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 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

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

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

As a mainstream card, the GTX 1660 is aiming at the area between RX 580/590 and GTX 1660 Ti, and that's exactly where it lines up in Battlefield 1. In fact, it's also the only game this suite that the RX 590 can make a claim to have a slight lead, albeit at 1440p. Ideally, given the original $279 MSRP of the RX 590, this is the level of performance the GTX 1660 wants to meet, where it undercuts the RX 590 and beats out the RX 580 for a competitive price.

And unsurprisingly, the mild +10W TDP of the EVGA XC Black makes an equally mild difference, just like last time.

The Test Far Cry 5
POST A COMMENT

79 Comments

View All Comments

  • Qasar - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    it also depends on if the consoles even have any games some one would want to play... for me.. those games are not on consoles.. they are on a comp... not worth it for me to by a console as it would just sit under my tv unused.. Reply
  • D. Lister - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    @eva02langley: "...console hardware is more efficient since it is dedicated for gaming only."

    smh... console hardware used to be more efficient for gaming when console hardware was composed of custom parts. Now, consoles use essentially the same parts as PCs, so that argument doesn't work anymore.

    Fact of the matter is, consoles remain competitive in framerate by either cutting down on internal resolution, or graphic quality features, like AA, AF, AO, or in many cases, both res and features. Take a look at the face-offs conducted by the Digital Foundry over at Eurogamers.net.
    Reply
  • D. Lister - Saturday, March 16, 2019 - link

    @eva02langley: I also find it rather ironic that you, who has often criticized NVidia for not being open-sourced enough with their technologies, are making a case here for consoles that are completely proprietary and closed-off systems. Reply
  • maroon1 - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    Faster, consume much less power, smaller and produce less noise than RX590 which cost same

    Even if you ignore the performance advantage, the GTX 1660 is still better out of the two. No reason to buy big power hungry GPU when it has no performance advantage
    Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    What is it with Wolfenstein that kills the 900 series?

    I mean they're still competitive in almost everything else, but Wolfenstein just buries the 900 series horribly. If it's that bad I'm glad I'm not addicted to that series. I had thought about picking up a copy, but damn...
    Reply
  • Opencg - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    they may be using some async techniques. the famous example is doom where many 900 series saw worse performance on vulkan due to async being a cpu based driver side implementation. Reply
  • Dribble - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    I think it's because it has FP16 code in the shaders - which Turing and newer AMD have hardware support for, but Pascal doesn't. It was AMD's trump card until Turing so you'll find a few AMD sponsored games use FP16. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    "What is it with Wolfenstein that kills the 900 series?"

    Memory capacity. It really wants more than 4GB when all of its IQ settings are cranked up, which leaves everything below the GTX 980 Ti a bit short on space.
    Reply
  • AustinPowersISU - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    Used GTX 1070 still makes the most sense. You can easily get one for less than this card and have much better performance.

    Nvidia needs to do better.
    Reply
  • eva02langley - Thursday, March 14, 2019 - link

    It is still their best offering in term of price/performance from Turing. However, yeah, that should have been done way before. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now