Battlefield V Open Beta PC Performance Report - GeForce GTX 1060 Benchmarks

Written by Jon Sutton on Thu, Sep 6, 2018 12:56 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

The Battlefield V beta test has opened its doors to everyone today, allowing fans on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One to get to grips with some 64-player action across two maps. Previously due to launch on October 19th, Battlefield 5 was recently pushed back to November 20th. Do we have reason to be worried? The BFV open beta should give us all the answers we need.

Battlefield V Graphics Settings

First and foremost though, we're going to be talking about Battlefield 5's performance. The Battlefield series has long been a graphical benchmark by which other online shooters are compared. Not only is Battlefield V massive in scale, but it's also pushing the capabilities of Frostbite 3 to breaking point. It's a great looking game, no doubt about it, but how does Battlefield V perform on the most popular gaming graphics card in the world?

 

Battlefield V System Requirements

Battlefield V Open Beta Minimum System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz or AMD FX-6350 3.9 GHz
  • RAM: 8 GB System Memory
  • GPU RAM: 2 GB Video Memory
  • GPU: GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7850 2GB
  • HDD: 50GB Available Hard Drive Space
  • API: DirectX 11

Battlefield V Open Beta Recommended System Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-4790 3.6GHz or AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz
  • RAM: 16 GB System Memory
  • GPU RAM: 3 GB Video Memory
  • GPU: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB or Radeon RX 480 4GB
  • HDD: 50GB Available Hard Drive Space
  • API: DirectX 11.1

Battlefield V Open Beta benchmarks and frames per second analysis performed on GeForce GTX 1060 6GB | Intel i7-5820K | 16GB DDR4

For these benchmarks, we tested out how the Battlefield V open beta performed while using MSI's GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X 6G, equipped with 6GB video memory. It’s backed up by 16GB DDR4 memory and an Intel Core i7-5820K CPU. This system is slightly more powerful than the recommended specs, so the expectation is of decent performance.

These benchmarks were taken during a 64-player Conquest match on BF5's Rotterdam match. Each run included a couple of minutes of gameplay, typically trying to get into the action as quickly as possible.

Battlefield V DirectX 11 Performance

  1080p 1440p 4K
Low 115 78 42
Medium 91 66 38
High 90 58 33
Ultra 70 55 29

Overall, I found the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB delivered excellent performance in Battlefield V. It isn't, and never was, a 4K card, so those results are fairly irrelevant outside of the knowledge that something like a GTX 1070 Ti can probably hit around 60fps on Ultra at 4K, which is good going.

For the rest of these benchmarks, we see the GTX 1060 step up as a pretty capable 1440p GPU in Battlefield 5. I would still recommend a GTX 1070 or upwards for those with a 1440p monitor, but a locked 60fps is possible in Battlefield V once a few graphics settings have been dropped. While 55fps on Ultra/1440p is pretty decent in BFV, at this stage the various dips and lurches, while not game breaking, did definitely manifest itself in varying degrees of mouse lag while playing Battlefield 5. 

Lastly, the 1080p benchmarks for Battlefield V. This is the GeForce GTX 1060's natural home and it knocks out of the park here, delivering a rocksteady 60+ frames per second on Ultra in BFV. Overall frame rates are down around 10-20% compared to Battlefield 1, although Battlefield V does have the edge in terms of visuals. Aesthetically as well, BFV's Rotterdam is much easier on the eye than the dreary streets of BF1's Amiens.

Battlefield V DirectX 12 Performance

If you're wondering where the big bar chart is below, the truth is I didn't bother. Battlefield V currently runs horrendously while DirectX 12 is enabled, at least with this particular GPU. It's absolutely unplayable and certainly not worth a full benchmarking. DICE still has a lot of work to do get DX12 performance up to par, which is fairly surprising considering the Frostbite 3 game engine has been one of the primary drivers of Direct X 12.

Just for a little bit of a context for these frame time graphs, the flatter the line, the better. This means the frames are being delivered at a nice, steady pace. Any significant spike will result in a hitch in performance. In the DirectX 11 graph, the spikes in the middle of the chart represent the map changing at the end of a round, while the flatter sections are actual gameplay. 

These frame times were taken from two tests at 1080p/Ultra in the Battlefield V open beta.

Battlefield V Open Beta DirectX 11 Frame Times

 

Battlefield V Open Beta DirectX 12 Frame Times

As you can see, the difference is night and day. Unfortunately, Afterburner cuts off the top and bottom of the chart, but suffice to say some frames tip into the 1000's of milliseconds to render. It's basically a total freeze of the game, and it happens in Battlefield V every few seconds with DX12 enabled. Despite this, the average frame rate was around 50fps in Battlefield 5 with a GTX 1060 on Ultra @1080p, but that doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story.

We would love to know if you've been encountering similar problems with DirectX 12 in Battlefield V, whether that's with another a GTX 1060 or any other Nvidia or AMD graphics card. Please tell us below, and also feel free to share your DX11 performance!

