Battlefield 6 Open Beta Map Performance Comparison - Not Every Map is Created Equal

Testing The Four Maps

I have pitted each of the four Battlefield 6 open beta maps against each other in a round of tests with the goal of discovering which map is the most optimized and which is the least optimized.

With the second open weekend underway for the Battlefield 6 beta, we began hearing reports about the game being less optimized this time around. While these reports weren't specific as to when the lack of optimization was occurring, I decided to find out myself by measuring the performance of each of the four maps in Conquest.

To do this, I hopped into a Conquest game. I turned on NVIDIA's FrameView application, a piece of software dedicated to recording the performance of a game and spitting out all of the raw data into a CSV file. I wanted to maintain the most realistic player experience throughout the testing, so I decided to play the entire duration of the Conquest game while recording the frame data. That means the test lasts for approximately 20 minutes.

During the game, I did what I believe any player would do in a Conquest match. Run around, launch rockets at vehicles, swap classes, revive teammates, capture points, etc. I played the game as naturally as any player would, versus a static benchmark test where I would only go to one specific part of the map for a specific duration of testing time. While those kinds of tests are helpful at pitting graphics cards against each other, my goal was to capture the most realistic frame data for the average player.

Notably, all tests were carried out at completely maxed graphical settings at a 4K resolution. I decided to opt for 4K for these tests to crunch the numbers as much as possible. Additionally, the tests were performed on my new benchmarking test rig that features an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, AMD Ryzen 9800X3D, WD_Black's SN8100 2TB M.2 SSD, and 32GB of Corsair Vengeance 6000MHz RAM. All of which is plugged into the MSI MPG X870E CARBON WIFI Motherboard.

Open Beta Map Testing Results

• Liberation Peak
• Siege of Cairo
• Empire State
• Iberian Offensive

Best Deals: MSI GeForce RTX 5080 16GB Gaming Trio OC

Prices last scanned 1 hour and 20 minutes ago

Today 7 days ago 30 days ago Buy

$79.99 USD

7 days ago: $79.99 USD30 days ago: $79.99 USD

$79.99 USD

$79.99 USD

BuyBuy at Newegg

£2011.71

7 days ago: £2011.91

£2011.91

-

BuyBuy at Amazon

Check Price

-

-

CheckCheck Price at Amazon

Check Price

-

-

CheckCheck Price at Amazon

Check Price

-

-

CheckCheck Price at Amazon

Check Price

-

-

CheckCheck Price at Newegg

Check Price

-

-

CheckCheck Price at PC Case Gear

9

Going into this testing, I believed the maps that didn't feature any vehicles, or minimal vehicles, would have performed the best as there would be less destruction happening on-screen and therefore, less GPU horsepower required. I believed the order of the most optimized maps would be as follows: Empire State, Iberian Offensive, Siege of Cairo, and Liberation Peak. Also factoring into this prediction was the size of the map. Liberation Peak is the largest map and features the most vehicles, which is why I believed it would offer the least stable performance out of the bunch. However, I was wrong.

For those who want to skip the nitty-gritty explanations for the performance and just want to know the order from most optimized to least optimized. Here you go.

1. Liberation Peak is the Gold Standard

• Best overall performance: 101 FPS average.
• Smoothest gameplay with the strongest 1% and 0.1% lows.
• Lowest frame times (99th & 99.9th percentiles), meaning the most consistent frame pacing

2. Siege of Cairo is Almost as Fast, but Not as Stable

• Average FPS: 100.3 (just -0.7% vs Liberation Peak).
• 1% lows drop -11.5% compared to Liberation Peak
• 0.1% lows collapse (-59%), revealing rare but harsh stutters.
• Cairo can feel rougher during heavy firefights or explosions

3. Empire is Playable but Stutter-Prone

• Average FPS: 93.4 (-7.5% vs Liberation Peak).
• 1% lows fall -17% behind Liberation Peak
• 0.1% lows are the weakest of all maps (-65%), meaning the worst rare stutters.
• Least stable frame delivery

4. Iberian Offensive - King's Battery is the Least Optimized

• Average FPS: 92.4 (-8.5% vs Liberation Peak).
• 1% lows down -16.5% vs Liberation Peak
• 0.1% lows are also poor (-56%), though slightly better than Empire's.
• Frame times (99.9th percentile ~17.1 ms) reveal more frequent hitches.
• Raw averages are close to Empire, but Iberian's frame pacing issues make it feel less polished.

Well, there you have it. If you have been playing the open beta and noticing some variation in performance between the maps, you aren't going crazy. It's real. Not every map in Battlefield 6's open beta is created equally. Some are simply more optimized than others, and while average FPS doesn't really change too much between maps, the real story is told at the 1% and 0.1% lows. For those who don't understand the terminology, such as 1% lows or 99th percentile, check out the What the Metrics Mean page, where all of that is explained.

What the Metrics Mean

Average FPS

• The overall frame rate across the test
• Good for a big picture view of performance, but doesn't capture the worst-case scenarios a player can feel

1% Low FPS

• The average of the lowest 1% of frames generated
• Think "how the game feels during the heaviest moments". If 1% lows are much lower than the average FPS, you'll notice drops and stutters during your gameplay.

0.1% Low FPS

• The average of the lowest 0.1% of frames, and even stricter than 1% lows.
• Captures rare but severe stutters/freezes. The same principle applies for 0.1% as it does for 1% lows. If this metric is low compared to your average FPS, you'll notice stutters

99th Percentile Frame Time (ms)

• Frame time is how long it takes a single frame to render in milliseconds
• 99th percentile means that 99% of frames render faster than the recorded figure, e.g, 17ms
• Think the inverse of FPS, and a measurement for smoothness
• Lower = smoother, fewer hitches.

99.9th Percentile Frame Time (ms)

• 99.9% of frames are faster than this
• Highlights the worst-case stutters, and captures how bad the worst stutters can get

Why It Matters

• If a game runs with an average of 100FPS but has very low 1% lows, it will feel worse than a game with 80FPS but stable 1% lows.
• High Average FPS = fast
• Strong 1% / 0.1% Lows = consistent and smooth
• Low Frame Times = fewer visible hitches

In short: Average FPS shows speed, while lows and frame times show smoothness.

Map Performance

9

9

9

9

Final Thoughts

Battlefield 6 performance across all maps is mostly the same when strictly looking at average FPS values, as the difference in performance is within 10FPS. However, after playing a significant number of hours of the game (clocked 21 hours at the time of writing), I can notice a difference between each of the maps when it comes to the frequency of stutters.

9

With that being said, the developers of Battlefield 6 have done a stunning job to make this game as optimized as it is, especially when taking into account the size of each of the maps, the number of players in each of the games, the destruction that is occurring, and that it's an open beta.

Liberation Peak stood out as the most optimized experience as it delivered both high frame rates and the smoothest frame pacing. Siege of Cairo came in at a close second, but suffers from harsher stutters than Liberation Peak. Iberian Offensive and Empire follow behind with even lower averages and weaker lows, and showcase areas of needed improvement for a smoother gameplay experience.

Remember, this is just a beta. So, in theory, Battlefield 6 should further improve performance-wise. Hopefully, between the end of the second open beta weekend and the official launch date, developers will be able to iron out some of these stuttering issues, bringing all of the maps up to the golden standard of Liberation Peak.