Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unbox now recently we checked out battlefield 5 GP performance using a massive range of graphics cards at TP 1440p and 4k for that test we used the single-player campaign as it's just a quick and easy way to accurately record the data we needed and visually these single and multiplayer portions of the game are much the same however there is a big difference when it comes to the demand on the CPU between single and multiplayer particularly when using the 64 player multiplayer modes that puts the hurt on lower and processors so for this CPU performance video we will be using a 64 player mode we'll be playing in the conquest Maps this creates a few challenges for testing firstly the fluctuation between runs can be quite large our battlefield 5 single-player benchmark often delivers the same average framerate over and over again and the same is also true for the 1% lower result with high-end Hardware a deviation of more than a few frames is quite rare testing with multiplayer though I did sometimes see up to a 10 FPS difference for the average framerate having said that I did neglect any extreme outliers and I tested many more times that I normally would to try and report the most accurate performance I could so the results are based on an average of 6 runs rather than 3 because of this I feel watching gameplay footage of two different harbour configurations executing a similar pass our side-by-side is next to useless so I won't be doing any of that for example if you've got 30 players relatively close all engaging in battle the frame rates will be much lower than if the action was taking place off in the distance and you're perhaps off by yourself so making sure these same sort of stuff is going on around the player character for each pass was a serious challenge and extremely time consuming for testing I'm using the Narvik map in the 64 player conquest mode the test runs for 60 seconds and I'm reporting the average framerate along with the 1% low frame time result again the results are based on an average of at least six runs and any extreme outliers were removed ok so that's getting the results for most of this testing I'll be using DirectX 11 as it provides more consistent frame time performance I know plenty of you are claiming that DirectX 12 is now fixed and is better than DirectX 11 but unless you're using a really low end CPU DirectX 11 does offer a better experience anyway here the DirectX 12 numbers for those of you interested I'm not going to discuss these results as my focus will be on the slightly better performing DirectX 11 so if you want to study these figures for yourself feel free to pause the video now okay so here all the CPUs retest using the DirectX 11 API and as you can see rising cops a bit of a pounding under these conditions the core i5 8400 is roughly on par with the rise in 720 700 X while the oldest 77 Rek is faster beyond that we see processes such as the 8600 k 8700 a 9600 k and so on all easily beating the best AMD has to offer still with well over 60 FPS at all times rise and did provide smooth perfectly playable performance and I'll move on to some more favorable testing in a moment it's really interesting to see the once-mighty Core i5 7600 K really struggling and it's easily done in by the Rison 520 600 X in fact the Rison 520 400 G was comparable to the 7600 K that's not something we often see if ever then we see the rise in 322 energy comfortably beating the core i3 70 350 K and penny mg 5400 basically anything dual core is going to get destroyed by the quad core 2020 even if they have hyper threading for example so a decent change from AMD the low-end but not great for the high end that said if you're not using an RT X xx 82 at 1080p with ray tracing disabled what does risin have to offer okay so here's a comparison between the Rison 727 hundreds and corer 999 hundred K at the top of the graph we see the previous RT X xx atti results at 1080p and here we see the Intel CPU offered a 16% performance boost for the average frame rate and 18% for the 1% low result so a decent performance advantage offered by Intel here switching to the RT X 2080 didn't change too much and here we're still mostly CPU bound at 1080p the 1900 K while 11% faster for the average framerate and 15% faster for the frame time result so for those of you seeking maximum performance at 1080p the 99 are ok seems like the way to go however if you're using a more mid-range GPU like the RT X 2070 so a $500 GPU then it appears you'll receive a similar level of performance with either the 2700 X or 9900 K here the Intel CPU was just 2% faster for the average frame rate and 5% faster for the 1% low which is a negligible difference that being the case using any GPU that's slower than an RT X 2070 I will see no difference between these two CPUs at iupi using ultra quality settings and we see that to be the case with the gtx 1070 but what if you want to go at 1440p and that resolution certainly seems more fitting for the 4 GPUs tested here well at 1440p we see very little difference between the 2700 X and 9900 K using the gtx 1070 RT x 2070 and even at the RT x 2080 the 9900 case still offered a superior gaming experience at 1440p when using the RT X xx atti here it was 13% faster on average with a 21 percent greater frame time result still for most gamers spending twice as much on the 99er okay seems like a poor investment now assuming you actually purchased that 20 80 TI for 4k gaming and appears the choice of CPU doesn't really matter that much here at least when comparing high-end AMD and Intel models even with the RT X xx atti both CPUs enabled the same level of performance hitting around 80 FPS on average with a 1% low of 65 fps ideally I would have liked to have done more testing for this video but due to the ridiculous amount of time it does take to conduct these multiplayer tests and the fact that I only have well I have a couple of accounts but you are limited after 5 hardware changes on an Origin account so you change a graphics card or a CPU five times or even disable something like hyper threading or whatever to test certain things out that will constitute as a hardware change so even though I've got a few accounts I was pretty much maxing them out every day that I was able test with this and then you gotta wait 24 hours before you can do any more testing very annoying it wastes a lot of my time it's very inefficient anyway despite all that I will continue to benchmark other CPUs upon request so if there is a CP you'd like to see added to this list I will do my best to make that happen I'm also going to look at doing a look at including different test conditions so perhaps different maps and modes and things like that because testing with battlefield 5 4 CPUs is quite interesting I think but anyway I think this is a pretty good starting point and we have some pretty good data here anyway the game is playable on quad cores but you can expect frequent frame dips and resulting in less consistent frame rates for the most part we've found that the older Core i5 7600 K has been hanging in there pretty well with triple-a titles released in 2018 but for the multiplayer portion of battlefield 5 you'll will want to avoid the big 64 player battles this also means for smooth consistent gameplay the core i3 range along with the quad core rising CPUs are pretty much a write-off of course if you're willing to accept a regular stuttering and dips below 60fps then you can still make do with these processors now if I was building a PC just to play battlefield 5 at the highest possible frame rates with absolutely nothing else in mind I'd probably get a core i5 8600 K but for just $10 less than the rise in 720 700 you'd really have to be doing nothing other than playing battlefield 5 and you'd have to be completely ignoring future upgrade options for any concerned AMD fans I would like to just point out that the horizon 7 2700 also comes with a cooler and yes I agree that overall it is much better value but for just playing battlefield 5 and a higher refresh rate display the 8600 K can offer a better experience of course if he gave me with an RT X 27 you're slower using the ultra quality settings then it doesn't really matter and in my opinion you're better off getting a rise in protesser as they are better value especially at the lower end alternatively though if you're willing to drop the quality settings down a high or even medium for maximum frame rates then you'll start to see a benefit from going with the higher clocked lower latency into CPU also keep in mind that both AMD and Intel CPUs can be overclocked for greater performance and things like memory timings can be manually tuned and this is beneficial for both platforms generally speaking AMD does better with memory tuning while Intel gains more from core overclocking that being the case it would be possible to push the horizon 720 700 X a more into GPU limited territory with some memory tuning but as always with overclocking your mileage will vary overall I'd say while the rice and results look a bit disappointing at 1080p with extreme high-end GPUs given the clock speed deficit the fact that the 2700 X is just 15% slower than the 99 RK is actually rather impressive and while that is going to do it for this one if you enjoy the video be sure to hit the like button subscribe for more content and if you appreciate the work we do in our box then consider supporting us on patreon we'll gain access to our discord chat monthly live streams and our behind the scenes videos anyway thank you for watching I'm your host Steve see you next time