Why is medium more demanding than ultra haha
Now this is some performance. I'm not bothered though, just want to see real time raytracing.
Obviously hardly any discrepancy in performance between the profiles anyway
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Battlefield V PC performance thread
- Thread starter GrrImAFridge
- Start date
Obviously hardly any discrepancy in performance between the profiles anyway
Yes. I would also say that my fps halved with RTX on (2080 ti in 1440p ultra)
On some maps it has more impact than on others.
Here is my reflection on a car. There is also a tank rolling by on the left but hard to see.
edit: are there different quality settings for raytracing? I only had a switch for on/off
eh that does not look too good. i dont remember it looking like that at the nvidia event
Should be according to Techpowerup.Yes. I would also say that my fps halved with RTX on (2080 ti in 1440p ultra)
On some maps it has more impact than on others.
Here is my reflection on a car. There is also a tank rolling by on the left but hard to see.
edit: are there different quality settings for raytracing? I only had a switch for on/off
How are your FPS at 1440p? These performance numbers seem to me as if there is a DXR "ceiling" which is the max performance you can hit with DXR on but with headroom for increasing the resolution as long as there are enough rasterisation performance available.
Ray tracing in itself isn't proprietary tech, but Nvidia RTX is. Kind of like VRR vs Gsync.
Just checked. Raytracing quality was ultra
I have no overlay to show fps in BFV so I have to guess: 30-45 in rotterdam. around 50 in the yellow open field map (very few reflections there)
That was in 64 player conquest. It might run a lot better in smaller games
The game doesn't directly use any RTX exclusive APIs though, it uses DXR, which is not hardware vendor proprietary (It is Microsoft proprietary).
Nvidia RTX is Nvidias implementation of DXR, which is open. The game only interfaces with DXR. Although seeing as NVIDIA is the only one with DXR-compatible hardware available there are likely optimisations.
Still not the perfect analogy. RTX is much more like how nvidia has its rasteriser set up or its tessellation set up in HW and in the driver - things which are basic functions for DX or OGL. RTX is just NV's implementation of DXR basically.
I don't get the option to turn on DXR at all and I have all the necessary patches and a 2080 Ti.
I suppose we need someone...perhaps someone working at some sort of foundry, some sort of digital foundry, to thoroughly test across a matrix of settings and resolutions, to answer that...
You are taking apart my post for the wrong reasons. What I meant is RTX is some of the worst performing tech being pushed by Nvidia compared to their past technologies such as Gameworks, Physx, etc.
Nevermind, I am still on 1803 for some reason, and I even downloaded a windows patch yesterday which I thought was 1809.
And when I check for updates it doesn't offer me anything else.
Would that even be a relevant and logical comparison? You would be making significant sacrifices to overall image quality just to have RTX on.
Now this is some performance. I'm not bothered though, just want to see real time raytracing.
Sadly, pretty much what we all expected 1080p60. And that's with the 2080Ti. Any benches with the 2070 and 2080?
1440p and 4K raytracing benchmarks:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...benchmarks-battlefield-v-mit-dxr-im-test.html
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...benchmarks-battlefield-v-mit-dxr-im-test.html
On my 2080 with RTX on, on the latest Nvidia drivers, no matter what RTX setting it crashes upon the zoom-in in conquest mode. (have tried 4 times, crashes at the same exact point on the zoom down to the ground every time regardless of map)
I can get to playable sections in single player.
I can get to playable sections in single player.
The performance hit is enormous, but that was to be expected.
I said this back when the RTX line was announced, but this is the first time in a long time that PC GPUs and rendering tech is featuring demanding, emergent technology. A good decade or more ago it wasn't overly uncommon for PC games to, every now and then, have some rendering pipeline or feature that only the most cutting edge hardware would take advantage of and consoles wouldn't touch. That filtered out a bit as consoles and PC tech standardised, with only the odd bolted on tech feature added extra bells and whistles and not usually at too great of a performance cost. PhysX, VXAO, etc are similar examples.
Ray tracing is a big deal though. A huge deal. It's extremely advanced and emergent, and was always going to come at a huge performance cost. It doesn't really matter of Nvidia are leading the charge into this territory and the cards cost a small fortune. The huge performance hit was always going to be there even if the cards are tailored for this stuff. Buying an RTX for ray tracing is admitted to being an early adopter in expensive emergent tech. You literally banked on the most expensive, lowest performing variation of very new tech that'll only get more powerful as time goes by.
I just know the next couple of years are going to be a circus of foolish bewilderment from early RTX adopters who are confused and baffled that ray tracing, surprise surprise, smashes the card performance. What did people expect?
