64 trades blows with GTX 1080Ti and RTX 2080 in most compute senario, and will kill any Pascal cards other than the P100 in FP16 compute by a landslide.

just a few things Vega has over 1080.

B-Real

 

[W1zzard]

I'm not sure if Origin account sharing will get you banned, so better not take risks. I'll have more activations soon

edit: added results for vega 56 and 1070

 

[Pewzor]

I'm not sure if account sharing will get you banned, so better not take risks. I'll have more activations soon

edit: added results for vega 56 and 1070

This is the only account I have for TPU, I am just pointing out the poster I replied to made some comments that made me laugh.
And I would love him to B-Real.

 

[INSTG8R]

This is the only account I have for TPU, I am just pointing out the poster I replied to made some comments that made me laugh.
And I would love him to B-Real.

It wasn’t directed at you W1z couldn’t finish his testing because of BFVs activation limits. People were offering them there accounts so he could.

 

[M2B]

This made me laugh.

GTX 1080 struggles against Vega 64 in well made games that's not sponsored by Nvidia like Wolfenstein and in many cutting edge API games that properly utilize Vulkan and DX12.

GTX 1080 does not support FreeSync, fans are screwed out of $200 to 300 extra for the same thing.

GTX 1080 is a far less compute card than any of the Vega cards. Actually Vega 64 trades blows with GTX 1080Ti and RTX 2080 in most compute senario, and will kill any Pascal cards other than the P100 in FP16 compute by a landslide.

just a few things Vega has over 1080.

B-Real

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?

 

[Readlight]

Price will drop 80% my hardware can not run it. ps4 4k definitely not.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

edit: added results for vega 56 and 1070

Vega 56 is a top card. If you managed to snag one of those around launch for close to MSRP, I would be a happy customer. Performance here is significantly faster than the 1070.