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

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.
I Play BF1 on Low-Med, 75Hz Monitor, 75-100fps, and I have a Xeon E1270 (My Fx 8320e Died) with R9 380. So no, by today standard you can't be getting worried about bottleneck with a 2700x. I'm upgrading next week, I'll be feeling it myself, spoiler alert, no bottleneck.
 
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'.
I get it, But I never accuse anyone of drinking cool aid, but if we are being objective, if you cant see the diference betwen CPU with a 2070, you can lower the settings and get over 200fps and still be talking about bottleneck, so no, still everyone talking about CPU bottleneck with a 1060 even if is in LOW, is basically deilusional!.
I'm getting 75-100 and I merely have an R9 380, paired with a 5yo Xeon in low.
 
I get it, But I never accuse anyone of drinking cool aid, but if we are being objective, if you cant see the diference betwen CPU with a 2070, you can lower the settings and get over 200fps and still be talking about bottleneck, so no, still everyone talking about CPU bottleneck with a 1060 even if is in LOW, is basically deilusional!.
I'm getting 75-100 and I merely have an R9 380, paired with a 5yo Xeon in low.

If you're a 60Hz or 75Hz gamer any CPU from a Ryzen 2600 and up will be 'enough'.

On 144Hz gaming panels a 8600K or better is clearly needed to 'max out' the game regardless of GPU or graphics settings.

Of course a Ryzen 2700X is enough for a good gaming experience. So was my old 3770K. But the latest CFL chips enable a higher level of high refresh gaming for those with 144Hz (or better) gaming panels. Some of these panels cost upwards of $500 don't forget, so having a $250 - $350 CPU to maximise the gaming experience makes sense.
 
If you're a 60Hz or 75Hz gamer any CPU from a Ryzen 2600 and up will be 'enough'.

On 144Hz gaming panels a 8600K or better is clearly needed to 'max out' the game regardless of GPU or graphics settings.

Of course a Ryzen 2700X is enough for a good gaming experience. So was my old 3770K. But the latest CFL chips enable a higher level of high refresh gaming for those with 144Hz (or better) gaming panels. Some of these panels cost upwards of $500 don't forget, so having a $250 - $350 CPU to maximize the gaming experience makes sense.
According to the benchmarks here, you can maximize 144hz and lowering settings should get you close to 200hz with a 2700x, so claiming Intel is needed to maximize anything is just nonsense. I get it that is not better, or exactly equal, but its does not "Need" to be Intel to maximize anything these days.
 
According to the benchmarks here, you can maximize 144hz and lowering settings should get you close to 200hz with a 2700x, so claiming Intel is needed to maximize anything is just nonsense. I get it that is not better, or exactly equal, but its does not "Need" to be Intel to maximize anything these days.

Actually the majority of in game settings only reduce the GPU load, not the CPU load. I don't think reducing graphical settings will help a 2700X much because it performs the same whether on a 2700 or 2080 Ti - this indicates a CPU bottleneck.

Trying to justify a 2700X as an 'equal' gaming CPU to the higher end Intel CFL chips is like saying there is no difference between an i5 8400 and 8700K/9700K/9900K in this game - clearly there is a difference, and it's about 15%. Not a huge margin by any means, but we are talking about AMDs flagship after all.

I'm actually more disappointed in how the 2600X performs because there is basically no performance loss between the 9900K and 8700K yet this is a significant gap between the 2600X and 2700X. For whatever reason Intel 6 core (even 6/6 CPUs like the 8600K) can 'max out' the game yet a 6/12 chip like the 2600X falls well short.
 
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.

You are kidding me right? If you don't buy a GPU that cost 700$ and more, there is no performance gain over the choice of CPU or almost between a 2000 Ryzen or a Core CPU.

Within a budget, AMD will always win over Intel. A 2700x with a 1080 TI will fare better than a 9900k and a 1070 GTX... just saying... and your performance over the 1070 GTX with a 2700x or a 9900k are the same. The only difference is what is left in your pocket. How can you beat a 2600x offering for the price? Especially with the shortages, as of now buying Intel is insane.

However when it comes to multi-threaded performances Ryzen is cheaper and better in comparison to Intel midrange offering.

Unless you are an enthusiasm, CPU bottleneck benchmarks are useless and they are only going to fool mainstream users into thinking buying Intel makes a difference while in reality it doesn't. Anything below a Vega 56 doesn't matter. Joe blow buying a 1060 GTX or an RX 580 will not see a damn difference with their gaming performances because they are in a GPU bottleneck situation.

