Battlefield Hardline Benchmarked, Performance Review

[Steve]

Although we thought Battlefield Hardline showed superb graphics and smooth gameplay when we benchmarked it during last month's week-long public beta, the pre-launch build didn't quite display Battlefield 4's wow-factor. 

The good news, of course, was that Hardline could be played on fairly modest hardware using the ultra-quality pre-set, which enables 4xMSAA and allows 60fps+ at 1080p with either the GeForce GTX 770 or Radeon R9 280X.

Developed by Visceral Games and published by EA, the retail version Battlefield Hardline is now available and we are back to rerun all the beta tests along with others to see how the frame rates have changed from beta to retail.

Read the complete review.

 

[DKRON]

That Titan X though, no 4K benchmarks though?

 

[Unclepauly]

We need to see minimum framerates. Avg frames are an outdated metric and tell absolutely nothing about the smoothness of gameplay. Minimum frames and frametime analysis is exponentially more helpful in this regard.

Also if there is any performance difference at all to be measured between cpu's on empty servers you better believe a full server will have a very large difference in performance between cpu's.

 

[Steve]

Also if there is any performance difference at all to be measured between cpu's on empty servers you better believe a full server will have a very large difference in performance between cpu's.

We didn't test on an empty server.

 

[amstech]

It's always nice seeing some fresh charts.
I only game at 1600p so the 980 is growing on me, I might snatch one if the prices drop considerably.

"The second problem is Origin. We had to cut some testing as EA's platform only allows us to change the CPU/GPU up to eight times per account before locking us out. We were forced use four different accounts to produce this article!
After eight hardware changes we get hit with "we're sorry, an error has occurred...too many computers have accessed this account's version of Battlefield Hardline recently. Please try again later." Ohh how I long for a Steam version of Hardline"

Wow, Electronic Arts...really?
Why would they give a crap what CPU/GPU you are using and how many times a person wants to change it? What does that have to do with A N Y T H I N G?
Why does this company continually execute decisions that make you want to punch someone in the neck?

 

[Evernessince]

Ah, origin. I'm sure if this were a bigger issue they would come out and say "but this only effects less than 1%" instead of actually trying to improve.

That aside, this game seems to perform well on all graphics cards, which is good. The 970 falters at resolutions higher than HD unfortunately due to the ram issue (although we knew this from earlier benchmarks.). The 290x performs surprisingly well.

 

[Guest]

@Techspot,

just wanted to say thank you for keeping AMD Phenom II X4 980 in for games CPU performance and..it is out. only for this one, or is this a new trend?
kindly do include it when benchmarking Witcher 3 in may.
you are providing people with older systems with valuable informations reg. necessity of upgrade (and so far, with DX12 coming, I do not see a reason to change my Phenom II X4 at 3.7 GHz, as it score also in your gaming test between 50 and 63 at 1080p/ ultra with GTX 980 /e.g. metro, far cry 4, dragon age../ ).

thank you

 

[hahahanoobs]

We need to see minimum framerates. Avg frames are an outdated metric and tell absolutely nothing about the smoothness of gameplay. Minimum frames and frametime analysis is exponentially more helpful in this regard.

100% agree.

That aside, this game seems to perform well on all graphics cards, which is good. The 970 falters at resolutions higher than HD unfortunately due to the ram issue (although we knew this from earlier benchmarks.). The 290x performs surprisingly well.

That's funny, because at 1080p the 970 is 10fps behind the 290X, and closes the gap to 6fps at 1600p...

 

[Steve]

@Techspot,

just wanted to say thank you for keeping AMD Phenom II X4 980 in for games CPU performance and..it is out. only for this one, or is this a new trend?
kindly do include it when benchmarking Witcher 3 in may.
you are providing people with older systems with valuable informations reg. necessity of upgrade (and so far, with DX12 coming, I do not see a reason to change my Phenom II X4 at 3.7 GHz, as it score also in your gaming test between 50 and 63 at 1080p/ ultra with GTX 980 /e.g. metro, far cry 4, dragon age../ ).

thank you

"The second problem is Origin. We had to cut some testing as EA's platform only allows us to change the CPU/GPU up to eight times per account before locking us out. We were forced use four different accounts to produce this article!"

We were limited to how much hardware we could test.

