Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Battlefield 1 returns from the 2017 benchmark suite, the 2017 benchmark suite with a bang as DICE brought gamers the long-awaited AAA World War 1 shooter a little over a year ago. With detailed maps, environmental effects, and pacy combat, Battlefield 1 provides a generally well-optimized yet demanding graphics workload. The next Battlefield game from DICE, Battlefield V, completes the nostalgia circuit with a return to World War 2, but more importantly for us, is one of the flagship titles for GeForce RTX real time ray tracing, although at this time its realtime raytracing isn't ready to be used as a generalizable benchmark.

We use the Ultra preset is used with no alterations. As these benchmarks are from single player mode, our rule of thumb with multiplayer performance still applies: multiplayer framerates generally dip to half our single player framerates. Battlefield 1 also supports HDR (HDR10, Dolby Vision).

Battlefield 1 - 3840x2160 - Ultra QualityBattlefield 1 - 2560x1440 - Ultra QualityBattlefield 1 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 has made the rounds for some time, and after the optimizations over the years both manufacturers generally enjoy solid performance across the board. The RTX 2060 (6GB) is no exception and fares well, splitting the difference between the GTX 1070 Ti and GTX 1080. This also means it opens a lead on the RX Vega 56.

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra QualityBattlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra QualityBattlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

The Test Far Cry 5
Comments Locked

134 Comments

View All Comments

  • JRW - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    2060 is considerably faster than a 580 tho, I recently upgraded from an R9 290X to EVGA RTX 2060 XC Black and love it, the 290X served me very well tho great card even with todays games @ 1080P but struggled a bit trying to hit my monitors 144hz refresh.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    Turing's MSRP makes the benchmark performance meaningless.
  • jrs77 - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    Midrange card for 350 bucks... :facepalm:

    I don't care if it's as fast as a 1070ti. A xx60 series card should never cost more than 250 and the 1060 was allready overpriced for most of the time, due to all that bitcoin-fuckery.
  • Manch - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    The Vegas are a good bit cheaper than what the scale shows. Not just on sale but regular price reductions. Even mentioned in the article so why tye discrepancy? Also I thoight Vega was a bit slower than the vanilla1080. Its showing to be faster than the FE?
  • sing_electric - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    I'm not sure what you're referring to, since the best deal I've heard of on the Vega 56 was ~$320 on Black Friday, and today, I can't find a card for less than $370 (at NewEgg on one model, all others are $400+). I like AMD but given today's prices, the only price category where I think AMD wins right now is with the ~$200 580. The ~$280 RX 590 is most of the way to the 2060's MSRP but offers significantly less performance.
  • Manch - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    Per the article, ". In the mix are concurrent events like AMD-partner Sapphire’s just-announced RX Vega price cuts, which will see the RX Vega 64 Nitro Plus moved to $379 and the RX Vega 56 Pulse to $329, and both with an attached 3-game bundle" Thats even better than what Ive seen.

    I just bought a MSI vega 64 from amazon for $399 with the 3 game bundle in Dec. Ive seen on avg 400-450 for Vega 64 and a good bit lower for Vega 56.

    The chart has Vega 56 at 499 which isnt the case.
  • Manch - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    Vega 64 $399, Vega 56 $368 new egg. Plus 3 games.
  • Manch - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    vega 64 $399 on amazon as well. There are higher pri ed cards but who cares is theyre readily available at these prices?
  • Vayra - Wednesday, January 9, 2019 - link

    They also take twice as much power at the wall. *poof* there go the savings. And you get free extra noise and heat in the case to boot.
  • Manch - Friday, January 11, 2019 - link

    Double?! LOL

    Compared to a 2060? The avg diff according to Anand's Bench is 130watts.

    Avg price of electricity in the US is 12 cents a kilowatt hour. That means it would cost you 1.2 cents per 100watts an hour. It would cost you on average 1.668 cents more an hour to run a VEGA 64 at full bore balls out compared to the 2060. If we then calculate the difference for an entire year @ 100% power draw for 365 days or 8760hrs the total comes out to $146.12 Here in Germany it would be about double that.

    Lets be real no one does that. (Miners?)

    Avg is 12hrs a week! Highly doubtful the card is running 100% for 12hrs a week but if it were.
    52 weeks in a year, 12 hrs a week for 624hrs for a soul crushing total of $10.41

    So yes it cost more to run a higher power card....duh, but it's not double. Stop the FUD.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now