• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 6

Ya, I had a whole squad of females tonight. Weird cuz I don't think the player models are. I would expect the full game to have females then.
 
Gabe3 said:
so I'm getting 242 fps? the cpu is less so thats the bottleneck? what does sim mean?

edit: I limited my frame rate to 157 in the game's settings and I'm still getting 240 fps(if im reading this right)
Click to expand...

At that moment,

your CPU is able to spin at 116 fps
your GPU is able to spin at 126 fps

mp/s is how many pixels the game is filling per second. It's tied to internal resolution mostly as well as what's on the screen (I think? I see it fluctuate) - so DLSS effectively lowers this as you lower it. I guess you're around 1920x1080 resolution wise.

sim is the game simulation - the servers run at 60 fps.
 
Last edited:
socK said:
At that moment,

your CPU is able to spin at 116 fps
your GPU is able to spin at 126 fps

mp/s is how many pixels the game is filling per second. It's tied to internal resolution mostly as well as what's on the screen (I think? I see it fluctuate) - so DLSS effectively lowers this as you lower it. I guess you're around 1920x1080 resolution wise.

sim is the game simulation - the servers run at 60 fps.
Click to expand...
thanks. I limited the fps to 80 to test and the cpu showed I was getting 80 fps so I guess thats what your actual fps is. Seems like the gpu is what should show your fps. Anyway, looks like 116 fps is what I'm getting with dlss on performance. So I guess I could get 10 more fps if I got a better cpu.
 
Gabe3 said:
thanks. I limited the fps to 80 to test and the cpu showed I was getting 80 fps so I guess thats what your actual fps is. Seems like the gpu is what should show your fps. Anyway, looks like 116 fps is what I'm getting with dlss on performance.
Click to expand...

Your actual FPS is basically the lower of the 2 - you're only as fast as the slowest piece of hardware

So you're effectively slightly CPU bound.

Your CPU is spending about 8.62 milliseconds per frame.
Your GPU is spending about 7.94 milliseconds per frame.

So assuming an infinitely fast CPU, you'd become GPU bound - at 126 fps.
 
How much latency is upscaling introducing? There must be a penalty from using it in an MP game.
 
Blade-Runner said:
How much latency is upscaling introducing? There must be a penalty from using it in an MP game.
Click to expand...
It's the same as with a single player game. It saves enough render time that the dlss upscale is lower cost than the extra resolution would take. The entire thing runs faster. Less latency, not more.
 
I played it myself and thought it was good, gameplay was fun and the games graphics looked good, I wont preorder but I'll pick it up around release or sometime after.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Interesting. And frame generation?
Click to expand...
Gives all the benefits of higher framerates except it increases input lag moderately (Nvidia's reflex helps here which is forced on when FG is enabled) . Most people are fine with it so long as their base framerate is 60-70+ fps. You get more motion clarity, smoothness, and less motion blur as the tradeoff. 2-3x FG is good, while 4x is iffy on most titles still.

It's perfect for filling out a high refresh monitor, but it's not a low fps fix like the gpu makers market it as.
 
THUMPer said:
Ya, I had a whole squad of females tonight. Weird cuz I don't think the player models are. I would expect the full game to have females then.
Click to expand...

Female players or hearing female sound effects during the game play? I hear female soldier sound effects but none of the player models look female, lol.

That being said not enough players use the mic and the game definitely rewards team play that communicates with each other.

Also, this!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-29R4_6x4
 
Some of the classes are female models, not sure how you could miss that.
 
Played a good 2 hours, conquest, it's non-stop action, so the first game I immediately caught a tank and finished the round with 21-2 k/d, not bad.
It's not one map at all, there are even 3 or 4 conquest maps, the graphics are a disaster but I'm on 4k and it doesn't get any better.(mostly low settings and graphically every map looks exactly the same to me)
The game mostly jerks sometimes and lag is present but let's say it's ok.
The destruction is huge and everything is flying and it's possible that's why my Ryzen 5600x is struggling and groaning.

