Battlefield V Multiplayer CPU Benchmark: Ryzen 7 2700X vs. Core i9-9900K

[Julio Franco]

Having already tested graphics performance in Battlefield V covering a massive range of graphics cards, including a look at real-time ray tracing, we're now focusing on CPU performance. Battlefield V's 64-player multiplayer really puts the hurt on processors, so we threw ourselves at the task.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

 

[Digitalzone]

So, we can conclude that game is optimized for running at exactly 6 cores, more cores don't bring higher FPS. But more disappointing is comparison between i5-8600K and R5 2600X. The difference is about 20-30 fps.
And look how quickly got old not cheap Intel's i5 4cores....

 

[Adi6293]

Core i5 8400 has to be Intels best gaming cpu when it sells at msrp

 

[MALSKAAP]

If you actually used the best AMD cpu on the market the figures will be different, seeing that you running the Ci9 unlocked versions shouldn't that justify bringing the threadrippers to the mix. Just leaving the thought to hang a bit.... Food for thought right

 

[ShObiT]

SO, people claiming better performance on Intel CPUs, when the GPU they use is a Gtx 1060 are just drinking the cool aid, and swalling a placebo, interesting...

 

[LNCPapa]

If you actually used the best AMD cpu on the market the figures will be different, seeing that you running the Ci9 unlocked versions shouldn't that justify bringing the threadrippers to the mix. Just leaving the thought to hang a bit.... Food for thought right

If you look at the earlier charts you'll see that there are a couple of Threadripper chips included... and that they perform worse than the 2700X at the lower resolutions (where you'll see a difference).

 

[Popa2caps]

"but for the multiplayer portion of Battlefield V you will want to avoid the big 64-player battles." No people should avoid BFV all together, It's garbage of a title.

Massive amount of cheaters on EA titles, save yourself a nightmare of dealing with them, but a better game from a company who cares.

 

[dirtyferret]

My biggest take away, how well HT helps out the i7-7700k

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Why is BF5 so hardware intensive? It doesn't look that much better than BF1 or BF4 and doesnt introduce a lot of new features either. It's not like they suddenly made everything destructible which requires a lot of physics.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Why no 1080 or 1080ti? Why no DX12 above 1080p?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Thanks for this TechSpot!

The 2700X is $110cdn more than the 8600K, and $180 more than the 8400.
That's unfortunate...

 

[QuantumPhysics]

When your best Ryzen can't compete with an 8700k...

 

[kharner92]

Hey steve, thanks for this article.

do you have charts for the CPU field at 1440p/4K? just curious and would appreciate seeing that

cheers

 

[TheAudiance]

I‘m Missing Vega 64 in the Benchmark maybe it behaves different

 

[144hzGamer]

SO, people claiming better performance on Intel CPUs, when the GPU they use is a Gtx 1060 are just drinking the cool aid, and swalling a placebo, interesting...

No, but they are prolly using low/medium competitive settings at 80% res scale 1080p for max framerate, like every1 do on online shooters, and then you have same performance as a 2080ti ultra settings, aka Cpu bound.

 

[redgarl]

Basically to see any advantage of paying 250$ more for the best gaming CPU over a 2700x, is to buy a 2080 TI or a 1080 TI and play at 1080p...

Any other Use case is making the purchase of a 9900k a total waste of money.

Not to mention the 2700x has better multi-threaded performances than all the other CPU.

SO, people claiming better performance on Intel CPUs, when the GPU they use is a Gtx 1060 are just drinking the cool aid, and swalling a placebo, interesting...

No, but they are prolly using low/medium competitive settings at 80% res scale 1080p for max framerate, like every1 do on online shooters, and then you have same performance as a 2080ti ultra settings, aka Cpu bound.

Basically to see any advantage of paying 250$ more for the best gaming CPU over a 2700x, is to buy a 2080 TI or a 1080 TI and play at 1080p...

Any other Use case is making the purchase of a 9900k a total waste of money.

Not to mention the 2700x has better multi-threaded performances than all the other CPU.

CPU bottleneck benchmarks are totally useless for 99% of the user base. It only works for 1080 TI/2080 TI users playing at 1080p...

 

[FranknStein7]

I really wish these comparisons included legacy CPUs like the Intel 2500/2600/3570/3770. There are tons of people still using these processors because they've held their own for so long. Battlefield 4 ran great on my i5-3570K, but I seem to having a lot more frame drops on BF V. Would be interesting to see how much a modern processor would help (which would mean replacing my mobo and RAM as well).

