Then we see the Ryzen 3 2200G comfortably beating the Core i3-7350K and Pentium G5400. The Ryzen 5 2400G was comparable to the 7600K and that's not something we often see, if ever. It's interesting to see the once mighty Core i5-7600K struggling here. With well over 60 fps on a consistent basis, Ryzen was able to provide smooth performance regardless, but we'll move on to some more favorable testing in a moment. Beyond that we see processors such as the 8600K, 8700K, 9600K and so on all easily beating the best AMD has to offer. The Core i5-8400 is roughly on par with the Ryzen 7 2700X, while the older 7700K is faster. Now, here are all the CPUs re-tested using the DX11 API and as you can see Ryzen cops a bit of a pounding under these test conditions. We're not discussing these results in detail as our focus will be on the slightly better performing DX11. To get that discussion out of the way however, here are the DX12 numbers for those interested. We know plenty of players are claiming DX12 is fixed and is even better than DX11, but unless you're using a low-end CPU DX11 does offer a better experience. For the test we used the Narvik map in the 64-player Conquest mode for about 60 second on each run.įor the majority of the benchmarks we we're using DirectX 11 as it provides more consistent frame time performance. If you've got 30 players close out in front, the frame rates will be much lower than if the action is taking place well off in the distance, so making sure the same sort of stuff was going on around the player character for each pass was a serious challenge and very time consuming. We neglected extreme outliers and tested many more times than usual to try and report the most accurate performance possible, so results presented on this article are based on an average of 6 runs, rather than 3. With high-end hardware a deviation of more than a few frames is rare, though testing with multiplayer we were often seeing up to a ~10 fps difference for the average frame rate. Fluctuation between runs can be quite large compared to our Battlefield V single player GPU benchmark, which often delivers the same average frame rates and 1% low results over and over again. However, there's a big difference in CPU demand between the two modes, and 64-player multiplayer really puts the hurt on lower-end processors.įor testing CPU performance we are using Battlefield V's 64-player Conquest mode, which creates a number of challenges for accurate testing, but nonetheless we threw ourselves at the task. For those tests we used the single player campaign to measure performance as it's easy to record accurate data and visually the single and multiplayer portions of the game are much the same. We also looked at real-time ray tracing performance. Earlier this month we tested graphics performance in Battlefield V covering a massive range of graphics cards at 1080p, 1440p and 4K.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |