Today we take a look at CPU performance in Battlefield 2042, and this might be the toughest action we've ever taken. The problem you face when trying a multiplayer game like Battlefield 2042 is that it is very difficult to get accurate comparison information. Testing one or two hardware configurations isn't too difficult or too time consuming... Run the game on the same map in the same conditions for a few minutes, do it three times to score the average, and you've got a great idea. The way to compare them may not be an accurate comparison between Apple and Apple, but it definitely works. p>
But testing over 20 configurations to compare a wide range of treatments is a big deal, and a summary of 7 days in a row I got it. Do nothing but try to load a match to conquer 128 players on the same map (and succeed!). p>
We used the orbital map for testing, but this map wasn't always available in rotation. , so we have to wait for the cycle to be used. This, along with a number of other factors, means I can only test 3 or 4 CPUs per day. We also did a separate 60-second test on the same map with bots, which is a more controlled environment, because I have a fixed number of players in the game and they are all active. Since there are fewer players, it doesn't require a lot of CPU, plus the AI load varies. But we're more confident in the accuracy of this data because it's a more slowly controlled experience and there's more variance in what players are really doing, but an average of 3 runs helps solve that problem. But please note that the margin of error is higher than in our more controlled experiments, and I definitely saw more variance. p>
It should also be noted that during testing, the game received a patch and an Nvidia driver was released GPU We used the GeForce RTX 3090 for testing because it was typically faster than the Radeon RX 6900 XT in the game, as we found out a week ago in the GPU benchmark.
Neither of these updates affected the results We think the Nvidia driver is more focused on DLSS issues, while game debugging focuses more on fixes and bugs.This test has been confirmed with GeForce Game Ready Driver 496.76 WHQL since the latest version of the game, all configurations use 32GB of DDR4 -3200 CL14 dual-channel memory, plus some memory results using Several different configurations for good scaling. p>
With the 5800X, the greatest usage is in the 70-80% range. So the only reason the 5950X is a few frames faster is because of the slight increase in frequency, because things like cache capacity are the same on every CCD.
The 5600X was the same despite having 6 cores. The 12-threaded CPU didn't make the most of the 5800X because of the game, which means the fast, hexa-core Zen 3 processor is still pretty good, although right on the edge, usage is often locked at 100%. Despite such heavy use, the game didn't stutter at least as we've seen with the high-core Zen 3 processors. But that means you're on edge, and slower hexa-core/12-thread processors experience a drop in performance, assuming your GPU is capable of 100+ frames with the quality settings you want.Drive in seconds.
So, for newer CPU architectures, it's not so much about the number of cores about IPC, which provides a specific architecture. On the Intel side, there are a few other changes with the increase in L3 cache capacity from Core i5 to i7 and from i7 to i9.
The difference between the eleventh generation models is pretty small and we're just talking about it. 6 cores vs 8 cores With the 10th generation we see a 15% difference between 10600K and 10900K, largely due to the L3 cache capacity.
AMD Zen 2 processors compare it to 10th Gen Intel Hybrid. And it was great to see parts like the neck and neck of the Ryzen 3 3600X with the Core i5-10600K. As we go down the components of Zen+, you can see how these old Ryzen CPUs are starting to show their age. Although the 2700X was an octa-core processor that averaged 0.1% below 40fps, and while the 79fps average was still a respectable one, the 5800X was 43% faster here. p>
4 centers / 8 modern specialties. Processors can still technically play Battlefield 2042, but you can expect more stutter than you'd get on similar 6- and 8-core models. What can't offer bootable performance are quad core/quad core processors like the Core i3-8350K, the game is basically broken on this CPU and offers nothing but constant stuttering. p>
Look at these numbers. The most surprising part is that even when a large amount of processing power is thrown into the game, it is difficult to push over 100 frames per second in large tournaments with 128 people. We will talk more about this at the end of this article. p>
The 1440p results are interesting because they more accurately reflect the GPU testing, where CPU limitations have been largely removed. Therefore, these results are more limited when using advanced processors such as the 2nd generation One tenth of Intel or AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. For other CPUs, the performance numbers are about the same. For example, the Core i9-11900K dropped from an average of 113 fps to 110 fps.< p> This explains why many Battlefield players can't improve performance by lowering or lowering the resolution.Improve quality settings.It's not just limited to the GPU, but it's also probably not always as limiting as they think it's CPU related.< /p>Testing with bots
Now this data is based on an adaptation of a custom bot that doesn't slowly use anything AI Intended for the game, and compared to the 128-player scores we've seen recently, the CPU usage of a part like the Ryzen 5 5600X has been reduced by 15%. This is enough to increase GPU performance by up to 30% and improve the lowest 1% by up to 50%, although it is interesting to note that 0.1% of the lowest value remains roughly constant for at least 5600X. p> < p>
This story is similar to wizards Older hexa/12 cores like the 2600X, the average frame rate increased by 20% while the low rate increased by 1% to 59%. p >
It's not just average. to lower quality CPUs that benefit greatly from a lighter workload. The average frame rate of 12900KB increased by 33% with a 94% increase in low performance by 1%. It's interesting to see such a huge change in performance with very small differences in usage. But of course, the CPU load is probably quite different, which is why the usage numbers themselves can be quite misleading. p>
Go to 1440p, connect to the GPU and see processors from 10600K and above. It offers a similar frame rate, even though the lower-performance 12th-gen processors were 0.1% better, comes the turn, plays a major role, and it certainly does. As mentioned, we didn't see any improvement when switching to DDR5-6000 with the 12900K, and we did see a slight drop in frame rate. This is another shame and blow to the current state of DDR5. p>
Going by the Ryzen 9 5950X results, I installed some cheap single-deck DDR4-3000 CL18 memory, and here we see that low-latency DDR4-3200 memory increases performance by up to 18% and decreases by 1 % to 1%. This is a big difference because DDR4-3000 and 3200 are at least similar in frequency. Of course, there is a big difference between CL18 and CL14 scheduling.
