[GameGPU] BF Hardline benchmarks

[96Firebird]

There has been some backlash by hardcore Battlefield fans because this game carries the "Battlefield" nomenclature, despite being a cops and robbers type game. However, I've been having fun playing this game. The new game types are great, and it runs just as good as BF4 on my system. The graphics aren't awe-inspiring, but the game still looks good.

GameGPU BF Hardline benchmarks

Kepler is still holding it's own in this game, very comparable to Maxwell. Game doesn't really stress the CPU much either.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Looks like a quality built game,considering anything with 4 threads and a couple years old can deliver such good performance.Wonder where older chips like the x6 1090t and x4 965 could land on those charts.

Gpu performance even isn't all that bad,it almost seems like the game was built in mind for the masses like some sort of CS:GO kind of deal.Make a fun game that doesn't require a super computer to run.

:thumbsup:

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Are those 290x scores Mantle or DX? The graphs do not specify that.

 

[RussianSensation]

Some notable takeaways for me:

1) Ares II HD7990 which is essentially a 1.1Ghz/6.6Ghz HD7970s in CF has good performance for its time. It crushes a GTX690 by 28% avg and 39% minimums (!!!) at 1600p; and is not too far behind stock 780 SLI / 970 SLI at 100% textures. Impressive staying power for what are January 2012 videocards. I have to say that HD7970Ghz has proven to be superior to GK204 as far as staying power goes for newer games. For those of us who picked HD7970 CF over 670/680 2GB SLI, looks like we estimated correctly.

2) To run the game at 200% at 1080P or 150% at 1600P, 2GB cards are insufficient. Looks like the era of 2GB videocards is basically done. Unfortunately I think we will still see a lot of 2GB 300 cards and 900 cards. Hopefully with Pascal and Arctic Islands, every card above $199 is 3GB+.

Interestingly enough, it's at 150-200% setting that texture demands cripple HD7990 compared to 780 SLI / 970 SLI which suggests Tahiti was massively texture limited at high rez gaming (hence why we should see AMD increase TMUs on 390X as GCN seems to respond very well to TMU increases --> 256 TMUs is more or less 95% guaranteed then for 390X).

3) VRAM usage is sky high but I can't say the textures are that impressive.

Pretty nuts to see 4GB of VRAM at 120%, which means at 150-200%, if you have the SLI/CF horsepower, you'll likely want a 6GB+ card. Hmm....I think AMD may be shooting itself in the foot if it only has 4GB of HBM for 390 cards.

4) 280X crushes a similarly priced 960, delivering 27% more performance at 1080P, and more importantly minimums > 50 fps at 1080p!

5) 970/980 GM204 chips are running into a major bottleneck at 4K. Hard to say if it's pixel, texture or shader limitation but 980 SLI completely loses its lead over 295X2. Obviously none of these settings are playable but still interesting to observe for theoretical reasons nonetheless. Considering 980 SLI is just 1 fps faster than 970 SLI, looks like there is some bottleneck there.

6) Kepler has very good performance in this title relative to Maxwell, although since it's still based on an older engine, it's not surprising as Kepler architecture/drivers would have been well optimized for Frostbite 3.

Overall, the game engine/graphics are starting to look dated though. Looking forward to what Dice can do with Star Wars Battlefront and BF5.

 

[AtenRa]

This is single player benchmark ???

This is the video from the benchmark they used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVL_FzXSvsY

edit: Also to note the CPU benchmarks doesnt use MSAA.

 

[RussianSensation]

^ Ya, pretty much. We need more data from other sites testing multi-player and other areas of the game. 1 review is just scratching the surface. As more people find data for this game, it can be added to this thread for a better idea of how the cards perform in the game.

 

[Headfoot]

Hardline is still definitely a good looking game -- but after playing the beta I couldn't help but get an overwhelming sense of "been there done that." It really just feels like BF4 with some different maps and a couple of cool little things on top. The new stuff is pretty awesome, but the core gameplay is more or less the same which made it get old pretty fast, as I already have a number of hours into BF4.

 

[AtenRa]

Hardline is still definitely a good looking game -- but after playing the beta I couldn't help but get an overwhelming sense of "been there done that." It really just feels like BF4 with some different maps and a couple of cool little things on top. The new stuff is pretty awesome, but the core gameplay is more or less the same which made it get old pretty fast, as I already have a number of hours into BF4.

I have played the Beta for a couple of hours and it was enough to make me not buy the game. I would prefer more maps in BF4.
My next EA game will be the StarWars Battlefront.

 

[raghu78]

Imagine this game on a R9 390X with 8GB HBM. btw why are some people still saying R9 390 cards with 4 GB HBM when its pretty much confirmed that R9 390 series cards are definitely 8GB . The leaked perf slides put R9 390X at +60% over R9 290X in BF4. Since this game uses the same FrostBite 3 engine its very much possible we are looking at +60% increase. If that holds true the R9 390X will break 40 fps at stock and with a min fps around 35. if you add a bit of overclocking you are basically at avg 45+ fps and min fps close to 40 fps. This R9 390X is going to be a beast when it launches. AMD needs to get awesome launch drivers both in single and multi GPU. voila we are looking at a truly great GPU. :thumbsup:

 

[AtenRa]

Imagine this game on a R9 390X with 8GB HBM. btw why are some people still saying R9 390 cards with 4 GB HBM when its pretty much confirmed that R9 390 series cards are definitely 8GB . The leaked perf slides put R9 390X at +60% over R9 290X in BF4. Since this game uses the same FrostBite 3 engine its very much possible we are looking at +60% increase. If that holds true the R9 390X will break 40 fps at stock and with a min fps around 35. if you add a bit of overclocking you are basically at avg 45+ fps and min fps close to 40 fps. This R9 390X is going to be a beast when it launches. AMD needs to get awesome launch drivers both in single and multi GPU. voila we are looking at a truly great GPU. :thumbsup:

They benched with 4X MSAA at 4K, i dont think you will even need 2X MSAA at 4K.

