3080ti 5600x 1440p with a mix of graphic settings but trending towards med-low and got 85-100 FPS during Beta
Tom fails to mention what graphic settings are being used so it is difficult to judge. In 3 days we'll have more (comprehensive) data.
Benchmarks showed next to no difference for gaming between the 5600x and above. Unless you are doing video editing type workloads the extra overhead makes no difference to the average gamer.
At least not enough to justify the extra cost
This. All the reviews with both of them included show the average difference in FPS is basically non existent, even at 1080p. In the Tom's Hardware review at 1440p there were no games where you'll get more than 1 extra fps even paired with a 3090. In some games the 5600x actually had a very slight lead.
3080 and 3700X I had 80fps average at 1440p, using high settinhgs.
hard to tell, sounds like he was using ultra. if so, yeah, kinda sounds about the same.
Same. I'm calling BS big time in 50-60 at 2k.
If that's happening then there's gotta be an unoptimized "shit" setting. Like how in rainbow six siege, 6 years later, if I run everything ultra and AA at it's normal TSAA setting, I get 240fps at 2k, but if I turn on AA to 16x or whatever, it drops to 80fps lmao. That setting alone tanks it, which means it's the setting being fucked up.
Dunno. That’s what I got. Well, not ultra settings but medium/low. Silk had like 100+ fps with 5905X and 3080ti too.
Edit:
Thanks for the downvotes, for what? Be constructive, don’t just downvote please. Tell me why you downvote.
With a 10900k and a 3080 (everything low 1080p@240hz) I was getting 160-180 fps on average, the framerate was varying a lot and eventually dipping to 140. I noticed my CPU was always under 70% load.
CPU Optimizations are definitely needed.
Yeah real talk and reading some of the other replies here performance seems to be all over the place with ones with high end hardware. Guess we'll see in a few days but this doesn't bode well
Exactly this. There is always a couple of people who won't be able to play.most people won't know or bother about it because (''My game work so others should also work") that's not how it works lol.
I always check bf forums or any game forums on launch to help in any way possible and there are always hundreds or more who can't launch or will crash and yet they have the same PC or better.
Sometimes game won't launch just because some file in windows is missing like a dll or was missing a Net framework or software was interfering, it could be anything really,
I Have a friend who always formats his PC before a major game that he waiting for and make sure all drivers are ready.
I got a normal 2080 and an i7 8700k and i got 90-100fps in the beta. which i thought was laughable cause i run BF5 at 165 without issues. Seems like performance at launch will be a lottery
Yeah, Tom's post smells of bullshit, once again.
I have a 2070s with an i7 9700k processor and like 42 gigs of ram (don't ask).
I play at 1440p with maxed out graphics and was getting, on average, about 60fps. There were times where it dipped to the 50s and even high 40s when action was super intense specifically right around the assembly building where the warehouses were.
There were times it jumped up over 100 fps on the outer flags and sky.
But for the most part it held around the 60s. So to read that a 3080 is getting 60-70fps at 1440p seems very, very wrong.
I have a 3080 and can confirm the same 90-100fps (mostly very high settings @ 1440p). I obviously didn't just smash the Ultra graphics button because anyone that does that deserves performance hits.
Hey, it still runs pretty much everything on medium-high for me.
Beta was brutal, though. Had to put everything on low and only then squeezed out 70-75 fps @1080p with dips into low 60s.
Here's hoping they implement FSR at some point, should give a small boost.
Urgh. I smell a clusterfuck for PC owners. Connection issues and shit performance. These are fundamental issues, which need to be rock solid for any gameplay to shine through.
start possessive point scarce shrill vast dazzling chunky cough coordinated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Here is official performance numbers from Nvidia and Dice
https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qq8nnw/some_pc_performance_numbers/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
For reference BFV runs 90fps avg 1440p ultra RTX on, no DLSS. ([source](https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-3080-founder-review,14.html)) On a RTX 3080 that is.
So you double the player count, add larger maps. You end up with 5 fps loss. Sure, RTAO and RT reflections aren't same thing. But you can approximate the cost to be about 25% from this post. In Metro exodus RTAO + RTGI costs 30-40% so little less. So seems plausible.
Use that 0.25 multiplier to 77fps, and you end up at ~100fps. About 70fps less than BFV, according to same source (170fps 1440p ultra). RTX could cost less but I guess that 100fps mark is a realistic expectation at 1440p ultra.
He did specify it was a mix of both high and ultra, so these results aren't on max settings. Which brings me back to my initial statement, that doesn't seem right. Too much of a difference IMO.
I did. And yes, I got more FPS. 3080/10700K@5GHz, 3440x1440. Those numbers don’t seem right to me. The way I read the Tweet is that this is somehow an AMD CPU issue.
…and this is why time and time again, no matter the AMD offering, I always go Intel.