And yes, the maps are somehow too small for me but maybe even better, the action is 99% of the time.
It's not that bad a game, and this is the first time I've experienced that my colleagues are mostly constantly repairing tanks.

That main battle tank is somehow too weak for me and the other smaller one with 1 rocket and 12 round magazine is better for me...I haven't tried the aircraft because I don't know how to drive them. I don't touch them.
As for infantry combat, lag and jerking are also a bit annoying.
Generally if it ran without jerking and lag it would be fine, I don't know if it's because of me and my PC or the game and the other players.

How do I turn on that FPS counter, where exactly is it?
And why can't I normally change rifles and pistols with the mouse wheel? For RPGs and the rest, I can't change with the mouse wheel, I have to press the number? Is that something new?
 
Last edited:
I didn't have Secure Boot enabled but I got it now. Just press Windows Key and Run type in msinfo32 to check if it's enabled.
My System blacked out for a second after I enabled it in the Bios scary stuff as usual but not as bad as new Ram.


Screenshot 2025-08-09 101037.jpg
 
Blade-Runner said:
How much latency is upscaling introducing? There must be a penalty from using it in an MP game.
Click to expand...
If you weren’t gaining any performance there would be a slight penalty but the performance you do get actually reduces latency. You’re getting higher REAL frames. Frame gen otoh, adds latency
 
I put everything on low, and was CPU bound by my 9950X3D, loading all 16 cores close to 100%. Peaked at 175w, pretty close to the 200w limit. Note that I didn't do a comparable test with the vcache CCD only, but I'm pretty confident this CPU will pull ahead for this game now. GPU utilization was low as well.

And tbh, this game looks fine on low, I didn't even notice the difference and it's a bit easier on the eyes and the brain, so I guess that is how I will roll.

I was in the 200-300fps range playing that way, heavenly on the 360hz monitor.

The other important thing is I played with my gf instead of alone for a change, it was a lot more fun and I was able to have some great tank action with one of us fixing the other. Tanks feel great in Breakthrough, since you don't get surrounded and attacked from all sides. In Conquest they are paper though, since turret turns at realistic speed now, infantry can (and do) easily sneak on the sides or behind.

It's kinda the same with infantry though, in those small conquest maps you just spawn with enemies all around you pretty much.
 
kalston said:
I put everything on low, and was CPU bound by my 9950X3D, loading all 16 cores close to 100%. Peaked at 175w, pretty close to the 200w limit. Note that I didn't do a comparable test with the vcache CCD only, but I'm pretty confident this CPU will pull ahead for this game now. GPU utilization was low as well.

And tbh, this game looks fine on low, I didn't even notice the difference and it's a bit easier on the eyes and the brain, so I guess that is how I will roll.

I was in the 200-300fps range playing that way, heavenly on the 360hz monitor.

The other important thing is I played with my gf instead of alone for a change, it was a lot more fun and I was able to have some great tank action with one of us fixing the other. Tanks feel great in Breakthrough, since you don't get surrounded and attacked from all sides. In Conquest they are paper though, since turret turns at realistic speed now, infantry can (and do) easily sneak on the sides or behind.

It's kinda the same with infantry though, in those small conquest maps you just spawn with enemies all around you pretty much.
Click to expand...
Otherwise how do you change the ammo and options for a tank?
It seems to be putting a lot of strain on the CPU, the GPU is not a problem for me.
I'm not going to buy it and play it anyway, what I'm playing now is all I can say, but I can't say it's bad. And my internet is too slow.
 
Gabe3 said:
Was hoping for better performance with a 4080. I guess thats what I get for playing at 4k. Getting about 90 fps on low settings, 70 on ultra. dlss on quality boosts me about 20 fps. So now I'm playing on high with dlss quality and getting 90 fps. gpu-z showing gpu usage at about 95% so doesn't seem to be a cpu issue.
Click to expand...
Have you tried looking at the performance overlay with frame timings? If your GPU is at 95% then there’s still a bit of headroom, so you might indeed be slight CPU limited
 
Finally got a chance to play consecutive rounds of Conquest. I did not have any issues where CPU utilization kept creeping until the game slowed which was reported by someone earlier. I'm mostly playing on my older 5900x + 3080 10G machine. I find it more interesting how well a modern game runs on older hardware. The game does a very good job with the "balanced" preset to find that sweet spot between CPU/GPU loading, provided your system itself is reasonably well balanced.