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
-13
Offline
13:59 Sep-07-2018

wow.. if these numbers are true then the game is well optimised

1
Rep
30
Offline
11:31 Sep-07-2018

Game is unplayable on DX12 on my R9 270X. DX11 is fine, i'm able to stay around 60fps most of the time.

0
Rep
-13
Offline
14:00 Sep-07-2018

because ur running this game crappy windows 10 fall creators update

0
Rep
3
Offline
09:08 Sep-07-2018

Hi,


Well optimized game, 1080P - MAX settings, a solid 85 FPS, maybe 2 stutter in 6 HOURS !! :) (drops to 70-75 sometimes when **** explodes lol)

3
Rep
2
Offline
08:59 Sep-07-2018

Please do CPU tests. Something feels wrong. I have around 50fps no matter what graphical settings. My frametimes show that I'm CPU-capped even on ultra, but my CPU usage is only 80%.

0
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
19:43 Sep-06-2018

Get here 1050TI OC 4GB
Get round 75 FPS on low. Get 50/60 fps on med/high TAA on low its looking very good.

0
Rep
72
Offline
admin approved badge
23:29 Sep-06-2018

I tried it out with having a 1050 Ti as well and i got an average of 60 fps on high settings

1
Rep
-1
Offline
06:20 Sep-07-2018

WTF, Im getting 50-60 on low and 40-50 on med-high with a 1050ti 4GB. I have an i77700k and 16GB of DDR4 ram. I've noticed that the game is running differently on different systems with the same config. I expect it to run the same as BF 1 when it launches. (I do BF1 on 2560x1080 @ high at a solid 60fps).

0
Rep
-1
Offline
06:21 Sep-07-2018

A DICE dev had mentioned a few months back that BFV will be similar to BF1 in performance with DX12 enabled. Fingers crossed they fix DX12

0
Rep
55
Offline
08:13 Sep-07-2018

I agree that promoting the GTX 1050ti for this game speaks very well for its optimization & the value of the card! But right now (at least in my country), it's price is beyond ridiculous - it comes close to the MSRP of the RX 470/570 & barely 15 % cheaper than the cheapest GTX 1060 3 GB

0
Rep
44
Offline
16:56 Sep-06-2018

Does anyone else here can't stand this awful blurry TAA? What's amazing is that there is no way to disable it. I haven't tried BF1, but is this the same case with BF1 too?
At least it would have been nice if it had some sharpening mechanism like DOOM has.

0
Rep
50
Offline
17:47 Sep-06-2018

I went into my driver settings and force overwrote the TAA with MSAA

0
Rep
22
Offline
18:29 Sep-06-2018

You can inject a sharpening filter using a reshade profile, the option is called "Luma Sharpen" if I remember correctly.

0
Rep
39
Offline
21:02 Sep-06-2018

I also found it quite annoying especially since battlefield 1 does have the ability to disable TAA

0
Rep
3
Offline
09:10 Sep-07-2018

About TAA idk, but damn when i turned down vignette, film grain, the other one and motion blur, the game looks sharp now ! (still, looks a bit too colorful and flashy, but it might be my monitor)

0
Rep
44
Offline
08:28 Sep-08-2018

Yeah, I also turned off these settings, but it especially got better when I turned off weapon dof.

0
Rep
138
Offline
admin approved badge
15:09 Sep-06-2018

DX12 is sooo bullsh*t!!! I remember when it was annaunced, I thouth it'll be like a salvation for lower end PCs, but it makes performance even worse.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:33 Sep-06-2018

Because it's the API's fault that developers can't develop for it properly XD
Of course, to take advantage of DX12's features it takes more knowledge, resources and time.

7
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:40 Sep-06-2018

I also did post a comment here earlier on reasons why DX12 launches are flops (even though in the end, after patches, the DX12 versions run far better than DX11).

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:10 Sep-06-2018

And you are 100% correct. If DX12 was available on win 7 and 8 then games would be DX12 from the get-go with proper optimization.

0
Rep
50
Offline
17:49 Sep-06-2018

Its bad implementation. games with both DX11 and 12 usually have 12 as a badly optimised afterthought. Games that are DX12 only run very well. Games like hitman and BF1 also had their DX12 fixed and it ended being better than DX11

2
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:07 Sep-06-2018

DX12 is funny,its biggest advantage is at the same time its worst weakness.The thing with DX12 is that it gives developers a lot more direct access to the hardware,which is what allows consoles to do better with lower end hardware.But at the same time,it requires developer to do what drivers did before,optimizations.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:09 Sep-06-2018

With DX11, game has to go through multiple layers till it gets to hardware, but those layers allowed nVidia, AMD and other companies to optimize their software.In DX12, those same optimizations are down to developer of the game,which most don't bother doing, hence poor performance. And DX12 being used to check the box.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:12 Sep-06-2018

Similar thing is with Vulkan. That is why some games don't even bother using DX12 or Vulkan, why Radeon graphic cards, do better than nVidia in it, because they are better at crunching numbers and nVidia is relaying on driver optimizations to do well. Shame EA did it just to check that box and leave it.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
22:13 Sep-06-2018

If done right, DX12 is very powerful tool. But optimizations required are for each card, CPU,... individually, meaning optimizations for GTX1080 for example won't work for GTX1060, they will need two sets of optimizations,hence the problem,too much hardware to optimize for, unlike with consoles, where you have one set.