Stop drinking the coolaid and check the numbers.
 
You are kidding me right? If you don't buy a GPU that cost 700$ and more, there is no performance gain over the choice of CPU or almost between a 2000 Ryzen or a Core CPU.

Within a budget, AMD will always win over Intel. A 2700x with a 1080 TI will fare better than a 9900k and a 1070 GTX... just saying... and your performance over the 1070 GTX with a 2700x or a 9900k are the same. The only difference is what is left in your pocket. How can you beat a 2600x offering for the price? Especially with the shortages, as of now buying Intel is insane.

However when it comes to multi-threaded performances Ryzen is cheaper and better in comparison to Intel midrange offering.

Unless you are an enthusiasm, CPU bottleneck benchmarks are useless and they are only going to fool mainstream users into thinking buying Intel makes a difference while in reality it doesn't. Anything below a Vega 56 doesn't matter. Joe blow buying a 1060 GTX or an RX 580 will not see a damn difference with their gaming performances because they are in a GPU bottleneck situation.

Stop drinking the coolaid and check the numbers.

I do check the numbers and the stutters and awful 0,1% lows with ryzen chips on high refresh scenarios, changing my mouse sensitivity and frame times on every gunfight because the cpu cant keep up.

Get out of your own bubble, everyone has different needs. Im not even talking about BF V. Try quake champions or black ops 4 pn ryzen and then tell me your experience on high RR. Then try a 8600k at 4,7ghz and tell me how smoother it is.

Stop drinking the coolaid.
 
You are kidding me right? If you don't buy a GPU that cost 700$ and more, there is no performance gain over the choice of CPU or almost between a 2000 Ryzen or a Core CPU.

Within a budget, AMD will always win over Intel. A 2700x with a 1080 TI will fare better than a 9900k and a 1070 GTX... just saying... and your performance over the 1070 GTX with a 2700x or a 9900k are the same. The only difference is what is left in your pocket. How can you beat a 2600x offering for the price? Especially with the shortages, as of now buying Intel is insane.

However when it comes to multi-threaded performances Ryzen is cheaper and better in comparison to Intel midrange offering.

Unless you are an enthusiasm, CPU bottleneck benchmarks are useless and they are only going to fool mainstream users into thinking buying Intel makes a difference while in reality it doesn't. Anything below a Vega 56 doesn't matter. Joe blow buying a 1060 GTX or an RX 580 will not see a damn difference with their gaming performances because they are in a GPU bottleneck situation.

Stop drinking the coolaid and check the numbers.

Surely you must be the one that is kidding, or those red coloured glasses are really clouding your judgement.

I already said it before in this thread, that Ryzen are great at productivity but not so good at gaming. The 2600X and 2700X are perfect examples of this. They would both dominate the 8600K in most highly threaded productivity apps, yet the 8600K crushes them in BF:V, a game that is supposed to be highly multi-threaded.

You are right that AMD is generally the better value in a productivity rig, but if I wanted a highly capable MT machine the recent $400 TR 1950X deals (16 cores!) actually makes more sense than a $330 2700X.

For gaming however, a 8600K at $240 outperforms the 2700X at $330 by a clear 15%. Meanwhile, the $240 2600X is a whopping 25% slower than the 8600K. Admittedly the 14nm shortages means the value proposition of certain chips like the i5 8400 isn't as great as it was before, which is a real shame. At the old price of $180 it would have been a great deal, considering it performs like a 2700X in games. However at $220 it's so close to the 8600K you may as well get that instead, and also have to ability to overclock to 5GHz.

Oh and before you re-use the age old argument of a slower CPU hiding behind a GPU bottleneck to be 'equal' - lets consider for a moment that people who own lower end GPUs (like myself, I have a Fury X) don't necessarily run at ultra settings, which would of course be very GPU bound. In fact I run at a mix of medium and high to keep above 100fps at all times. If I was running at ultra I would be getting dips down into the 50s on my GPU.

Therefore at 1080P ultra settings I am indeed GPU bottlenecked, but I'm also getting framerates that are too low for my liking. However by reducing the GPU load I am now able to maintain above 100fps, and this is where a faster CPU comes into play.