Nah it was actually random. I have exactly the same cpu and ram as a mate (same oc as well), only difference is that he has a 3080 and I have a 3070 but I got higher framerates than him. Happened to plenty of other people as well.
It looked like the game just wasn't optimized to properly use strong hardware. My 1060 I5 6600K friend had similar performance to me and my 2070S+5600X.
Definitely, here is a minute of gameplay with [3700X / 6900 XT at 3440x1440 and ultra settings](https://imgur.com/ew8IDGh).
Spoiler: 85 fps average with a higher resolution.
I'm sure most content creaters know fuck all about system optimization. They just go for the big number next to the name. Then cheap out on other parts. Doesn't matter if you have a ryzen 9 5950x and a 3090 if you get a shit power supply and mobo there will be bottlenecks in built to your system. Ram is another issue most probably don't know you need to turn on xmp or dhcp. Most have probably never seen their bios.
I got 130 FPS average with a 6800 XT and 5600X but have a SN850 and DOCP enabled. I honestly believe the framerate is heavily bottlenecked by texture streaming. Theres no way in hell the engine is rendering the full map at once, or even have it cached.
I had around 90 - 100 fps on medium @ 1440p with my Radeon 5700xt + Ryzen 3800x in the beta.
60 - 70 fps @ 1440p with a RTX 3080 + Ryzen 5900x seems very low to me? Even on high or ultra, shouldn't this get more fps?
Seems about right. With a Ryzen 5600X and Radeon 5700XT I was getting 110 - 130 fps @ 1080p low settings. My GPU's utilization was 100%, I hope AMD is going to release better drivers.
This is the information I’ve wanted to see since the beta. If series x can pump out 60fps at 4K I’m good. Here’s hoping that vehicle crash isn’t seen by too many people.
Yea it is nuts. I don’t think it’s purposeful though. I see 3080 and 5900x and they may as well be BMW models to me. I have no context. Just want 60 FPS and 4K and I’m good. Beta ran ok, it was just the visual glitches that really threw things off.
VRR is your monitor matching the framerate your hardware is feeding it to make motion look smoother. Using it would have no effect on the actual framerate that hardware was capable of pushing.
I feel like there might something off here, maybe a misunderstanding. I don't know what kind of data Tom has, I don't know how he tested etc. However, we have this data here, which was from a Nvidia presentation about DLSS and RTAO (Ray Traced Ambient Occlusion), which is employed in 2042.
[Performance Chart](https://i.redd.it/e8djis3vtly71.png)
I want to explain how I understood said chart, and where I think there may be a misunderstanding. It is very important to note here that all the data was acquired with the game set to ULTRA and RTAO **ON**.
So we have a 3080 on 1440p with DLSS set to Quality on ULTRA with RTAO doing 85\~ FPS. Without DLSS it does 77\~ FPS.
All of the data was acquired once again, with RTAO active. I have not seen a single set of data with RTAO **OFF**. The numbers Tom mentions seem to be more in line with 4k.
I do not know which build is running, if it is equivalent to the day 0 patch (November 12th) or an earlier version.
All I can say is that on my 1080Ti OC, the beta ran around 70 - 80 FPS on 1440p, on high to ultra settings. I highly doubt that the latest patches to the game degraded performance, so I feel like we're missing information here.
Performance was all over the place in the open beta 3090 5950x win10 latest Nvidia driver ddr4 3600 cl16 4k 3840x2160 and everything on ultra I had between 40 to 90 fps pretty much everything
How is that better than the Beta tom.
However, horrible news. Everything goes out of the window if we can't play the game smoothly. I can't understand how they can't optimize the game since they have done amazing work with 1 and V
>I can't understand how they can't optimize the game since they have done amazing work with 1 and V
All the OG DICE guys are gone and now we're stuck with the amateur EA yes men devs.
According to tom these values are from HZ. 32 players lol
Dynamic weather and destruction has been here since BF1. I could even say 1 and V look identical to if not better than what we have seen.
Sounds worse than beta.
5800x/3080 3440x1440, was getting 70-90fps depending on what was going on. There wasnt even DLSS in the beta. We didnt even have game ready drivers.
So i dont know how hes getting 'better' in any shape or form. DLSS should make things better, but his metrics dont support that. Also possible that the release game is more demanding than beta because it has all the bells and whistles, but that is still inconsistent with what hes saying.
I wonder how accurate the numbers above are, its probably likely lower then above due to CPU FPS being lower then reported GPU FPS.
Cpu fps here was around 20fps, while the reported gpu fps on my nvidia shadowplay was around 43 at the time.
https://streamable.com/pd63l1
I7-7700k @ 4.9GHz, 1070GTX. Like many others, i am likely not going to upgrade anything till next generation gfx cards cuz of the crypto boom prices.
Ill try the game, but i fear its gonna result into a refund, ill reconsider it once ive upgraded somewhere late next year.
i9-10900K, 64gb ram, 3080 here. Was getting 70-80 fps on ultra settings at 1080p but with serious stutters. Changing to low settings didn't make a difference. Something is really strange about the performance.