I said this back when the RTX line was announced, but this is the first time in a long time that PC GPUs and rendering tech is featuring demanding, emergent technology. A good decade or more ago it wasn't overly uncommon for PC games to, every now and then, have some rendering pipeline or feature that only the most cutting edge hardware would take advantage of and consoles wouldn't touch. That filtered out a bit as consoles and PC tech standardised, with only the odd bolted on tech feature added extra bells and whistles and not usually at too great of a performance cost. PhysX, VXAO, etc are similar examples.
Ray tracing is a big deal though. A huge deal. It's extremely advanced and emergent, and was always going to come at a huge performance cost. It doesn't really matter of Nvidia are leading the charge into this territory and the cards cost a small fortune. The huge performance hit was always going to be there even if the cards are tailored for this stuff. Buying an RTX for ray tracing is admitted to being an early adopter in expensive emergent tech. You literally banked on the most expensive, lowest performing variation of very new tech that'll only get more powerful as time goes by.
I just know the next couple of years are going to be a circus of foolish bewilderment from early RTX adopters who are confused and baffled that ray tracing, surprise surprise, smashes the card performance. What did people expect?
Aha. The Lost Coast had my 9500 on its knees. Gave up pc gaming for 12years after that day. Still never got over it.
the radeon 9500 was next gen goddamit
This time I managed to load into Rotterdam, take a few shots, start up nvidia shadowplay recording, die, and upon trying to respawn... crash
That was with ultra on.
The funny thing about the performance, at 1080p 100% res with DXR Ultra it ran at 60fps sometimes and would just plummet other times. Super hitchy uneven frame delivery. Generally I see that kind of performance in the single player too.
Some scenes (vistas) really crush the RTX performance, on ultra dropping down to around 49 fps, but even when it's running fine and GPU is only 60% taxed it just runs so hitchy. I wonder if it's because of the changes to the BVH as I move around.
As an aside, the visuals really need spectacular occlusion. It's so distracting with RTX on and there's a character in front of you, but the ground is glowing as if the light is bouncing off of it because it's a specular RTX layer and not tracing that glossiness.
That was with ultra on.
The funny thing about the performance, at 1080p 100% res with DXR Ultra it ran at 60fps sometimes and would just plummet other times. Super hitchy uneven frame delivery. Generally I see that kind of performance in the single player too.
Some scenes (vistas) really crush the RTX performance, on ultra dropping down to around 49 fps, but even when it's running fine and GPU is only 60% taxed it just runs so hitchy. I wonder if it's because of the changes to the BVH as I move around.
As an aside, the visuals really need spectacular occlusion. It's so distracting with RTX on and there's a character in front of you, but the ground is glowing as if the light is bouncing off of it because it's a specular RTX layer and not tracing that glossiness.
The game is very cpu dependant.
My ryzen 1700 @3.9ghz is constantly at 60-80% usage. Unlike any other game.
But with a decent enough cpu you should achieve 60fps @ high settings.
I have an i5 4690. Would that run it well do you think? Also, it runs at ~60fps on Xbox and the cpu there is shit, so you'd think it'd be okay on pc.
The cpu is maybe shit but it has more threads than your 4690. 4 threads are more shitty in that regard. You probably won't be able to hold it above 60fps all the time. But the consoles can't do that either, so...
The K version of your cpu with a 970 allows 50-60fps on ultra.
Dropping settings to high should see a good improvement.
You'll definitely get a better looking and performing experience than on consoles. (excl x1x and pro)
And this isn't even real raytracing. This is raytracing on a select few surface reflections, and the cost is over 50% of your framerate.
Actually I have a K version, but does it need to be overclocked to do what you're saying?
That's interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. A quick question (sorry if it's off-topic): my pc is i5 4690k / 970 / 8gb DDR3 RAM. How does that compare to an Xbox One X in terms of specs. I had thought it was stronger, but perhaps it's not?
The cpu itself is faster but BF MP is heavily optimised towards parallelisation. So it is better to have slower cpu with 8 cores than a very fast one with 4. I've raised my 4560k to 4,5ghz and it died even in BF1 in some situations. An I7 with 8 threads was outperforming me even me even without OC.
Specs:
i7-4790k 4ghz
16gb ram
nvidia 1080
I don't really understand it. DX12 Off, Future Frame Rendering On, Vsync Off, Ultra Preset, 1080p, framerate limiter set to monitor refresh.
The game runs at a solid 60fps (PerfOverlay.DrawFPS), but when under load the game looks very "stuttery" or "choppy".
