Battlefield 2042 Benchmarked

EA'southward latest Battlefield championship recently debuted and it's arrived to some gameplay and connectivity problems, but nosotros're not going to waste time talking virtually gameplay or review this title, instead we'll take the opportunity to mensurate graphics carte performance, so you tin get an idea of what you lot'll need to go into the action.

Battlefield 2042 is powered by the Frostbite game engine, programmer DICE is relying on the 3rd iteration of the engine which was too used by Battleground 5, Battlefield ane, Battlefield Hardline and Battlefield 4. If y'all've seen any gameplay of this latest title, yous can expect a modified or upgraded version of Frostbite that supports new atmospheric condition effects among other things.

Visually, Battlefield 2042 is breathtaking and certainly one of the best-looking games we've experienced. We offset jumped in with an RTX 3090 at 4K and frame rates were decent, non as high every bit we'd similar for competitive gameplay, but they were surprisingly good given the visuals. Still, we couldn't help but call back the game was going to murder mid-range hardware and fifty-fifty 1080p would be a struggle with a pocket-sized graphics carte du jour, just we've got to say, it's far better optimized than we were expecting.

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

So, let's talk most testing, as Battlefield games are ever fun in that regard. Given this is a multiplayer-only game, nosotros're forced to examination that and while I'chiliad certain many of you would love u.s.a. to jump into a 64-player Conquest match to do all of our testing, information technology's merely not feasible nor authentic.

Even if we were to only compare two different hardware configurations, you'd still demand dozens of benchmark runs just to get a ballpark comparison. That'southward 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 work effectually here was to use the new 'Portal' mode to create our own benchmark server with AI, equally this would be both CPU and GPU heavy and probable practise a expert job of accurately representing existent-world operation. Sadly, this being an EA game, that feature didn't piece of work for the first 2 days of testing, so we were unable to try it.

Instead, we've used the Arica Harbor 'gratuitous-for-all' custom experience without any other players. Now, earlier y'all stamp your feet in protestation, claiming this isn't an authentic way to test every bit information technology doesn't replicate the kind of load you lot'll come across in a big multiplier game, that's non really true for a GPU test. I know this because I spent a lot of time comparison 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 nosotros're testing with a Ryzen 9 5950X using low-latency retention, at no betoken was either test mode approaching anywhere nigh CPU-limited performance. In fact, the frame rates were almost always shut, but 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 nosotros're only interested in GPU operation for this video, the method works. What it's not 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 accept data from 33 unlike GPUs at 3 resolutions and 2 visual quality presets. So for a bonus, we've included ray tracing results likewise. Our testbed is powered past the Ryzen 9 5950X and 32GB of dual-rank, dual-channel DDR4-3200 CL14 retention. Now allow's spring into the data.

Benchmarks

Ultra Quality Operation

Starting with the 1080p ultra quality data we discover that the GeForce RTX 3090, 3080 Ti, Radeon RX 6900 XT and RTX 3080 all pushed up over 150 fps while keeping the i% low higher up 100 fps, then dandy performance there given the visuals.

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

So we see a bit of a drop down to the RX 6800 and RTX 3070 Ti, merely 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 driblet down some other functioning tier with the RTX 2080, 2070 Super, 5700 XT, 6600 XT, 1080 Ti and RTX 3060. Hither we have yet another new game where the 5700 XT is found punching well above its weight, beating not just the 1080 Ti, only basically matching the 2070 Super, a production if yous recall cost $100 more. A very impressive result from the 5700 XT, while the 6600 XT was a lot less impressive, but we've come up to expect that.

Now if we head downwardly towards 60 fps on average, we notice the GTX 1080, 1660 Ti and Vega 56. Vega also does well here equally traditionally you would have expected Vega 56 to nigh friction match the GTX 1080, but that's what we're seeing hither and that meant information technology did beat the GTX 1070, which just managed to average 60 fps.

Then we have the 5500 XT 8GB hanging in there with 54 fps on average, making it 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 performance, while the GTX 1650 serial were almost impossible to examination.

Jumping upward to 1440p nosotros run across that the Ampere GPUs starting time to take over with the RTX 3090, 3080 Ti and 3080 all pulling ahead of the 6900 XT in our exam. 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 go an issue here for some of the faster 8GB cards. The 2080 Ti, for instance, felt smoother than the newer RTX 3070, despite the frame rates being about identical. It's possible afterwards a longer test period that the 3070 would offset to struggle with retention usage.

Again, frame time consistency was better with the 12GB 6700 XT though as we drop down the list, the slower 8GB cards seem less phased by VRAM consumption, at least in our adequately short 3-run average testing. The 5700 XT can be institute punching above its weight once once more, almost matching the 2070 Super, making it a good bit faster than the RTX 2060 Super and 2070.

The RTX 3060 likewise performed well with just over lx fps on average and so nosotros see the 2060 Super and 2070 basically hitting sixty fps. The 5600 XT and 6600 were able to deliver a good playable feel only shy of 60 fps. The RTX 2060 did well at 1440p despite the more than limited 6GB VRAM buffer.

Interestingly, the move upwards to 1440p saw Vega 56 match the GTX 1080, an impressive result for the old GCN compages. Most of the Pascal GPUs struggled at this resolution and nosotros see below the GTX 1070 that the 5500 XT and 580 weren't that playable, at least by competitive online shooter standards. Anything with only 4GB of VRAM was unplayable using the ultra quality settings.