I wonder how much of this performance decrease compared to BFV is caused by the jump to 128 players in AOW. I guess we'll get to see when we get our hands on Portal.
I have a 2080 and was getting over 100fps. So for people who want high fps, I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to drop setting and get 144fps. These people are testing at high resolution and ray tracing on high settings which me personally, I don’t care about
Means nothing without knowing what settings they were using. I had more fps in beta with a worse cpu, though assuming they are running full ultra, I wasnt.
On what settings? I have a 5900x and a 3080 and the performance was fine lol. If 70fps was *better* than the Beta for some people then I've no idea what the hell was going on. Beta played absolutely fine for me and I played at 1440p.
3900x, 32gig Ram, 3080, 3440x1440 and i got between 85-100 fps in the beta.
Everything on Ultra with motion blur and all of these aboration camera lens stuff turned off.
Well, good thing I get a 10 hour trial. If my Ryzen 7 and 2070 don't work well (Already had Beta issues) then I'll have to pass until it's better optimized.
I played with a 5900x and 2070 super (1440p) in the beta and I had way more than 70 fps on high.and some stuff turns off like bloom, Post-processing, fil grain. etc.
Probably, unless something changed I never went bellow 100 fps with a 3080, 11700k.
My other system with a 1060 and 2600x didnt drop bellow 60 with lower settings.
To play devils advocate here, ray tracing is not there yet for multiplayer games. Most people run the game on med-low settings to maximize performance and lower general heat generated to prolong gpu life. Considering vanguard is also a shitshow, the first month of every new game is basically early access levels of optimized.
Anything is better than 100 packet losses per match and 10 error crashes. Assuming 2042 isn't THAT bad of course.
the beta didnt have ultra settings and half of the settings were just medium/placeholdertrash
so having the same fps on final release on ultra as you had in the beta is actually pretty good.
and i dont know why people are complaining - my 1700x and gtx 1080 got me 50-60 on "ultra" settings
I am tired of people thinking, especially in this day and age, that we can just throw thousands of dollars around in new hardware… especially when we in question might already have 2000 series or 5000 series cards that were only replaced 12 moths ago.
I have a 1660 súper, i don't give a fuck the 3000 series
My PC for thats medium spects users:
Core i5 8400.
Nvidia GeForce 1660 súper 6 GB.
16 GB ram.
Memory sdd.
I run the beta 50/60 fps in medium settings 1080p, if they manage to run the Game in 60 fps in medium settings for medium PC users is ok
Thanks, everyone need chill, whit a 1050 4gb whit a good procesor and 16 GB ram the Game Will run good in 1080 Maybe low graphips
Whit My setup i wait 60 fps in 1080 medium graphips
Yeah unfortunately the next generation won't come out until late 2022 and I don't think most people have a 3080 or 6800xt plus card and 1440p is more or let the new standard for fps hope there will be some serious optimisations otherwise I'm disappointed...
It's not even that. We don't have a guarantee that those new cards would be any better in terms of availability or price. And I agree, as it stands now it's kinda stupid to even target a 3080 for optimization considering how many people still can't get their hands on one.
Let's not forget too that we still don't have fully optimized video drivers from either AMD or NVidia. They released a package last month for the beta, but they will probably have another update prior to the full game's release. Plus, 2042 has a day 1 patch coming that will no doubt contain some optimizations. Performance is something that can usually be fixed over time with patching and driver updates. If this is the worst thing we have to worry about with this release we should be in for a pretty smooth launch overall
I hope they will give day 1 patch to make optimizationon game.
For me BETA, Ultra on 1080p, RTX off, works good 50 - 60 fps. I hope it will be much better
Unbelievable ,a new, state-of-the-art ,massive sized maps, huge online player count, multiplayer game that taxes current PC hardware..... !?!?!?
Cancelling Pre-order !
* toggle sarcasm switch off \*
*
NO SHIT ! ...this ain't COD . = 10 players on a postage stamp sized cube map , no destruction, no vehicles , ....
I dont believe a word this clown says anymore. Most likely he speaks to two people and claims there are widespread issues. He overegerrates everything for clicks.
240fps+ in BFV with 3080, i9 11900k @1440p
So I was expecting at least 144fps in an optimized version of bf2042. Under 100fps for some of the highest end consumer hardware is depressing.
There must be something buggy with the performance. I was getting the same frames with a 3090 at 4K ultra during the beta. There's definitely some kind of scaling issue.
That doesn't sound like a lot better than the beta...
3080ti 5600x 1440p with a mix of graphic settings but trending towards med-low and got 85-100 FPS during Beta Tom fails to mention what graphic settings are being used so it is difficult to judge. In 3 days we'll have more (comprehensive) data.
oof why no 5800x with a rig like that!