Its like the game has very uneven frame times or something, because the fps counter stays at a solid 60 even when its a choppy.
Anyone else experiencing this?
i7-4790k 4ghz
16gb ram
nvidia 1080
I don't really understand it. DX12 Off, Future Frame Rendering On, Vsync Off, Ultra Preset, 1080p, framerate limiter set to monitor refresh.
The game runs at a solid 60fps (PerfOverlay.DrawFPS), but when under load the game looks very "stuttery" or "choppy".
Its like the game has very uneven frame times or something, because the fps counter stays at a solid 60 even when its a choppy.
Anyone else experiencing this?
Techpowerup has the full benchmark suite up
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/
Comparison between low and ultra:
Low:
Ultra:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/
Comparison between low and ultra:
Low:
Ultra:
I'm going to do a bunch of testing tonight at different RTX quality levels and resolutions. Interested to see how much, if at all, frame-rates are affected running my 2080Ti "stock" (just power and voltage set to max) vs my biggest stable OC profile (core max 2160, memory @ 8100). I'm on the Galax BIOS (card is an EVGA) which provides max 380w power draw (vs 338w stock).
I have a feeling differences won't be noticeable without a FPS counter but we'll see. Long-term there's no way I'm playing BFV on 1080p but I'm also ok with not being at my max native (3440x1440) so I'll have to see what combo of res and settings I end up with.
I have a feeling differences won't be noticeable without a FPS counter but we'll see. Long-term there's no way I'm playing BFV on 1080p but I'm also ok with not being at my max native (3440x1440) so I'll have to see what combo of res and settings I end up with.
Whelp, RTX scaling is basically nonexistent. I'll let these pics speak for themselves:
(this is on my 2080... from those benchmarks above it looks like I could get >60fps on a 2080Ti, but the performance is SO hitchey, I bet 65 avg would feel like 25fps)
Low RTX, 25% scaling:
Ultra DXR, 130% scaling:
With RTX completely off I get no performance problems, although DX12 likes to drop below 60fps for no reason at all. DX11 is beautiful & smooth.
Some scenes really do look a ton better with RTX on. Usually it's around muzzle flare. That's just represented a million times better with RTX. Not super impressed with the effect on a purely visual level when it comes to water and stuff. I think there's still a lot to be done in terms of materials with raytracing interaction.
Also I've seen some limitations of the BVH setup they're using, seeing reflections of fires that are completely obscured by walls, but that's really not a big deal.
(this is on my 2080... from those benchmarks above it looks like I could get >60fps on a 2080Ti, but the performance is SO hitchey, I bet 65 avg would feel like 25fps)
Low RTX, 25% scaling:
Ultra DXR, 130% scaling:
With RTX completely off I get no performance problems, although DX12 likes to drop below 60fps for no reason at all. DX11 is beautiful & smooth.
Some scenes really do look a ton better with RTX on. Usually it's around muzzle flare. That's just represented a million times better with RTX. Not super impressed with the effect on a purely visual level when it comes to water and stuff. I think there's still a lot to be done in terms of materials with raytracing interaction.
Also I've seen some limitations of the BVH setup they're using, seeing reflections of fires that are completely obscured by walls, but that's really not a big deal.
It is really smooth for me. Frametime graph is pretty straight with very rare spikes happening. Playing with 8700k@4,8ghz at 1440p with medium settings + gsync. Getting pretty much a solid 100-130fps experience with that. Depending on the situation and map it can go down to 80-90fps but is never really choppy.
Not much difference in Ultra vs Low in terms of quality.Techpowerup has the full benchmark suite up
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/
Comparison between low and ultra:
Low:
Ultra:
Comparison between low and ultra:
Low:
Ultra:
I'm noticing Inaccuracies in the reflections. How are Ray traced reflections drawn? Is it an automatic "thing"
DICE gets to choose what items get reflected and where via the design of their BVH implementation (read: algorithmicly, not manually).
I'm no expert though and I really wonder how rasterized materials are interacting with the raytraced effects.
It's real raytracing, but to make the calculations manageable they simplify the 'hits' of rays on objects. I don't think that particular optimization will go away for a long, long time.
This is on ULTRA. I think this is a BVH limitation, although I'm not sure. I know BVH hits on stuff like trees are a bad time altogether, but here the trees are completely not reflected, but the fire behind is.
This is a case where a screenspace reflection is both more accurate and better looking, I'd say.
I wonder if this will be possible for DICE to tune up in their implementation.
This is a case where a screenspace reflection is both more accurate and better looking, I'd say.
I wonder if this will be possible for DICE to tune up in their implementation.