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.

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 Quality

Battlefield 1 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Our previous experience with Battlefield 1 shows that AMD hardware tend to do relatively well here, and the Radeon VII is no exception. Of the games in our suite, Battlefield 1 is actually only one of two games where the Radeon VII takes the lead over the RTX 2080, but nevertheless this is still a feather in its cap. The uplift over the Vega 64 is an impressive 34% at 4K, more than enough to solidly mark its position at the tier above. In turn, Battlefield 1 sees the Radeon VII meaningfully faster than the GTX 1080 Ti FE, something that the RTX 2080 needed the Founders Edition tweaks for.

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

99th percentiles reflect the same story, and at 1080p the CPU bottleneck plays more of a role than slight differences of the top three cards.

The Test Far Cry 5
Comments Locked

289 Comments

View All Comments

  • 29a - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    As usual in these garbage articles the prices given are nowhere near reality. The Vega 64 is $100 cheaper than what is listed.
  • RSAUser - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Anandtech doesn't ever seem to update reviews or prices.
    They'll compare a device from their history even if there have been months of driver updates that fixed performance issues, so they'll be using non-current info and everyone will assume it's current.
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    "Anandtech doesn't ever seem to update reviews or prices."

    On the contrary, quite a bit was updated for this review. Though as driver performance has been rather stable as of late, performance hasn't exactly gone anywhere for most cards on most games.

    If you see anything that seems wrong, please let us know. But we go out of our way to try to avoid using any card/driver combinations that result in performance issues.
  • Korguz - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    29a
    if you think AT does nothing but garbage articles.. then, lets see YOU do better...

    as for prices.. meh.. thats something hard to account for as there are things called exchange rates, and other variables that no one can predict.....
  • Phil85 - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    So when will prices of GPU's decrease? Is this the new normal?
  • eva02langley - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Navi should bring value back to mid-range.

    It is still a nice card for professional/compute/rendering. But for gaming, the price is maybe 50$ too expensive, and AMD really needs to get some better quality fans.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    If Navi is missing next generation features like ray tracing and tensor cores, there will be ZERO value to it.
  • eva02langley - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    AHAHAHAHA... Ray Tracing... you know the real problem of Ray Tracing? It was never on the table until Jensen brainwashed shill that it was important. by defending it, you obviously prove that you have no critical judgement.

    By the way, the problem with RT/DLSS is that it will never be implemented because AMD owns consoles, and that devs develop on consoles. There is no monetary benefit to implement gimmick proprietary gameworks features for 1% of the PC user base, unless if Nvidia is paying you to do so.

    It will never be a thing for the upcoming console generation. See you in 7 years, where it might be remotely relevant to the industry. As of now, unless you are rendering a CGI movie, it is worthless.
  • Dribble - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Both the next gen consoles are going to have ray tracing. Microsoft - who wrote and own the spec for the DX12 ray tracing extension currently used by PC's and hence a strong backer of ray tracing - will make one of them.
  • eva02langley - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Not going to happen because RTX is proprietary, it is a closed environment, and require hardware acceleration that AMD is not going to pursue in the short time. Nvidia shoot themselves in the foot by pushing it. Open source is the only way a new standard can be adopted. The whole G-synch fiasco should have been enough to prove it.

    Hardware could run it still, but the impact on performances is just to important. At that point, developers like Sony have incredible talent in creating new effect that look way more realistic.

    Just looking at The Last of Us Part 2 is a good example.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now