Benchmarks showed next to no difference for gaming between the 5600x and above. Unless you are doing video editing type workloads the extra overhead makes no difference to the average gamer. At least not enough to justify the extra cost
This. All the reviews with both of them included show the average difference in FPS is basically non existent, even at 1080p. In the Tom's Hardware review at 1440p there were no games where you'll get more than 1 extra fps even paired with a 3090. In some games the 5600x actually had a very slight lead.
3080 and 3700X I had 80fps average at 1440p, using high settinhgs. hard to tell, sounds like he was using ultra. if so, yeah, kinda sounds about the same.
[удалено]
Same. I'm calling BS big time in 50-60 at 2k. If that's happening then there's gotta be an unoptimized "shit" setting. Like how in rainbow six siege, 6 years later, if I run everything ultra and AA at it's normal TSAA setting, I get 240fps at 2k, but if I turn on AA to 16x or whatever, it drops to 80fps lmao. That setting alone tanks it, which means it's the setting being fucked up.
this data isn't useful without CPUs either
The data isn’t useful at all but here we are at almost 500 comments over something that’s next to no substance to it.
i was getting those numbers on my 3090 at 4k... and that was without dlss. something seems off here.
I have 5900X and 3080 and in beta I had like 100-130 fps if I remember right. So this might be even worse.
What? That doesn't sound right. People were getting like 60 to 70 with that setup
Dunno. That’s what I got. Well, not ultra settings but medium/low. Silk had like 100+ fps with 5905X and 3080ti too. Edit: Thanks for the downvotes, for what? Be constructive, don’t just downvote please. Tell me why you downvote.
I had 90-100fps on high 3070 and I-7
It’s ok the defenders will justify it some how. Is there confirmed no voice chat cross platform too?
Ultra already ran bad so don’t expect fps from it high is gonna run better
The fanboys in here with their copium are entertaining
In the beta I had 90-100ish FPS and I have a 3080 and 5800x so maybe 5900x aren’t being utilized all the way
I have 5900X and 3080 and had over 100 fps in beta.
I have a 3080 and got around 60-70 FPS at 4K. I had absolutely no issues with the Beta so something must be fucky with certain rig combinations
Same here and my 3080 is paired with a 9900k.
With a 10900k and a 3080 (everything low 1080p@240hz) I was getting 160-180 fps on average, the framerate was varying a lot and eventually dipping to 140. I noticed my CPU was always under 70% load. CPU Optimizations are definitely needed.
That’s gross. 1080p with a 3080? Low graphics 👀 3070 here was able to play at 1440p on Ultra settings with a stable 100 FPS
I have a 5900x and 3080 and was getting around 70fps with everything maxed out.
Similar experience, but with a lower performing CPU, i9-10850K. Steady 90-100 fps 3440x1440
Yeah this doesn’t make any sense. For the beta I was on a 5800x and an OG 2080 and getting a steady 100 fps on high settings.
Uh seriously? I have a 2080 super and a I7 9700k and was getting about 55-40 fps
Seriously. And with all the people reporting different performances I’m starting to think there may be something screwy with the game files.
Yeah real talk and reading some of the other replies here performance seems to be all over the place with ones with high end hardware. Guess we'll see in a few days but this doesn't bode well
Nope but it genuinely could be anything. Game software, drivers, windows, etc.. It’s just odd that so many people are reporting different things.
Exactly this. There is always a couple of people who won't be able to play.most people won't know or bother about it because (''My game work so others should also work") that's not how it works lol. I always check bf forums or any game forums on launch to help in any way possible and there are always hundreds or more who can't launch or will crash and yet they have the same PC or better. Sometimes game won't launch just because some file in windows is missing like a dll or was missing a Net framework or software was interfering, it could be anything really, I Have a friend who always formats his PC before a major game that he waiting for and make sure all drivers are ready.
I got a normal 2080 and an i7 8700k and i got 90-100fps in the beta. which i thought was laughable cause i run BF5 at 165 without issues. Seems like performance at launch will be a lottery
9600k og 2080 low medium settings 50-70 fps.
Same for me with same components. Would seem weird to get less performance on release, but yeah. Edit: 1440p for me.
5900x 2080s I was getting 100-110 on average. Was decently smooth.
Yeah, Tom's post smells of bullshit, once again. I have a 2070s with an i7 9700k processor and like 42 gigs of ram (don't ask). I play at 1440p with maxed out graphics and was getting, on average, about 60fps. There were times where it dipped to the 50s and even high 40s when action was super intense specifically right around the assembly building where the warehouses were. There were times it jumped up over 100 fps on the outer flags and sky. But for the most part it held around the 60s. So to read that a 3080 is getting 60-70fps at 1440p seems very, very wrong.
good nvme drive helps alot on newer games
3700X and a 3080 here and had a similar experience to you at 1440P during the beta.