 

[kawi6rr]

Some notable takeaways for me:

1) Ares II HD7990 which is essentially a 1.1Ghz/6.6Ghz HD7970s in CF has good performance for its time. It crushes a GTX690 by 28% avg and 39% minimums (!!!) at 1600p; and is not too far behind stock 780 SLI / 970 SLI at 100% textures. Impressive staying power for what are January 2012 videocards. I have to say that HD7970Ghz has proven to be superior to GK204 as far as staying power goes for newer games. For those of us who picked HD7970 CF over 670/680 2GB SLI, looks like we estimated correctly.

2) To run the game at 200% at 1080P or 150% at 1600P, 2GB cards are insufficient. Looks like the era of 2GB videocards is basically done. Unfortunately I think we will still see a lot of 2GB 300 cards and 900 cards. Hopefully with Pascal and Arctic Islands, every card above $199 is 3GB+.

Interestingly enough, it's at 150-200% setting that texture demands cripple HD7990 compared to 780 SLI / 970 SLI which suggests Tahiti was massively texture limited at high rez gaming (hence why we should see AMD increase TMUs on 390X as GCN seems to respond very well to TMU increases --> 256 TMUs is more or less 95% guaranteed then for 390X).

3) VRAM usage is sky high but I can't say the textures are that impressive.

Pretty nuts to see 4GB of VRAM at 120%, which means at 150-200%, if you have the SLI/CF horsepower, you'll likely want a 6GB+ card. Hmm....I think AMD may be shooting itself in the foot if it only has 4GB of HBM for 390 cards.

4) 280X crushes a similarly priced 960, delivering 27% more performance at 1080P, and more importantly minimums > 50 fps at 1080p!

5) 970/980 GM204 chips are running into a major bottleneck at 4K. Hard to say if it's pixel, texture or shader limitation but 980 SLI completely loses its lead over 295X2. Obviously none of these settings are playable but still interesting to observe for theoretical reasons nonetheless. Considering 980 SLI is just 1 fps faster than 970 SLI, looks like there is some bottleneck there.

6) Kepler has very good performance in this title relative to Maxwell, although since it's still based on an older engine, it's not surprising as Kepler architecture/drivers would have been well optimized for Frostbite 3.

Overall, the game engine/graphics are starting to look dated though. Looking forward to what Dice can do with Star Wars Battlefront and BF5.

Great staying power for AMD gpus I'm glad I went with the R9 290 this round.

 

[Silverforce11]

Good to see excellent multi-GPU support on release. That's one extra reason why DICE are one of the few developers who cares about PC.

 

[psolord]

I would like to see cpu comparisons on AMD gpus as well.

Just to see at what state AMD's cpu driver overhead is.

I pissed my pants the other day when I saw my 5850 having higher cpu usage for lower framerate in Rogue, compared to my 970.

 

[SPBHM]

I would like to see cpu comparisons on AMD gpus as well.

Just to see at what state AMD's cpu driver overhead is.

I pissed my pants the other day when I saw my 5850 having higher cpu usage for lower framerate in Rogue, compared to my 970.

interesting results, but not surprising for me since I've been using old AMD cards for a while and always noticed more CPU limitations than most tests or similar PCs with Nvidia GPUs, but yes, it's a valid point, games should have a separate CPU test for Nvidia and AMD, also it would be good to see slower CPUs being used on the GPU testing, not just the overclocked i7s.

 

[Rvenger]

That 295x2 is seriously doing well at 4k. If it goes on sale again I might just bite the bullet and forget about next gen.

 

[garagisti]

That 295x2 is seriously doing well at 4k. If it goes on sale again I might just bite the bullet and forget about next gen.

For reference, the lowest price a couple of weeks ago was about $600, hope it helps.

 

[Headfoot]

At $600 the 295x2 is really pretty compelling...

 

[Rvenger]

I almost bought at $600, and to think I thought it might go lower. Ha

Those Hardline benches would have bought me one. I mostly play battlefield.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

What is the 150/200% stuff?

 

[monstercameron]

What is the 150/200% stuff?

super-samplings. that is rendering the frame [eg. 1920*1080*100%] at x percentage higher [eg. 1920*1080*150%]

 

[96Firebird]

Just got done playing for a bit, still a fun game IMO. If anyone wants to add me, my name is JDubz313.

 

[Headfoot]

I have played the Beta for a couple of hours and it was enough to make me not buy the game. I would prefer more maps in BF4.
My next EA game will be the StarWars Battlefront.

Same. I've crossed every appendage I've got in hopes they don't screw up Battlefront 3

 

[dmoney1980]

So I bought this game yesterday, and so far I have to say it's pretty fun. I only put a couple of hours in this game in MP, and just finished the first hour of the campaign.

Performance is very good with my GTX 970 at 1440p. In multiplayer I usually get between 55 and 60 FPS as I have v-sync on, and that's with everything on ultra and 4xMSAA, all on 64 player maps. However, the single player campaign is actually more taxing on the GPU, so I typically average 45-49 FPS. This is probably the first BF game I've had to showcase higher frame rates in multiplayer. I've player various maps and the results are consistent.

Graphics wise, it is a good looking game and nothing that I didn't expect from the FB engine. However, I have to say that between BF3, BF4, and Hardline, I would pick BF3 as the best looking of the 3 games. I prefer the look and atmosphere of BF3 over the last 2 games.

Couple screenshots

 

[Head1985]

http://pclab.pl/art62700-7.html

 

[Head1985]

More benchmarks with frametimes
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-Hardline-PC-258805/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1154059/