Most of the time i've glanced up at my stats, CPU/GPU frame times were around 1ms of each other.

Same gameplay changes i'd like to see...

I feel operators blend in a little too well with the environment, partially since the graphics are relatively flat with little contrast anywhere. Hoping they make adjustments to this for release.
Ammo, not enough of it. Guns have more recoil here than in COD with engagement distances being greater. Would like to see starting ammo increased by 50-100%
Sniper glints - I don't snipe and I welcome easy spotting of snipers, but the glint is just ridiculous. In a game with almost no contrast anywhere, it's the one thing that really stands out.

In a nutshell, previous BF's were typically riddled with bugs and performance issues but had pretty next level graphics. BF6 kinda reverses that. Game performs well and by BF standards, is quite bug free, but the graphics are on the disappointing side. At least in the Beta.
 
WilyKit said:
Finally got a chance to play consecutive rounds of Conquest. I did not have any issues where CPU utilization kept creeping until the game slowed which was reported by someone earlier. I'm mostly playing on my older 5900x + 3080 10G machine. I find it more interesting how well a modern game runs on older hardware. The game does a very good job with the "balanced" preset to find that sweet spot between CPU/GPU loading, provided your system itself is reasonably well balanced.

Most of the time i've glanced up at my stats, CPU/GPU frame times were around 1ms of each other.

Same gameplay changes i'd like to see...

I feel operators blend in a little too well with the environment, partially since the graphics are relatively flat with little contrast anywhere. Hoping they make adjustments to this for release.
Ammo, not enough of it. Guns have more recoil here than in COD with engagement distances being greater. Would like to see starting ammo increased by 50-100%
Sniper glints - I don't snipe and I welcome easy spotting of snipers, but the glint is just ridiculous. In a game with almost no contrast anywhere, it's the one thing that really stands out.

In a nutshell, previous BF's were typically riddled with bugs and performance issues but had pretty next level graphics. BF6 kinda reverses that. Game performs well and by BF standards, is quite bug free, but the graphics are on the disappointing side. At least in the Beta.
Click to expand...
You noticed this well for contrast, it's not there. And also for balanced, the game sets pretty good settings.
It'll take them a long time to fix it all.
I got into a glitch, i.e. all 64 players. Then suddenly I get into a tank and can't get out, or the aim is lost, etc... I got into a lot of glitches.

The worst thing is that the game is addictive and I can't stop playing despite all the flaws or when I'm doing badly.
 
Last edited:
WilyKit said:
Finally got a chance to play consecutive rounds of Conquest. I did not have any issues where CPU utilization kept creeping until the game slowed which was reported by someone earlier. I'm mostly playing on my older 5900x + 3080 10G machine. I find it more interesting how well a modern game runs on older hardware. The game does a very good job with the "balanced" preset to find that sweet spot between CPU/GPU loading, provided your system itself is reasonably well balanced.

Most of the time i've glanced up at my stats, CPU/GPU frame times were around 1ms of each other.

Same gameplay changes i'd like to see...

I feel operators blend in a little too well with the environment, partially since the graphics are relatively flat with little contrast anywhere. Hoping they make adjustments to this for release.
Ammo, not enough of it. Guns have more recoil here than in COD with engagement distances being greater. Would like to see starting ammo increased by 50-100%
Sniper glints - I don't snipe and I welcome easy spotting of snipers, but the glint is just ridiculous. In a game with almost no contrast anywhere, it's the one thing that really stands out.