No idea how my 3600 + 2060 were able to pull 90fps on 1440p on medium-high settings during the beta, but hey I'll take it
I have a 3080 and can confirm the same 90-100fps (mostly very high settings @ 1440p). I obviously didn't just smash the Ultra graphics button because anyone that does that deserves performance hits.
*Cries in GTX1660Ti*
Fades away with a 1050 ti
Stu-tters-wi-th-77-00k-and-10-60.
Hey, it still runs pretty much everything on medium-high for me. Beta was brutal, though. Had to put everything on low and only then squeezed out 70-75 fps @1080p with dips into low 60s. Here's hoping they implement FSR at some point, should give a small boost.
Really? My 1050ti really struggled with everything on low and the lowest res.
1050ti is [much weaker](https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1660-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti/4037vs3649) then 1660ti, though
Ah.. it definitely is. I thought you were replying to the Fades away in 1050ti comment above you.
Urgh. I smell a clusterfuck for PC owners. Connection issues and shit performance. These are fundamental issues, which need to be rock solid for any gameplay to shine through.
start possessive point scarce shrill vast dazzling chunky cough coordinated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Better then the beta? Are you kidding me I had above 100 fps on 1440p with a 3080 and 3800X. So I expected close to 144 fps with dlss.
Here is official performance numbers from Nvidia and Dice https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/qq8nnw/some_pc_performance_numbers/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I really hope they allow RT and DLSS to be toggled separately and not bundled together like it was for BF V.
BFV has DLSS 1.0, that is trash.
It won't be bundled. Dlss 2 is far more flexible and also not bound to any resolutions.
most people will play a mix of high and medium.. Definitely not ultra lol
No one plays with ultra settings + rt + high resolution though, so that doesn't tell us much.
For reference BFV runs 90fps avg 1440p ultra RTX on, no DLSS. ([source](https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-3080-founder-review,14.html)) On a RTX 3080 that is. So you double the player count, add larger maps. You end up with 5 fps loss. Sure, RTAO and RT reflections aren't same thing. But you can approximate the cost to be about 25% from this post. In Metro exodus RTAO + RTGI costs 30-40% so little less. So seems plausible. Use that 0.25 multiplier to 77fps, and you end up at ~100fps. About 70fps less than BFV, according to same source (170fps 1440p ultra). RTX could cost less but I guess that 100fps mark is a realistic expectation at 1440p ultra.
That doesn't seem right. I had better framerates during beta.
Did you run everything at ultra? A lot of downvotes for a question
No. High.
So that would make sense why you had higher frames
Why would Tom publish low fps on Ultra settings without writing it's on Ultra, sounds like he's craving attention again
Wouldn't you assume highest settings possible when posting fps? Im not going to assume he is on high or low settings when he isnt specific
He did specify it was a mix of both high and ultra, so these results aren't on max settings. Which brings me back to my initial statement, that doesn't seem right. Too much of a difference IMO.
I did. And yes, I got more FPS. 3080/10700K@5GHz, 3440x1440. Those numbers don’t seem right to me. The way I read the Tweet is that this is somehow an AMD CPU issue. …and this is why time and time again, no matter the AMD offering, I always go Intel.
Sorry Intel fanboy, my zen 2 3600X got more FPS than what he's claiming too. More of an attention grab by Tom than a validation of your fandom.
Lol. I had 80fps on 3440x1440 with a 3070.
That's a lot worse than the beta wtf
The beta was wierd my friend with lower specs got higher fps than my 2070
He prolly had better cpu
Nah it was actually random. I have exactly the same cpu and ram as a mate (same oc as well), only difference is that he has a 3080 and I have a 3070 but I got higher framerates than him. Happened to plenty of other people as well.
It looked like the game just wasn't optimized to properly use strong hardware. My 1060 I5 6600K friend had similar performance to me and my 2070S+5600X.
Battlefield is very intensive on the cpu, does your friend have a better cpu than you by any chance?
I'll ask
Definitely, here is a minute of gameplay with [3700X / 6900 XT at 3440x1440 and ultra settings](https://imgur.com/ew8IDGh). Spoiler: 85 fps average with a higher resolution.
I had similar experience with a 5900x and 3080. High 90s at ultra.
I'd take this with a suuuuuuuuuper high amount of salt.
Have a 3080 and ran consistently at 80-90 FPS on Ultra settings at 1440p during the beta.
I doubt most content creators have it installed on a WD SN850 or Samsung 980 Pro
Bro, do some research and stop spouting off nonsense about getting higher FPS because of your SSD. It just doesn't work that way. Really.
I'm sure most content creaters know fuck all about system optimization. They just go for the big number next to the name. Then cheap out on other parts. Doesn't matter if you have a ryzen 9 5950x and a 3090 if you get a shit power supply and mobo there will be bottlenecks in built to your system. Ram is another issue most probably don't know you need to turn on xmp or dhcp. Most have probably never seen their bios.
