Battlefield V RTX CPU Performance Revisited

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Back when HardOCP published our Battlefield V ray tracing reviews, we got some criticism for using a 7700k in the GPU tests. Some claimed that the CPU was ultimately the bottleneck in the benchmarks, and that a CPU with more threads would change the results. Following up on those claims with a 9700K wasn't enough to dissuade some critics, so we retested Battlefield V's DXR performance on Intel's fastest CPU to date, the 8 core/16 thread Core i9 9900K.

Check out the review here.

After our 9700K testing, we got a bit more criticism, telling us that since the 9700K is still "only" an 8-core / 8-thread processor, and not the 12-threads that is recommended by EA, that our results were being hindered, again, by the CPU. While it is a fair criticism, we did not think this was an issue, but again, we wanted to know if we were being CPU-limited in our testing. At that point we shipped Brent our i9-9900K (8C/16T) for testing. Since the 9900K is a 16-thread processor, we should finally be able to put all the scuttlebutt to bed.
 
Next test. Thread Ripper :p:p

That would make for nice addition IMO - plus Kyle built that awesome 2950x workstation so why not? I've been gaming on my new x399 workstation lately, including BFV, and I'm wondering how much performance is lost versus a high clocked intel system with DXR on.
 
7700K is still the standard for benchmarking games is it not? It was even used by AMD in the Radeon VII testing against the 2080.

I think most people knew the results would be pretty similar. Until games start taking advantage of the extra cores/threads.
 
7700K is still the standard for benchmarking games is it not? It was even used by AMD in the Radeon VII testing against the 2080.

I think most people knew the results would be pretty similar. Until games start taking advantage of the extra cores/threads.
At 5ghz sure. Take a lesser quad and try again.
Not sure why anyone is surprised the best quad core can play this game when given an over clock
 
Question, I can't find in the article where it explicitly states the RAM speeds on the i7 7700. I assume it matches the I9s 3600 but can anyone confirm? Also thanks for letting me know I don't need to wring my hands over an i9 upgrade. My 7700k is doing just fine :)
 
At 5ghz sure. Take a lesser quad and try again.
Not sure why anyone is surprised the best quad core can play this game when given an over clock

I was actually kind of curious to see how the numbers would look at stock speeds and at matched speeds of the other processors. I imagine the difference would be pretty minimal honestly, the 7700k would likely run at the max 4.5GHz boost during gameplay unless BFV is using an AVX load.

I'm currently running an 8700 ES that has a 2.9GHz base clock and 3.5GHz boost clock; the difference in FPS at 1080p over a 5GHz 8086k is never more than 5-10fps in Destiny 2, Blops 4, PUBG, etc. It really only ever has a large parity in FPS when it's a more CPU intense game, but even then the only game that has a large parity in FPS from the two is WoW since it relies on mostly a single core.
 
This article proves one thing. RT is still at the experimental stage. It will maybe ready for the prime time in two years.
 
I was actually kind of curious to see how the numbers would look at stock speeds and at matched speeds of the other processors. I imagine the difference would be pretty minimal honestly, the 7700k would likely run at the max 4.5GHz boost during gameplay unless BFV is using an AVX load.

I'm currently running an 8700 ES that has a 2.9GHz base clock and 3.5GHz boost clock; the difference in FPS at 1080p over a 5GHz 8086k is never more than 5-10fps in Destiny 2, Blops 4, PUBG, etc. It really only ever has a large parity in FPS when it's a more CPU intense game, but even then the only game that has a large parity in FPS from the two is WoW since it relies on mostly a single core.
I think dice had to also consider systems using older quad cores. 4690k struggles on this game at stock and only somewhat improves at 4.2ghz constant boost in my testing. I don't think you need 6 cores per say but you at least need 4 very fast cores or 4 cores with some ht.
 
i plan on sticking with my 1080 ti for at least 2 more years, i see no reason to get RTX at this current time, its nice thats the direction they are going but at this time its not worth the performance cost
 
Anyone find the whole development cycle of Ray tracing very similar to tesselation? Sure it looks better but the first generation cards took a massive performance hit in the two or three games which supported it.
 
Back
Top