Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Battlefield 1 leads off 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. In light of DX12-related performance issues in this title, DX11 is utilized for all cards.

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

Battlefield 1 has shown itself to be rather favorable on Vega hardware, and against Vega 56 at 4K, the GTX 1070 Ti FE can only manage a draw. At lower resolutions, the Vega 56 loses its advantage, but the difference is slim.

The Test Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
POST A COMMENT

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • moxin - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    Still think it's a bit expensive Reply
  • Spunjji - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    Agreed. This should be 1070 price, 1070 down to the 970's original MSRP... Anything less is gouging. Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    I think it should cost $20. Reply
  • edlee - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    This mining rush might kill the pc gaming industry, when a gamer cannot find a single high performance card at msrp prices, they will just flock to the xbox one x or ps4 pro, this is outrageous. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    Hey everyone, please watch your language. (not you specifically, Spunjji, I removed a comment below you) Reply
  • CiccioB - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    I think that any comment whining about prices should be removed ASAP. Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    I'm not a gamer so I'm more wide eyed at a the idea of a video card that draws 80 watts at idle and over 300 under load...more than my whole system under load. And upwards of $500? Wow. I guess I'm sort of glad I'm not a gamer. :) Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    Those are total system numbers, not the card itself. Reply
  • CaedenV - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    The card by itself idles at ~20W and load at ~250W

    Still quite a bit compared to a small desktop or a laptop though lol
    Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 02, 2017 - link

    Yup, those power numbers are terrible. The desire for improvement in visual quality and competition between the two remaining dGPU manufactures has certainly done us no favors when it comes to electrical consumption and waste heat generation in modern PCs. Sadly, people often forget that good graphics don't automatically imply tons of fun will be had at the keyboard and they consequently create demand that causes a positive feedback loop that make 200+ watt TDP GPUs viable products. I remember the many hours I killed playing games on my Palm IIIxe and it needed a new pair of AAA batteries once every 3 or so weeks. Not everyone feels that way though and for an obviously large number of consumer buyers, graphics and resolution mean the world to them no matter the price of entry or the power consumption. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now