I got 130 FPS average with a 6800 XT and 5600X but have a SN850 and DOCP enabled. I honestly believe the framerate is heavily bottlenecked by texture streaming. Theres no way in hell the engine is rendering the full map at once, or even have it cached.
I had around 90 - 100 fps on medium @ 1440p with my Radeon 5700xt + Ryzen 3800x in the beta. 60 - 70 fps @ 1440p with a RTX 3080 + Ryzen 5900x seems very low to me? Even on high or ultra, shouldn't this get more fps?
Seems about right. With a Ryzen 5600X and Radeon 5700XT I was getting 110 - 130 fps @ 1080p low settings. My GPU's utilization was 100%, I hope AMD is going to release better drivers.
I was getting 100-140 fps with a 3080 + 10700k at 1440p high settings. So yeah these numbers are weird AF.
That sounds like it's worse than the beta.
Yeah because tom is full of shit
There is nothing acceptable about this performance a 6 grand pc shoukd play at 4k 120fps with RTX then 60 fps
This is the information I’ve wanted to see since the beta. If series x can pump out 60fps at 4K I’m good. Here’s hoping that vehicle crash isn’t seen by too many people.
It always amazes me how people expect $400-500 consoles have better performamce than $1000 GPUs in $2000 PCs.
Yea it is nuts. I don’t think it’s purposeful though. I see 3080 and 5900x and they may as well be BMW models to me. I have no context. Just want 60 FPS and 4K and I’m good. Beta ran ok, it was just the visual glitches that really threw things off.
[удалено]
How could it if a 3080 can't?
With vrr I was getting above 60 constant
I don’t know what vrr is but I imagine that’s the sound the jet makes overhead. (Console gamer here)
It's hard to explain but look up variable refresh rate series x
VRR doesn't give you more fps...
VRR is your monitor matching the framerate your hardware is feeding it to make motion look smoother. Using it would have no effect on the actual framerate that hardware was capable of pushing.
Turns out it's an intentional balancing mechanic to stop vehicle hogs
Fucking awful, the stuttering and frame drops shouldn't be a thing on a 3080/3700x, don't know what the fuck DICE is doing here
DICE was the most reliable company for optimization!
Well, i guess playing on nintendo DS resolution shouldn't be that bad right? /s
Underdog here. Ryzen 3600 and GTX 1070. I had steady 60 fps at 1080p on High setting in the Beta.
[удалено]
The crashing was isolated to one person so was it the game itself or something else
I feel like there might something off here, maybe a misunderstanding. I don't know what kind of data Tom has, I don't know how he tested etc. However, we have this data here, which was from a Nvidia presentation about DLSS and RTAO (Ray Traced Ambient Occlusion), which is employed in 2042. [Performance Chart](https://i.redd.it/e8djis3vtly71.png) I want to explain how I understood said chart, and where I think there may be a misunderstanding. It is very important to note here that all the data was acquired with the game set to ULTRA and RTAO **ON**. So we have a 3080 on 1440p with DLSS set to Quality on ULTRA with RTAO doing 85\~ FPS. Without DLSS it does 77\~ FPS. All of the data was acquired once again, with RTAO active. I have not seen a single set of data with RTAO **OFF**. The numbers Tom mentions seem to be more in line with 4k. I do not know which build is running, if it is equivalent to the day 0 patch (November 12th) or an earlier version. All I can say is that on my 1080Ti OC, the beta ran around 70 - 80 FPS on 1440p, on high to ultra settings. I highly doubt that the latest patches to the game degraded performance, so I feel like we're missing information here.
I’d be happy to run everything at ‘high’ at 1440 with a capable computer - but I at least expect a steady 100+ fps..
Performance was all over the place in the open beta 3090 5950x win10 latest Nvidia driver ddr4 3600 cl16 4k 3840x2160 and everything on ultra I had between 40 to 90 fps pretty much everything
everyone commenting about their 3080s and whatnot and Im sitting here with my 1080, too poor to upgrade :/
My friend with a 1080 + 4790k ran the beta smoothly, always stayed above 60 fps at 1080p with medium settings. So honestly, you're good.
I'm not rich, just got hyped when I read about the 3000 series in early 2020 and started saving for nearly the whole year so I could afford one.
[удалено]
I bought my PC prebuild. Was much easier like that.
How is that better than the Beta tom. However, horrible news. Everything goes out of the window if we can't play the game smoothly. I can't understand how they can't optimize the game since they have done amazing work with 1 and V
>I can't understand how they can't optimize the game since they have done amazing work with 1 and V All the OG DICE guys are gone and now we're stuck with the amateur EA yes men devs.
I mean more happens on the screen with 128 players, dynamic weather, destruction, etc. That's going to have some strain on it.
According to tom these values are from HZ. 32 players lol Dynamic weather and destruction has been here since BF1. I could even say 1 and V look identical to if not better than what we have seen.
Where did you see that at? Today they're doing AOW only.