 

[NightAntilli]

No Mantle?

 

[RebelFlag]

No Mantle?

Did you read the article??

 

[NightAntilli]

Did you read the article??

Yes... But not the last page lol xD Forget I said anything.

 

[Deltree]

"The second problem is Origin. We had to cut some testing as EA's platform only allows us to change the CPU/GPU up to eight times per account before locking us out. We were forced use four different accounts to produce this article!
After eight hardware changes we get hit with "we're sorry, an error has occurred...too many computers have accessed this account's version of Battlefield Hardline recently. Please try again later." Ohh how I long for a Steam version of Hardline"

Wow, Electronic Arts...really?
Why would they give a crap what CPU/GPU you are using and how many times a person wants to change it? What does that have to do with A N Y T H I N G?
Why does this company continually execute decisions that make you want to punch someone in the neck?[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Dang. EA is just BENT on doing things that make zero sense to me. Here is an idea: Spend more time fixing bugs and less time fisting the customers who pay your bills.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Either the graphics were downgraded or drivers have been optimized for FB3

 

[Guest]

EA actually has reviewer accounts, you just didnt bother to ask.

 

[Steve]

EA actually has reviewer accounts, you just didnt bother to ask.

A. How does that help the average joe?
B. EA knew exactly what we were wanted to achieve with our article and should have been well aware of our needs. I was just happy to receive a code.
C. We told EA about our problem, a solution was never presented and they are still yet to inform us about the ‘reviewer’ account that you are aware of. Maybe you can ask them for us?
D. How the hell do you know what we asked? I can tell you we asked for a solution but one was never given. If you do work for EA which is what you are making it sound like maybe e-mail us with a workable solution.

 

[Guest]

A. How does that help the average joe?
-> Since when does the average joe have the need to change hardware 8 times a day?

B. EA knew exactly what we were wanted to achieve with our article and should have been well aware of our needs. I was just happy to receive a code.
-> I can't follow on what you have said here, so you have access?

C. We told EA about our problem, a solution was never presented and they are still yet to inform us about the ‘reviewer’ account that you are aware of. Maybe you can ask them for us?
-> Maybe you don't fit, and no I do not work for EA.

D. How the hell do you know what we asked? I can tell you we asked for a solution but one was never given. If you do work for EA which is what you are making it sound like maybe e-mail us with a workable solution.
-> My guess would be that you don't fit their profile by various conditions? Also I know for a fact because in the previous company where I worked we received reviewer access including early access also, so it would only make sense that you simply don't matter to them.

 

[Steve]

A. How does that help the average joe?
-> Since when does the average joe have the need to change hardware 8 times a day?

B. EA knew exactly what we were wanted to achieve with our article and should have been well aware of our needs. I was just happy to receive a code.
-> I can't follow on what you have said here, so you have access?

C. We told EA about our problem, a solution was never presented and they are still yet to inform us about the ‘reviewer’ account that you are aware of. Maybe you can ask them for us?
-> Maybe you don't fit, and no I do not work for EA.

D. How the hell do you know what we asked? I can tell you we asked for a solution but one was never given. If you do work for EA which is what you are making it sound like maybe e-mail us with a workable solution.
-> My guess would be that you don't fit their profile by various conditions? Also I know for a fact because in the previous company where I worked we received reviewer access including early access also, so it would only make sense that you simply don't matter to them.

If you don’t work for EA then you can’t help but I am sure you knew that going into this.

How did you not follow point B? EA knew we were doing a performance review and knew that would require a considerable amount of hardware changes. They didn’t give us a ‘review account’ that you speak of but rather a standard game code. Do you understand?

Yes I would say you are guessing and have nothing useful to add.

We really don’t mind where we stand with EA, we are going to test their AAA titles and report on the experience regardless.

Please don’t waste your time responding with more guess work, I know I won’t if you do.

 

[WAHID]

Also if there is any performance difference at all to be measured between cpu's on empty servers you better believe a full server will have a very large difference in performance between cpu's.

We didn't test on an empty server.

He means that you have tested the solo campaign only not multiplayer !!!

 

[mailpup]

He means that you have tested the solo campaign only not multiplayer !!!

We can read plain English and that is not what he said.

 

[Steve]

We can read plain English and that is not what he said.

Not only that but again that is not how we tested lol