0
Rep
39
Offline
14:39 Sep-06-2018

Runs way worse than battlefield 1 for me. I kind of expected peformance to be pretty much the same (same engine and same console gen) maybe a bit lower but I now went from medium 50-80fps on battlefield 1 to 20-40fps on low. Didn't expect that.

3
Rep
-4
Offline
14:47 Sep-06-2018

It is still not the final release of the game and the graphics drivers

1
Rep
39
Offline
21:03 Sep-06-2018

No that's right but when I played the Battlefield 1 open beta some time ago I was actually suprised by how good the game looked and how solid the 60fps cap was. It's definitely not the same right now.

1
Rep
-4
Offline
17:49 Sep-07-2018

This game really needs more than 8GB of RAM and more than your 1.5GB VRAM.

0
Rep
2
Offline
09:25 Sep-07-2018

same here. BF1 80fps BFV 50fps. But it's definitely the CPU that is limiting me. Going from ultra to low does nothing for the frametimes.

0
Rep
-4
Offline
17:48 Sep-07-2018

CPU really gets hammered by this game, my 8700 gets a 90% usage almost all the time.

0
Rep
30
Offline
14:33 Sep-06-2018

Drops to 44 on low for me, half expected it though, BF1 already pushed this CPU to the brink. Plus only 8GB of memory is a terrible experience particularly without an SSD, stutter galore.

0
Rep
132
Offline
14:43 Sep-06-2018

Yeah, frostbite really loves them cores… Nom nom nom.

0
Rep
6
Offline
15:23 Sep-06-2018

It runs well on my system at 1080p low. Most of the time 60fps. I even can run at medium w ssao and taa low

0
Rep
14
Offline
18:27 Sep-06-2018

Well that's weird. I can achieve about 40-50, sometimes 60 frames on medium settings.

0
Rep
30
Offline
18:54 Sep-06-2018

I'm reverting back to some recommended drivers and trying again. It didn't matter what settings I had it on, it dropped to around 44 anyway, so I assumed it was a CPU problem. Gonna get MSI Afterburner up and check just to make sure.

0
Rep
30
Offline
22:45 Sep-06-2018

After uninstalling with DDU, installing 18.5.1 and defragging my hard drive, all seems well. Constant 60 on low, slight dips down to 50 on high. Good enough for me. Thought I'd update because I didn't want to be spewing false info out.

0
Rep
85
Offline
14:12 Sep-06-2018

Trying to run it on an i5-7200U, 2 GB GDDR3 940MX and 4 GB DDR4 Ram. Managed to hit a mind blowing 30 FPS on the Menu Screen. Resolution scaling down to 30%.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
13:26 Sep-06-2018

The DX12 flops like this happen because of a very simple reason - the game is built primarily on DX11 and DX12 is a slap-on. And the reason why that happens is because they have to make sure they can sell the game to those under Win7 and Win8 who, thanks to MS, do not have access to DX12. We've seen this with Rise of the Tomb Raider, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, HITMAN - they all had pathetic DX12 performance at launch. Luckily Square Enix worked on fixing the issues and, at the end, these games run better on DX12 than they do on DX11 - as one would expect. But at launch the priority will always be DX11.


And all these stupid decisions create unnecessary confusion and hate for DX12...

7
Rep
8
Offline
13:12 Sep-06-2018

You have listed the system requirements wrong. The recommended are under "minimum" and vice versa...

-4
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
13:21 Sep-06-2018

Umm, nope!

5
Rep
8
Offline
07:49 Sep-09-2018

My bad. Noticed where i went wrong ????

0
Rep
30
Offline
13:11 Sep-06-2018

Runs better than BF1 for me :O

1
Rep
55
Offline
13:02 Sep-06-2018

Looks nice, but I would rather see a benchmark with a mid-range CPU

1

Can They Run... |

Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Radeon HD 6670 v2 Gigabyte OC 1GB Edition 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Core i3-1005G1 2-Core 1.20GHz UHD Graphics 630 4GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz Radeon RX 560 4GB 16GB
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Gigabyte Gaming OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10700 8-Core 2.90GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 7 4800H 8-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9300H 4-Core 2.4GHz GeForce GTX 1650 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3060 16GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz Radeon RX 470 Sapphire Nitro+ 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10870H 8-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus ROG STRIX Gaming 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 7 3750H 4-Core 2.3 GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-6800K 6-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1080 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 8GB Edition 32GB
100% Yes [2 votes]