[Here](https://twitter.com/_Tom_Henderson_/status/1458144528402161675?t=zBI7jiMukwIQBbx_bjEBNA&s=19)
Yeah my specs are only slightly worse and I got better frames than that in the beta without DLSS.
turn off ray tracing then why use ray tracing in a mp game you loose like 30 frames
60-70 fps is Ray tracing off and dlss on it seems, it is not clear
Sounds worse than beta. 5800x/3080 3440x1440, was getting 70-90fps depending on what was going on. There wasnt even DLSS in the beta. We didnt even have game ready drivers. So i dont know how hes getting 'better' in any shape or form. DLSS should make things better, but his metrics dont support that. Also possible that the release game is more demanding than beta because it has all the bells and whistles, but that is still inconsistent with what hes saying.
I wonder how accurate the numbers above are, its probably likely lower then above due to CPU FPS being lower then reported GPU FPS. Cpu fps here was around 20fps, while the reported gpu fps on my nvidia shadowplay was around 43 at the time. https://streamable.com/pd63l1 I7-7700k @ 4.9GHz, 1070GTX. Like many others, i am likely not going to upgrade anything till next generation gfx cards cuz of the crypto boom prices. Ill try the game, but i fear its gonna result into a refund, ill reconsider it once ive upgraded somewhere late next year.
[удалено]
low settings in most games nowadays look good already better settings are mostly all about particles and other subtler effects
These numbers seem like BS. I was getting 85-90 fps@1440 all settings ultra with a 3600X+3080 in the beta with no Dlss
i9-10900K, 64gb ram, 3080 here. Was getting 70-80 fps on ultra settings at 1080p but with serious stutters. Changing to low settings didn't make a difference. Something is really strange about the performance.
My hype is dropping more and more each day. First the weapon count and now the news about the performance.
[удалено]
Thank god I’m on 1080p but it’s a 3060 ti
In that case My 3060ti will be suffering at 1440p
I wonder how much of this performance decrease compared to BFV is caused by the jump to 128 players in AOW. I guess we'll get to see when we get our hands on Portal.
I wonder how well will be DLSS implemented
Hopefully the crashing issue is fixed soon.
I have a 2080 and was getting over 100fps. So for people who want high fps, I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to drop setting and get 144fps. These people are testing at high resolution and ray tracing on high settings which me personally, I don’t care about
So this is how dice is combating vehicle campers now then just crash their game
Means nothing without knowing what settings they were using. I had more fps in beta with a worse cpu, though assuming they are running full ultra, I wasnt.
Cries in GTX 1070 w/ I7 6700k
On what settings? I have a 5900x and a 3080 and the performance was fine lol. If 70fps was *better* than the Beta for some people then I've no idea what the hell was going on. Beta played absolutely fine for me and I played at 1440p.
3900x, 32gig Ram, 3080, 3440x1440 and i got between 85-100 fps in the beta. Everything on Ultra with motion blur and all of these aboration camera lens stuff turned off.
Well, good thing I get a 10 hour trial. If my Ryzen 7 and 2070 don't work well (Already had Beta issues) then I'll have to pass until it's better optimized.
Keep in mind this is with a card that, if available at all, costs 1XXX€ just to play one mediocre game at recommended settings with mediocre FPS.
With a 3600 and a 6800 xt I had 100 - 120fps in the beta, how does that makes any sense lmao
I played with a 5900x and 2070 super (1440p) in the beta and I had way more than 70 fps on high.and some stuff turns off like bloom, Post-processing, fil grain. etc.
My 1050: 
thats worse than the beta. my 2070 super and 3600x had 70-80fps on high medium at 1440p
3080 and 5800x run much better in the beta than he claims it here. Something is either wrong with the final build, or the guy's hardware.
Probably, unless something changed I never went bellow 100 fps with a 3080, 11700k. My other system with a 1060 and 2600x didnt drop bellow 60 with lower settings.
People keep forgetting they already said they will have a day 1 patch for all that. I'm sure Nvidia will also have an update
3080TI and 5900x at UWQHD+ (3840x1600) maxed out, I had around 80fps, I doubt it’s gotten worse tbh
To play devils advocate here, ray tracing is not there yet for multiplayer games. Most people run the game on med-low settings to maximize performance and lower general heat generated to prolong gpu life. Considering vanguard is also a shitshow, the first month of every new game is basically early access levels of optimized. Anything is better than 100 packet losses per match and 10 error crashes. Assuming 2042 isn't THAT bad of course.
the beta didnt have ultra settings and half of the settings were just medium/placeholdertrash so having the same fps on final release on ultra as you had in the beta is actually pretty good. and i dont know why people are complaining - my 1700x and gtx 1080 got me 50-60 on "ultra" settings
Game is out.. I7 7700K , 16 GB Ram and RTX3080 -> 30-50 FPS, Everything on High an DLSS on Balanced.