So if you think it's bad now, there are a lot of gamers for example, if the game uses modern 8- or 12-core processors, if we look at the official system requirements and focus on AMD processors (Intel's recommendations are bullshit) we see that At least the Ryzen 5 1600 specs, and based on the tests we've seen here on components like the R5 2600X, it's only slightly faster, and this recommendation makes sense, at least perfectly.
The recommended specs require at least a Ryzen 7 2700X, and that's Which is where you need to want to keep it to a minimum, but it has to be said that while the CPU was still a bit soaked, the game was quite playable so it makes sense.With the CPU, the suggested specs were something like the 5800X , and at this point some games could have been enjoyed. p>
Therefore, while players are often quick to criticize the developer and feel bored. General terms like not optimized, the truth is it's more complicated than this. And Battlefield 2042 has a lot going on: They've doubled the number of players, referring primarily to quad-core processors, putting the heat on the previous generation 6-core/12-core processors. This game also has an advanced destruction system, weather effects, etc. p>
At this point, we don't think the level of CPU usage we're seeing is unwarranted or indicate that the game is poorly optimized (in reference to the CPU/GPU.. ...there were other complaints.) Could more work be done to improve the game? Perhaps, but does it fundamentally change performance without compromising the number of players or effects? I doubt it.
This is a good balance between making the game playable Playable for most fans and adding new features like increasing the number of players to make the game more exciting. You simply can't do more when you need less, and I think that's what many players expected.
Finally, if there are players in the group ( small?)? Want to give Battlefield. 2042 a second chance, which is the best CPU to choose? If you're using an AM4 platform, the Ryzen 7 5800X seems to be the best option, although as far as we can tell Saying, the 5600X runs cheaper. p>
< p> The price of the 5800X has dropped to $390. Better cost per position ratio compared to 5600x. Given that and the extra space, this is probably the solution. For Intel owners, it depends on what you have. Anything older or slower than a Core i5-10600K, upgrading to the 12th generation with 12600K or higher will give you 30% better performance, which is a huge improvement over Battlefield 2042.
That's right. Now the Core i5-12600K looks like a great CPU for Battlefield 2042, put it on an MSI Z690 Pro-A or Gigabyte Z690 UD and you've got a $500 powerful combination. And of course DDR5 is not required, in fact it is better to avoid it now. other games. For those playing in 4K this will be less of an issue, but for those trying to drive frames as low as possible, it will improve tougher times and significantly overclock. p>
About how to direct frames as low as possible. work. How much RAM do you need? Not much. 16GB is enough because total system usage when playing Battlefield 2042 never exceeded 12GB in our test. All in all, it was around 10 GB, and that was with 32 GB installed in our test bench. The only time you'll want to override it well is when you're running out of VRAM, and the game uses a lot of VRAM with great quality settings, so you'll want at least an 8GB or more graphics card to play. 1440 pixels and above.
Going back to the previous GPU test, if you look at the 1080p data, you only need a GeForce RTX 3060 Ti or a Radeon RX 6700 XT when using a high-end CPU, because the CPU will be the main component that is selected Performance, not the GPU. For 1440p resolution, an RTX 3080 or 6800 XT would be needed, our 1440p CPU and GPU data are very similar, with only a 10% difference in performance between the two different testing methods.
That means Battlefield 2042 CPU and System Performance In short, bring a big CPU because you'll need it...Intel Core i9-12900K on Amazon Intel Core i7-12700K on Amazon Intel Core i5 -12600K on Amazon AMD Ryzen 9 5950X on Amazon AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon Intel Core i9-11900K on Amazon Intel Core i7-11700K on Amazon Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 Ti on Amazon AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT on Amazon
Battlefield 2042 CPU. 128 player battles