Gaming: Final Fantasy XV

Upon arriving to PC earlier this, Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition was given a graphical overhaul as it was ported over from console, fruits of their successful partnership with NVIDIA, with hardly any hint of the troubles during Final Fantasy XV's original production and development.

In preparation for the launch, Square Enix opted to release a standalone benchmark that they have since updated. Using the Final Fantasy XV standalone benchmark gives us a lengthy standardized sequence to record, although it should be noted that its heavy use of NVIDIA technology means that the Maximum setting has problems - it renders items off screen. To get around this, we use the standard preset which does not have these issues.

Square Enix has patched the benchmark with custom graphics settings and bugfixes to be much more accurate in profiling in-game performance and graphical options. For our testing, we run the standard benchmark with a FRAPs overlay, taking a 6 minute recording of the test.

AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List
Game Genre Release Date API IGP Low Med High
Final Fantasy XV JRPG Mar
2018
DX11 720p
Standard
1080p
Standard
4K
Standard
8K
Standard

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Final Fantasy XV IGP Low Medium High
Average FPS
95th Percentile

Unlike World of Tanks, Final Fantasy is never entirely CPU limited at any one point. Even on its Low settings, our entire collection of CPUs is within a 7% range. Only once we drop down to IGP-level settings – which are really meant more for IGP comparisons – do we tease out any kind of CPU difference. Still, in that scenario the 9900K does at least eek out a few more frames than prior Intel CPUs, with the 9700K taking up second place. Past that, this is very clearly a game that is GPU limited in almost all scenarios.

Gaming: World of Tanks enCore Gaming: Shadow of War
Comments Locked

274 Comments

View All Comments

  • 0ldman79 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    There are certainly occasions where more cores are better than clock speed.

    Just look at certain mining apps. You can drop the power usage by half and only lose a little processing speed, but drop them to 2 cores at full power instead of 4 and it is a *huge* drop. Been playing with the CPU max speed in Windows power management on my various laptops. The Skylake i5 6300HQ can go down to some seriously low power levels if you play with it a bit. The recent Windows updates have lost a lot of the Intel Dynamic Thermal control though. That's a shame.
  • Makaveli - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Power consumption rules on mobiles parts why would they release an 8 core model?
  • notashill - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Because you get more performance at the same power level using more cores at lower clocks. The additional cores are power gated when not in use.
  • evernessince - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    Not judging by the power consumption and heat output displayed here.
  • mkaibear - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    9700K is definitely the way to go on the non-HEDT. 9900K is technically impressive but the heat? Gosh.

    It's definitely made me consider waiting for the 9800X though - if the 7820X full load power is 145W ("TDP" 140W) at 3.6/4.3, then the 9800X isn't likely to be too much higher than that at 3.8/4.5.

    Hrm.
  • Cooe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    "9700K is definitely the way to go on the non-HEDT."

    I think you meant to say "Ryzen 5 2600 unless your GPU's so fast, it'll HEAVILY CPU-bind you in gaming" but spelt it wrong ;). The 9700K is a vey good CPU, no doubt, but to claim it the undisputed mainstream champ at it's currently mediocre bang/$ value (so important for the mainstream market) doesn't make any sense, or accurately represent what people in the mainstream are ACTUALLY buying (lots of Ryzen 5 2600's & i5-8400's; both with a MUCH saner claim to the "best overall mainstream CPU" title).
  • mkaibear - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    No, I meant to say "9700K is definitely the way to go on the non-HEDT".

    Don't put words in people's mouth. I don't just game. The video encoding tests in particular are telling - I can get almost a third better performance with the 9700K than I can the r5 2600x.

    >"best overall mainstream CPU" title

    Please don't straw man either. Nowhere did I say that it was the best overall mainstream CPU (that's the R7 2700X in my opinion), but for my particular use case the 9700K or the 9800X are better suited at present.
  • koaschten - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Uhm yeah... so where are the 9900k overclocking results the article claims are currently being uploaded? :)
  • watzupken - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    The i9 processor is expected to be quite impressive in performance. However this review also reveals that Intel is struggling to pull more tricks out of their current 14nm and Skylake architect. The lack of IPC improvement over the last few generations is just forcing them to up the clockspeed to continue to cling on to their edge. Considering that they are launching the new series this late in the year, they are at risk of AMD springing a surprise with their 7nm Zen 2 slated to launch next year.
  • SquarePeg - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    If the rumored 13% IPC and minimum 500mhz uplift are for real with Zen 2 then AMD would take the performance crown. I'm not expecting very high clocks from Intel's relaxed 10nm process so it remains to be seen what kind of IPC gain they can pull with Ice Lake. It wouldn't surprise me if they had a mild performance regression because of how long they had to optimize 14nm for clock speed. Either way I'm all in on a new Ryzen 3 build next year.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now