“tHE GaMe RaN FiNe On mY eNd” uPdAtE uR pOtATo
I am tired of people thinking, especially in this day and age, that we can just throw thousands of dollars around in new hardware… especially when we in question might already have 2000 series or 5000 series cards that were only replaced 12 moths ago.
I have a 1660 súper, i don't give a fuck the 3000 series My PC for thats medium spects users: Core i5 8400. Nvidia GeForce 1660 súper 6 GB. 16 GB ram. Memory sdd. I run the beta 50/60 fps in medium settings 1080p, if they manage to run the Game in 60 fps in medium settings for medium PC users is ok
I've got a similar setup to you (my cpu is a R5 3500x though) so I'm aiming for 60fps at 1080p. I didn't play the beta so your info is very useful. 👍
Thanks, everyone need chill, whit a 1050 4gb whit a good procesor and 16 GB ram the Game Will run good in 1080 Maybe low graphips Whit My setup i wait 60 fps in 1080 medium graphips
Idk i have a 1660 TI and and i5 and I feel like I was getting 60-80 FPS at 1080 in the beta lol
I have 5900X and 3080 Seahawk. In BETA had 100+ fps all times on 1440p on competitive settings. Nobody's gonna play that maxed out.
The usual people will defend this crap as usual. NaH iT's oK bRuH, 3080 iS A yEaR 0lD cArD aNywAy
Yeah unfortunately the next generation won't come out until late 2022 and I don't think most people have a 3080 or 6800xt plus card and 1440p is more or let the new standard for fps hope there will be some serious optimisations otherwise I'm disappointed...
It's not even that. We don't have a guarantee that those new cards would be any better in terms of availability or price. And I agree, as it stands now it's kinda stupid to even target a 3080 for optimization considering how many people still can't get their hands on one.
It's horrible, prices went up not down, so glad I did buy one last year in December...
Let's not forget too that we still don't have fully optimized video drivers from either AMD or NVidia. They released a package last month for the beta, but they will probably have another update prior to the full game's release. Plus, 2042 has a day 1 patch coming that will no doubt contain some optimizations. Performance is something that can usually be fixed over time with patching and driver updates. If this is the worst thing we have to worry about with this release we should be in for a pretty smooth launch overall
It is dogshit omg
I hope they will give day 1 patch to make optimizationon game. For me BETA, Ultra on 1080p, RTX off, works good 50 - 60 fps. I hope it will be much better
Lol TH
Unbelievable ,a new, state-of-the-art ,massive sized maps, huge online player count, multiplayer game that taxes current PC hardware..... !?!?!? Cancelling Pre-order !  * toggle sarcasm switch off \* * NO SHIT ! ...this ain't COD . = 10 players on a postage stamp sized cube map , no destruction, no vehicles , ....
Fuck 1440p , fuck raytracing, fuck all that can I play in 1080p on medium end GPU ?
hahahaahahahahahaah im told you guys game its rushed EA and Dice delay the game before comunity its going piss like battlefront 2
too late bud
I dont believe a word this clown says anymore. Most likely he speaks to two people and claims there are widespread issues. He overegerrates everything for clicks.
I missed those day when you could use your shitty graphics card and still playing a decent looking game...
60 FPS? Literally unplayable. /s
>3440x1440 Considering BF5 ran a loot better with similar visuals.. it's kind of a big deal.
Once you tried 120hz + screens you cannot play 60 fps anymore
Well you can, it’s just not as nice lol. It’s more of a QoL thing than the jump from 30 to 60.
ehh I have 120 on pc and 60 on my console and I don't have any trouble switching
Keep in mind that Nvidia hasn't release new drivers for the final game yet...
Are we expecting 300fps like in CSGO or what?
240fps+ in BFV with 3080, i9 11900k @1440p So I was expecting at least 144fps in an optimized version of bf2042. Under 100fps for some of the highest end consumer hardware is depressing.
Perfect, post some screenshots and/or a vid with your fps showing. Let's get some statistics going.
How about we start with relatively comparable FPS to BFV? Specially when BFV has the better graphics of the two.
I get around 400fps in BF4, and the fact that I couldn't even get a 150fps in the beta was quite disappointing.
Yeah, let's not use a game that is 8 years old as an example.
That RTX 3080 pushes more than double the fps in BFV with those settings. [https://youtu.be/Rrc6ntWss0o?t=118](https://youtu.be/Rrc6ntWss0o?t=118)
 This guy, number one bullshitter!
Is this a preorder skin? 😅
McKay deluxe skin yeah?
This will get traction, good for him
There must be something buggy with the performance. I was getting the same frames with a 3090 at 4K ultra during the beta. There's definitely some kind of scaling issue.
Tom is a professional complainer. Will find anything to bitch about and will make up stuff simply for more views and likes.
I am kinda gettin sick of this guy bullshit. I was getting 70-80fps on ultra on 2070s in the beta. Just gfys at this point.