Follow the little tests we did with PlayerUnogn’s Battlegrounds As far as June was concerned, it was time we checked that the game’s performance was after countless updates, not to mention all the hardware releases along the way.
At the time, we compared the performance of the graphics card using various presets and concluded that the best value combo for the 60fps / 1080p performance were the Ribo 5 1400 and GTX 1060.
Since then, game updates have claimed to fix some of the game’s poor performance issues, including a patch about four months ago that improved CPU usage by allowing the game to use six or more cores.
In this case, we think it would be interesting to focus on CPU performance for this one. This test includes all 8th gen Intel Core CPUs, all Riggen CPUs and a few more seventh core series, so we have test results for 16 different processors in 1080p on low, medium and ultra quality presets.
The chip is paired with the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti using 388.43 drivers, and also integrates CPU usage of all 16 CPUs for those interested.
All Intel Intel CPUs with all Ryzen CPUs were tested using DDR4-3200 CL14 memory.
Meanwhile, the locked Intel CPU was tested using DDR4-2400 CL14 memory. For example, the Core i3-8350K was tested with 3200 memory, but the Core i3-8100 used 2400 memory.
For the test, we passed through Punchinky for 30 seconds – more than enough time to gather the information we needed.
The pass time is reduced from 60 seconds to 30 seconds in an attempt to reduce the number of times we are killed before completing a level, as it is a high loot area, it is very weak. But highly rewarding for those looking for good equipment
standard
First, we had a ‘very low’ quality result and the image quality setting was set to the lowest setting, so it should reduce the GTX 1080T as a component limiting feature. In other words, we saw a serious GPU bottleneck. This is evident with most 7th and 8th generation core processors.
Previously, when tested with premium quality presets, the 7700K and R5 1600 offer similar performance here. The 7700K is 20% faster than the 1600X, as Ryzen CPUs struggle in comparison.
Of course, with more than 60fps at all times, Ryzen CPUs still provide playable performance. But in sports claiming to support the high core, the results are disappointing.
Surprisingly, the Ryzen 7 1800X is just 14% faster than the Ryzen 3 1200 for an average frame rate, and just 6% faster than the 1300X. This suggests that games do not use high cores at all, and instead prefer their frequency. Core over number of cores
The quad-core seems adequate and does not necessarily have HT or SMT support.
That said, for the best performance, dual-core with HT was not enough, and we saw it with the Pentium G4560, which is significantly slower than other CPUs tested. However, it is still playable and would be a good match for the $ 100 graphics card.
Increasing the image quality setting to preset medium quality will reduce GTX 1080 TI performance by about 10% with faster CPU.
There are some new chops with Ryzen CPUs, and now more core ones are doing better, at least compared to what we saw earlier.
The 1800X R3 is 25% faster than the 1200 and 16% faster than the 1300X, so the medium quality setting is more of a burden on the CPU, although it is unclear if the overall usage figures are the same when checking CPU usage.
Again, most Intel CPUs can find GTX 1080 Ti limits, so it is likely that the 8 and 12 thread versions will be faster again.
We finally got our premium quality predetermined results and here we saw a very small change from the medium quality results.
For the most part, there will be some dropped frames, although it will be the Intel quad-core which is the biggest loss here.
The low 1% results for the Core i3-8100 and 8350K at around 15%, while the Ryzen 5 1500X and Ryzen 3 1300X are just 8% slower.
So far, the results seem very general, and this is what we see in poorly adapted games. This graph gives us a better idea of what is happening. Looking at the Core i7-8700K, we can see a 10% drop from very low to medium, then only a 3% drop from medium to ultra.
Core i5-7600K, on the other hand, is 10% below low to medium and 12% below medium to ultra.
This is interesting: the ultra-quality preset harms more quad-cores, but then we got Ryzen 3 1200 results, which is more in line with what we saw from the 8700K, to say the least, then 1600X. It exhibits a fairly similar scale across the three quality presets.
