AMD Dominates the Battlefield V Closed Alpha

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,764
Despite Battlefield V being a full blooded GeForce game, the crew at PCGamesN is reporting that AMD is handily winning the battle for performance so far. They pitted the GTX 1060 up against the RX 580 8GB at both 1080p and 1440p, and the results were surprising, with the RX 580 being around 33% faster.

While of course this is very early with plenty of time for more mature drivers to come out, this is still a pretty big surprise. Especially with the face that DICE and NVIDIA worked hand in hand on Battlefield V.

In general graphics testing the GTX 1060 and RX 580 regularly trade benchmark wins, but normally only by the slightest of margins. With the Battlefield 5 closed alpha, however, there is a sizeable disparity in performance, with the RX 580 some 33% faster in our tests. That’s not the only bad news for Nvidia either, as the DirectX 12 implementation in the game does its GPUs no favours either.
 

castlefire

n00b
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
50
ok lets see who is winning at 4K DCI gameplay? i could never go back and play at anything under 4K DCI
 

FlawleZ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,533
So this would theoretically put RX 580 in 1070 territory or even faster in BFV. I'd be interested to see the Vega performance here. Idk maybe it shouldn't be posted or the 1080 Ti owners may have an aneurysm.
 

velusip

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
1,579
Nvidia will get right on top of that. the fps for AMD will be 30% lower when the game comes out.
In the early days ATI cards were beating Nvidia with higher fps, but Nvidia were claiming that rendering shortcuts and missing features in ATIs pipeline were the reason. They argued with 'fidelity'. I would love to see that argument attempted this time around.
 

PureBlackFire

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
127
In the early days ATI cards were beating Nvidia with higher fps, but Nvidia were claiming that rendering shortcuts and missing features in ATIs pipeline were the reason. They argued with 'fidelity'. I would love to see that argument attempted this time around.
this went both ways over the years. Nvidia leads the image quality cheating series 3-1 vs ATI/AMD.

Could just be that Nvidia rolled out their deliberate 10 series and older performance degradations a bit early. They usually wait until the next series launches before they hobble the older cards.

:)
true. rumors are swirling that their new series will be out this month. hmm...
 

haz_mat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
326
Meh, closed alpha with unoptimized drivers. Do AMD fanboys really want to claim a win here?
 

Ferox

n00b
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
5
Or we could be dealing with another Assasins creed (directx 10.1) mishap where Nvidia makes the dev cripple any feature that runs better on AMD hardware. Gameworks just means Nvidia uses their shit tools and effects to make their own hardware look good. Nvidia will sacrifice innovation any day over allowing a competitors product to beat theirs. Its pathetic.
 

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
Yeah, the alpha and beta for BF1 were nothing like the actual release hardware performance wise so I wouldn't read much into this. My 3570k and SLI 660tis killed in alpha and beta, but shit the bed come release barely keeping 50fps with lots of dips into the 20-30s.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
7,159
Rather than unoptimized code, I expect it's (mostly) due to not having all effects enabled/working yet. This is alpha code we're talking about here. I doubt they've moved passed feature and gameplay bugs to graphical bugs yet.

That's not to say they aren't fixing them, but I don't think that's the primary focus right now.
 

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,764
2dd41w.jpg
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Yeah, the alpha and beta for BF1 were nothing like the actual release hardware performance wise so I wouldn't read much into this. My 3570k and SLI 660tis killed in alpha and beta, but shit the bed come release barely keeping 50fps with lots of dips into the 20-30s.

yeah the problem with dice "alpha" testing is that in BF3/1 they hard capped graphic settings to medium. wouldn't surprise me if they did it again with BF5. even my shitty sli 8800GT's were able to play BF3 alpha at 40-50fps, game release i got a whopping 15fps.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,410
yeah the problem with dice "alpha" testing is that in BF3/1 they hard capped graphic settings to medium. wouldn't surprise me if they did it again with BF5. even my shitty sli 8800GT's were able to play BF3 alpha at 40-50fps, game release i got a whopping 15fps.

Played the alpha, they didn't optimize much, had to run it at the lowest settings to enjoy 60+ fps, I have a 4690k and a 580. I don't like how PCGamesN didn't specify the graphic settings it tested for the GTX 1060 vs RX 580, would have been nice to compare with my experience. Also they state that the GTX 1080Ti ran at 114 fps at Ultra on 1080p, a little strange to test 1080p considering thats a 4k card if anything.
 

MooCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2000
Messages
7,539
"The way it's meant to be played" might catch up.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,909
My understanding is that it’s not running well on any hardware.

Which indicates the game is probably sensitive to GPU memory bandwidth. That's the one area where ATI/AMD has always had an edge on NVIDIA.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
Which indicates the game is probably sensitive to GPU memory bandwidth. That's the one area where ATI/AMD has always had an edge on NVIDIA.
Probably, would make a solid argument for the 580 over the 1060.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,547
Anyone else love reading these threads just to see comments from fanboys who are so devoted to a video card company that they react as if someone insulted their own child?
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
331
Yeah, the alpha and beta for BF1 were nothing like the actual release hardware performance wise so I wouldn't read much into this. My 3570k and SLI 660tis killed in alpha and beta, but shit the bed come release barely keeping 50fps with lots of dips into the 20-30s.
Yeah it was really weird as my gtx 1080 was getting 150-180 fps in the beta, but only 110-130 fps at release, while graphics staying the same and looking the same. Later got a 1080ti and still couldn't get the fps I had with the 1080 in beta (n)
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
331
Wonder how it runs on the 1080...
it's impossible to play on ultra settings with good fps, but perhaps titan V can do it. I'm getting good fps on low at around 125-145 fps with a 1070 and the game still looks good. Should have tried it on the wife's rig as it has a 1080ti, but will most likely snap up a 1180 before release(I hope).
 

spine

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,673
Lets see how your beloved Radeon GPUs handle Battlefield V after some Gameworks SFX are enabled, rgMekanic !

There'll be Volta hardware specific shit thrown in there too no doubt. :rolleyes:

Count on it, there'll be some feature or effect that only Volta can do properly and tanks on everything else, including Pascal. Nvidia have no problems making their own cards look like shit if they're in a position to sell you better ones!
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,926
Top