Moving to 4K, nosotros have a lot less usable information, the RTX 3090 pumped out an impressive 80 fps which made for a breathtaking experience. This may exist less than what I'd want for a multiplayer shooter, merely as far equally the visual experience goes it was incredible. The same can exist said about the 3080 Ti and even the standard RTX 3080. The 6900 XT and 6800 XT were less impressive equally the 1% low wasn't kept to a higher place 60 fps, but overall still a nice experience.

For those wanting to keep the boilerplate over 60 fps, y'all'll find yourself struggling with an RTX 3070 Ti or RX 6800, and by the time we get down to the 5700 XT and 2070 Super we were struggling to keep frames per second above 40.

Medium Quality Functioning

Permit'due south dial back the quality preset a few notches from 'Ultra' to 'Medium'. Doing so greatly reduces VRAM requirements, and of course, overall GPU horsepower. Every bit a result, the 6900 XT is now pushing near 200 fps at 1080p with most electric current generation high-end GPUs good for over 170 fps. In fact, if we scroll down to previous generation mid-range parts like the 5600 XT and RTX 2060, nosotros find that under these conditions those parts are good for merely over 100 fps.

Incredibly, nearly graphics cards are able to deliver highly playable performance at 1080p using the medium quality preset. For threescore fps you demand simply an RX 580, 1650 Super or GTX 1060.

Jumping up to 1440p still sees most GPUs able to deliver highly playable performance with the medium quality preset. Once again the high-finish current generation GPUs are pushing over 140 fps with previous gen models however hands breaking the 100 fps barrier.

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

At 4K resolution the loftier-finish Ampere GPUs come up just curt of 100 fps which is a keen result, especially given the 6900 XT averaged 86 fps, making it slower than the RTX 3080. Farther down the stack, the RX 6800 did well edging out the 3070 Ti and comfortably beating the standard 3070.

For around threescore fps, you'll crave the RTX 3060 Ti, 2080 Ti or 3070, with the Radeon RX 6700 XT just falling brusk with 58 boilerplate fps. Below that you are best off just lowering the resolution.

Ultra Quality Performance with Ray Tracing

It's time to have a expect at performance using the ultra quality preset with ray traced ambient occlusion enabled. In the instance of the RTX 3080, we're looking at a 22% refuse in performance at 1080p and a xix% turn down for the RTX 3060. Then from AMD we're looking at a 26% performance hit for the 6800 XT and a 27% performance drop for the RX 6600.

A slightly larger performance striking for AMD as you lot'd expect. In fact, y'all might have expected a bigger drop off for the Red Squad. Anyway, at 1080p the game was still very playable with ray tracing enabled, with any of the graphics cards tested. That said, I'd really only recommend playing with RT enabled with college-end models, though you might exist fine with a lx fps average, but that's ultimately upwards to you to make up one's mind.

Now at 1440p, we're looking at a ~30% performance hitting for Radeon GPUs with RT enabled and a 20% hit for GeForce GPUs. This meant the 6900 XT was at present 17% slower than the RTX 3090, while the 6800 XT was also 17% slower than the RTX 3080. Those seeking lx fps will get away with the RTX 2080 or 2070 Super, and from AMD y'all'll have to make do with the 6700 XT.

No surprises at 4K, you'll want the RTX 3090, 3080 Ti or 3080 for the all-time performance while you lot can sort of enjoy the game with the 6900 XT or 6800 XT but the feel is much better with RT disabled.

Image Quality Comparing

Now that we know how a few dozen AMD and Nvidia GPUs perform in Battleground 2042, the question is how much deviation those tested quality settings make to the visuals. So permit'southward take a look at that...

The difference betwixt medium and ultra is substantial, though the changes won't always spring out at you lot. Essentially everything is improved: textures, lighting, post processing, vegetation, and then on. Depending on the scene, the differences may exist so evident that will justify a twenty-xxx% decrease in functioning.

Then we have ray traced ambient occlusion, which does have quite a meaning bear on on visuals, though not always for the all-time, and the example in the video illustrates that well. The droppings around the burnt out auto looks ameliorate with ray tracing enabled as the greater emphasis on shading really jumps out at you, every bit 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 effect. It looks bad and completely breaks immersion. Surely they need to ready this.

Overall, ray tracing helps in making the game look more than realistic, so if they can fix the dynamic particle event, information technology would certainly be worth using. I practice feel most Battlefield gamers will exist favoring frame rates over visual quality though. Not only that, but the medium preset mostly makes it easier to spot enemies, and so while ultra with ray tracing looks astonishing, information technology's non the "best" way to play the game, at least competitively.

How Does It Run?

That's our look at GPU performance in Battlefield 2042 and what a nightmare this game has been to exam, just we retrieve the data's been worth information technology (and hopefully the game, but that'south up for you to decide).

Those of you targeting 1080p gaming, the good news is only about anything works with the medium quality preset, assuming you have the CPU power to fully unleash the GPU and nosotros'll soon look at CPU performance using a different test method.

Something forth the lines of a GTX 1650 Super or Radeon RX 580 at 1080p using medium settings should do it. 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 really well.

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

On that note, AMD'due south previous-gen RDNA GPUs performed exceptionally well and information technology was good to see the 5700 XT hanging in in that location with the 2070 Super.

Overall, Battlefield 2042 looks very promising and is no doubt set to become a standard championship amongst our benchmarks. For now, we're dandy to kickoff comparing AMD and Intel CPUs and mess around with the Portal manner to meet what the options are at that place for testing, fingers crossed it'south working at present.