Is Your PC Tall Enough For Star Wars Battlefront? The Benchmarks Are In

OK, so measuring the height of one's PC is a very poor way to gauge its GPU performance. And what are we applying the ruler to anyway? The tower? The monitor? The length of your video? It's so much easier to just fire up the game in question — Star Wars Battlefront — and check out the frame rate. That's what Gamers Nexus has done anyway.

And it worked out famously. The site's Steve Burke decided to put a bunch of video cards through their paces, with Battlefront providing the fire for the trial. Along with testing the most common resolution: 1920 x 1080, he also cranked things up all the way to 11.

Well, 4K.

The high end features the likes of the GeForce 980 Ti and Radeon 390X, with the low end staffed with a GeForce 750 Ti and GTX 950, with AMD's offerings being the R9 270X and R9 285.

So, what happened? There a graphs a-plenty in the article, but the long and short of it is that unless you're running a dual-980 Ti setup, 4K is asking for trouble. While the configuration managed 60fps on average, it only did so "barely".

Going down to more sane resolutions, 1440p at Ultra settings is playable starting with the GTX 970 and better. That's not to say cards like the 960 or 285 are out of the running — you'll just have to drop the quality settings a few notches to get a smooth frame rate at 1440p.

Finally, 1080p provides a somewhat better experience for the slower cards, but you're still going to want to go easy on the shadows if you're cruising around on a 750 Ti, 950 or 270X. Interestingly, while the 4GB cards provide high frame rates, the extra memory doesn't deliver that massive benefit over those with half the amount, so don't worry too much there.

For a deeper analysis, along with a look at the game's available graphics settings, head on over to Gamers Nexus.

Star Wars Battlefront PC Benchmark – 1080, 1440, & 4K Tested on 980 Ti, 970, 390X, & More [Gamers Nexus]


Comments

    So happy my R9 285 can run this on ultra with 60fps! You'd think it would be harder to run with all those fancy laser effects. Can't wait till it comes out!

    not sure if I am going to buy this, dice have screwed up so much in the past... I am just waiting for release to see if it is stable and how the servers are configured... I still remember bf4 with its terrible 10 tick rate servers, not expecting insanely high tick rates, but I think BF has shown it runs decently at 33.

    Last edited 11/10/15 1:34 pm

      Played the beta and servers were stable. Had no problem enjoying the game. I have a decent enough rig to play the game at 1080p and everything on ultra. (i7 4820 3.7ghz, 780 gtx 3gb ram, 28gb ram) I'm based in SE QLD and on optus ISP on their high speed broadband.

      Go try the beta now before you decide. It's running very smoothly with no issues so far. No server crashes or anything just that there was not enough server during the beginning of the beta but more servers were added.

        You obviously don't remember or didn't play the BF4 beta. It looked and ran fine. The release date came around and it was a whole different story.

          I didn't get to play BF4 beta :( I missed the open beta and I stayed away from BF4 completely.

          With the Battlefield 4 Beta the servers were running with about half the load they would run on release. So that's why it was a lot smoother, servers were not under as much pressure. Apparently they were instructed to do this by DICE. No idea if it's true but that's why people were saying.

          Then simply, it's harder to get a full understanding of issues in such a small section of a game for such a limited time.

          Last edited 12/10/15 9:30 am

          bf4 beta was fine?... You guys must be high, because the bf4 beta was plagued with problems! Windows 7 users had massive fps problems, server stability issues and more! It was unplayable for the first week for most people. I don't know what beta you guys are talking about maybe you're confused, because Bf4 beta and its release was a mess with people getting shot behind walls, not being able to connect and performance problems.

          Even the youtubers who cover the game, such as levelcap had videos covering the major issues, and the testing servers with what improvements where coming (higher tick rates for one).

          Here is a link to one of the many videos done by the community at the time...
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV3xUyfYQdI

          Now its apparently up there with bad company 2 as one of the best Bf4 games ever. But when i got it I was extremely let down, and even though I know bf4 is a great game now I have not gone back too it, and very hesitant to buy battlefront, not only because it might have issues at launch but I am asking myself, is this a company I want to support.

          Last edited 23/10/15 10:12 am

      Been playing it quite a lot. Honestly it is just Battlefield in every single way except a bit worse.

      Spawn camping is huge. Vehicle spawn camping is worse. No one plays the objective. It is horrid. IMO th e only thing it has going for it is it looks absolutely amazing and the sounds are top notch.

        Spawn Camping is a huge issue. I'm generally having fun but when you spawn straight into a thermal detonator or blaster fire it gets a bit tedious. Also looks like Imperials always win on Hoth. Fair bit of gameplay balancing required.

    I just do a check with "Can You Run It?" before looking into the games. According to that, my graphics card and CPU need an upgrade... Which is fitting since I haven't upgraded this rig in about 3 years.

      I am running it on an a five year old PC. I've got two 460s and the SLI doesn't work. So running off one. It runs terribly. All my friends say it runs great, but for me I can lower settings to get the frame rate playable, but it's laggy as hell. I assume that's the PC.

      Although the only reason I have it on this old machine is my motherboard died on my good rig and hopefully that is up and running today so I can test it out on a 980 ti.

    Always amusing when people refer to their computer as a 'rig'.

      Its really sad, I refer to mine as Reginald.

        I've always been a firm believer that the right name will come to a computer. My last one was 'Dusty,' due to it running poorly one time and then opening it up to find this:
        https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/184318_498566296861_4672871_n.jpg?oh=743a0df22f74d36a10331d714c647a22&oe=56947C5C

        My current build is nearing it's fourth birthday now, though still hasn't gotten a name. Maybe I could do a B.B. King though and just keep the running theme going since this does seem to be a pretty regular occurrence for me..:
        https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/530732_10151192727296862_475255327_n.jpg?oh=80946cff8cee8d8cee4329f7f05156b1&oe=568FF01C

    I have a 3 year old Alienware laptop running a 7970M, it auto detected settings to 1080p with everything on Low, I put it to high and it averaged around 45-50 with consistent drops down to 35 (occasionally dipping into the high 20's). I set it to Medium and it holds a solid 40-50 whilst recording. I'm actually fairly happy with how it runs, I'm confident that If I wasn't recording, and I turned a few of the post-processing or shading settings down, I could run it happily on High settings

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now