 

[Stark]

I really wish these comparisons included legacy CPUs like the Intel 2500/2600/3570/3770. There are tons of people still using these processors because they've held their own for so long. Battlefield 4 ran great on my i5-3570K, but I seem to having a lot more frame drops on BF V. Would be interesting to see how much a modern processor would help (which would mean replacing my mobo and RAM as well).

While the study does sread information on how these latest cpu perform, adding more leagcy hardware would increase the number of test runs and with that EA accout lock policy on hardware change, Steve would be at it till new yeras eve.

 

[Nightfire]

The 7700k is over 80% faster than my 2400g. That is WAY beyond the clock and minor IPC difference. Something is kind of screwy there.

Under a frame time analysis, AMD might compare a little better, especially against the 6/6 parts.

 

[Nightfire]

My biggest take away, how well HT helps out the i7-7700k

For some reason it does not do much for the 2400g.

 

[Nightfire]

Steve, we appreciate the long hours that went into this test.

However, due to the variability that you point out, perhaps fps is not the best way to go about large multiplayer games. Even with all of the time doing 6 runs each to lower variability, this still does not tell the entire story.

We already know the CPU Hierarchy of fps for this game. Simply doing one or two frame time plots and identify which cpus have the most spikes might be the more useful for multiplayer experience.

Apologies for being a peanut gallery member.

 

[CheekyP]

SO, people claiming better performance on Intel CPUs, when the GPU they use is a Gtx 1060 are just drinking the cool aid, and swalling a placebo, interesting...

If you reduce graphics settings you can make games CPU bound even on a GTX 1060.

Not everyone games at ultra settings, especially on a competitive twitch shooter like BF:V.

I personally am still running an old Radeon Fury X (between GTX 1060 and 1070 levels) with my 8700K and I can definitely see the improvement it made over my 3770K. Of course if I run everything maxed out I probably won't see much difference, but I'll generally reduce settings down a notch or two to get better fps.

Maybe stop and think for 2 secs before accusing everyone of drinking the cool aid.
Ryzen has many strengths but when it comes to high fps / high refresh rate gaming Intel is clearly ahead, as was shown in this review.

Yes, using ultra settings on a mid range CPU or running the game at 4K will result in GPU bottlenecks, but that doesnt mean AMD is 'as good at gaming'.

 

[Zsigmond]

I have a 1300X and Vega56. I can't play at 1080p because of cpu is weak. I get 60-80 fps but not smooth, heavy lags. But at 4K I get 35-45 fps and the game really playable, very little lags.
Sorry, I can't speak English too good.

 

[CheekyP]

Basically to see any advantage of paying 250$ more for the best gaming CPU over a 2700x, is to buy a 2080 TI or a 1080 TI and play at 1080p...

Any other Use case is making the purchase of a 9900k a total waste of money.

Not to mention the 2700x has better multi-threaded performances than all the other CPU.

Basically to see any advantage of paying 250$ more for the best gaming CPU over a 2700x, is to buy a 2080 TI or a 1080 TI and play at 1080p...

Any other Use case is making the purchase of a 9900k a total waste of money.

Not to mention the 2700x has better multi-threaded performances than all the other CPU.

CPU bottleneck benchmarks are totally useless for 99% of the user base. It only works for 1080 TI/2080 TI users playing at 1080p...

Read my post above. Not everyone has to game at ultra settings, in fact most competitive gamers DON'T game at max settings in order to improve fps.

Also, lets not put our heads in the sand and pretend other CPUs don't exist just because the article title says 9900K vs 2700X.

You can 'max out' BFV on a 8600K or 8700K as well, or probably even an overclocked 7700K. Based on these results I'm glad I have a 8700K in my system, and I don't even own a high end GPU.

The 2700X is a great productivity CPU but only a 'good' gaming CPU. That is the reality. If you are predominantly a gamer then there are better options from Intel apart from the 9900K.

 

[CheekyP]

For some reason it does not do much for the 2400g.

My hunch is that the small L3 on the 2400G is hurting performance. I think we would see a bigger difference between a 1300X and 1500X. In general usage AMDs SMT implementation is actually slightly better than Intel HT when it comes to MT performance improvements, so I don't see how that wouldnt translate over into games unless there is something else holding back performance.