In a nutshell, previous BF's were typically riddled with bugs and performance issues but had pretty next level graphics. BF6 kinda reverses that. Game performs well and by BF standards, is quite bug free, but the graphics are on the disappointing side. At least in the Beta.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you can run out of ammo as infantry. If you're support, you literally have infinite. If you're not, there's like 6 crates on the ground at every chokepoint.

Recoil they're increasing, which is good. Once you get a few attachments on most weapons, they're super stable. It's pretty easy to nearly full auto at people 200m away.

Glints are getting toned down.
 
Well, its better than some of the other recent Battlefield games. Runs great.

I think I've been spoiled by games like Hell Let Loose though. BF6 just feels incredibly mindless to me.
 
Apparently next weekend there will be a larger map in the beta, Empire State.

Some things I do find a bit more arcadey is some of the lasers are invisible to enemies. Some are visible, others not. That is like the CoD games. Lasers should be visible to everyone, or they are IR/night vision visible only. Grenades have an annoying "smoke trail" and burn bright like the sun when thrown. I don't mind BF3/4 grenade indicators, but BF6 is just so overdone an cartoon looking. Some of the gun attachments make no sense, more like CoD. Longer and heavier barrel = quicker aim time. What? That is the opposite of logic and common sense. Some of the attachments mention trades off in the description, but in the stat bar on the right, they don't show the downsides. They need to be more clear on what attachment does what.

And is there a way to turn off the squad green outline of their player body? It looks ugly and is distracting.
 
The stat bars are shit and need to be improved. The description usually gives a hint how it'll perform even if the bars don't move.

I just ping pong between the ones I'm curious about and shoot at the wall in the firing range to see how it affected the pattern.

Which of course the bullet holes never go away so it's a pain in the fucking ass to test the recoil patterns.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if they played their own game because there's a bunch of simple quality of life things that really should be figured out by now. Why does BF4 have a way better firing range?
 
socK said:
I have no idea how you can run out of ammo as infantry. If you're support, you literally have infinite. If you're not, there's like 6 crates on the ground at every chokepoint.

Recoil they're increasing, which is good. Once you get a few attachments on most weapons, they're super stable. It's pretty easy to nearly full auto at people 200m away.

Glints are getting toned down.
Click to expand...
On the ground maybe. Not so much if your posting up in a structure
 
socK said:
The stat bars are shit and need to be improved. The description usually gives a hint how it'll perform even if the bars don't move.

I just ping pong between the ones I'm curious about and shoot at the wall in the firing range to see how it affected the pattern.

Which of course the bullet holes never go away so it's a pain in the fucking ass to test the recoil patterns.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if they played their own game because there's a bunch of simple quality of life things that really should be figured out by now. Why does BF4 have a way better firing range?
Click to expand...
Can you not shoot next to it? I haven’t tried the test range in BF6 but bullet holes not going away is exactly how I and virtually every content creator compared recoil in COD
 
WilyKit said:
Can you not shoot next to it? I haven’t tried the test range in BF6 but bullet holes not going away is exactly how I and virtually every content creator compared recoil in COD
Click to expand...

You're stuck in a small room

You can literally run out of wall
 
jarablue said:
I have a pretty good sound system and the sound of this game is awesome. The game play is fun I'm enjoying it but the sound quality is top tier.
Click to expand...
Battlefield has always nailed that part. Speakers, headphones, whatever system you have it'll sound amazing.

I don't know if it's the same audio engineers every time, but for sure they didn't lost the expertise acquired over the years. Even 2042 has no audio faults (well the music blows but that's a subjective thing). Every episode is top notch in that department.
 
My favorite part of the audio design is the loud ass bang like half the time when it changes maps that's 3x the volume of the game
 
jarablue said:
I have a pretty good sound system and the sound of this game is awesome. The game play is fun I'm enjoying it but the sound quality is top tier.
Click to expand...
Yes, the sound is good, I like it best when I start from the tank and the engine starts.
 
Takes so long to get through the queue now that I just crank up the volume and enjoy the music while I wait
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top