Battlefield Hardline Ultra vs Low Comparison

WYP

News Guru
Battlefield: Hardline, Ultra versus Low Comparison Screenshots. How much detail is lost moving from the highest to the lowest graphical settings.

03034902120l.jpg


Read more on Battlefield Hardline Ultra vs Low screenshot showdown here.
 
I want to have the opinion of you guys on this. I would like the site to deliver more graphical comparisons, benchmarking/ testing on popular games like this on release.

Is this the type of content that you guys would be interested in watching or reading?
 
First question, did they actually reload the game, or just change settings, come back to game and screenshot? because... there is so little difference it would lead me to believe it's not loaded in the lower settings assets..

I'm still refusing to buy this DLC :)
 
The only obvious difference to me is the lack of antialiasing in the "Low" detail settings. I would be happy playing either tbh.
 
First question, did they actually reload the game, or just change settings, come back to game and screenshot? because... there is so little difference it would lead me to believe it's not loaded in the lower settings assets..

I'm still refusing to buy this DLC :)

I cannot say exactly what DSO Gaming's methods were as they failed to clarify this in their article.

I'll be honest and say that with this I was testing the waters before I try to convince Tom to get us to do more performance and graphical tests on newly released PC games.
 
I'd say only do comprisons from our own system. But nay, I don't think we need it.

SUBBY BUY IT. I have to snipe you :D
 
Nah don't think so tbh.

Most of these screenshots have been edited to an extent anyway so they don't give a very reliable idea. If you want to do them as articles, I think you should indeed make your own comparison screenshots for an accurate representation that actually helps people :)

This is basically them showing off being all "but look our game looks epic even on low settings, so on low-end hardware".
 
Nah don't think so tbh.

Most of these screenshots have been edited to an extent anyway so they don't give a very reliable idea. If you want to do them as articles, I think you should indeed make your own comparison screenshots for an accurate representation that actually helps people :)

This is basically them showing off being all "but look our game looks epic even on low settings, so on low-end hardware".

If we continue to do anything like this we will do it ourselves and be clear with the methodology that we use. DSO Gaming did not even state the specifications of the PC they used and there is the "did they remember to restart the game?" issue which several people have pointed out here and on social media.

If we were to do anything like this again in the future we will do it properly, ourselves.
We will do a graphics comparison, then (in a later article) benchmark the games to find out which setting give us the highest framerate gains and compare a range of GPUs from the current Generation of AMD and Nvidia cards.
 
Last edited:
I'm up for that then ;)

Although I do think you should do it on both AMD and Nvidia cards anyway, as there are always things like PhysX or TressFX.
 
Not the same game I know but it's the same engine and just thought I'd see how much better the new game is at lowest, Surprisingly Hardline is much better looking at minimum settings compared to BF4 at minimum going by Siebs pics.

BF4 at 1080P maxed out, Max FOV, DOF on -

Ultra


0lva6CC.png




Low/Minimum


7GmSAoa.png




At least they did a good job for people running lower end systems this time around :)
 
Back
Top