If you look at the charts, the 2600X dips as low as 75fps, and the 2700X 85fps, whereas all the CFL chips from the 8600K and up can maintain 100fps+ at all times. This is the true value of a faster gaming CPU, in the 1% lows, when the action gets hectic and you can still maintain a healthy frame rate.

Now I'm not saying the game is unplayable on Ryzen setups, of course not. 75 - 85fps mins are still very playable, and I can speak from experience on this coming from my 3770K. However, it isn't quite the smooth 100fps+ experience you get on the higher end Intel chips. Having upgraded from the 3770K mainly because of BF1, I can appreciate what a faster CPU brings to the table, even with a mid range GPU by today's standards.
 
Last edited:
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....

watch it well, is just scaling up to 4 threads
 
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....

watch it well, is just scaling up to 4 threads
I see scaling it up to 6threads. I meant that fps is under desired 60. Now I am interested how would the game move purely on Ryzen APU with integrated graphics.
 
Last edited:
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....
What I'm seeing here is my new Core I9 9900K is using AMD as toilet paper . AMD is good for web browsing and Hello kitty I land adventure but IF your a true gamer going for high end performance gaming go with Intel. I even seen it beat out the thredripper and I was told many times by AMD fanboys that there was nothing better. They should have called it Trash.
 
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
They did and it was trash like all AMD cpu's. My new Core I9 9900K will beat even the thredripper. "DROPS THE MIC!"
 
What I'm seeing here is my new Core I9 9900K is using AMD as toilet paper . AMD is good for web browsing and Hello kitty I land adventure but IF your a true gamer going for high end performance gaming go with Intel. I even seen it beat out the thredripper and I was told many times by AMD fanboys that there was nothing better. They should have called it Trash.

i9 9900k costs 620€ in my country, Ryzen 2600 costs 180€. That difference is so big that 20% less performance is to be expected. For pure gaming i9 isnt even the best high end option. 9700k yes, real 8 cores, cheaper, easier to cool and overclock.

Yes intel is objectively superior compared to amd for high refresh rates and Ive said this already on this thread. Some amd bots still tell you that the diferences are minimal, but they are not.

But price vs performance wise ryzen > all. Or the i5 8400 if found at 170€ in some places.
 
But price vs performance wise ryzen > all. Or the i5 8400 if found at 170€ in some places.

Sure, if you only look at CPU prices in isolation.

A gaming PC is the sum of its parts. A CPU is only a fraction of the total cost. There is also the GPU, motherboard, RAM, SSD, PSU, case and that's just the PC box itself, I'm not including the monitor and peripherals.

Lets say you can get a Ryzen 2600 gaming PC for $1000. The 'equivalent' Intel gaming PC will cost $1100 because 2600 = $180 but 8600K = $240, plus I'll include a $40 HSF which makes it $280. Sure you can save a bit on a 8400 but they are overpriced at the moment so let's go with the 2600 vs 8600K comparison.

So a 8600K system costs you $100 more than a Ryzen 2600 system, but IMO that $100 is worth the additional 30% performance in a competitive shooter like BFV. You pay 10% more but you're getting an extra 30% in key min fps.

Let's look at the figures for a sec:
8600K 0.1% lows = 98fps
2600X 0.1% lows = 75fps

There are no 2600 results but with the slower clockspeeds you can assume it won't be much more than 70fps.

You don't even need to be a 'high refresh rate' gamer to notice this difference, any serious gamer will know the input lag is much better at 100fps than 70fps, even if you only run a 60Hz or 75Hz monitor.

So for me Intel is definitely worth the price premium if you can afford it, and no you don't need a 9900K for that! AMD makes more sense if you are building budget $500 gaming builds.
 
Last edited:
What I'm seeing here is my new Core I9 9900K is using AMD as toilet paper . AMD is good for web browsing and Hello kitty I land adventure but IF your a true gamer going for high end performance gaming go with Intel. I even seen it beat out the thredripper and I was told many times by AMD fanboys that there was nothing better. They should have called it Trash.

They did and it was trash like all AMD cpu's. My new Core I9 9900K will beat even the thredripper. "DROPS THE MIC!"

Wow great job on your first 2 posts. Everybody here thinks you are a real cool dude with your 9900k. You must have brought home all of the girls home in high school.

"Threadripper is the best at gaming" said absolutely nobody, including AMD fans.

Rock on being a "True Gamer!"
 
Back