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.

 

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

AnandTech IGP Low Medium High
Average FPS
95th Percentile

Even though our settings combinations end up being GPU limited very quickly, the Intel CPUs still appear near the top if not at the top.

Gaming: World of Tanks enCore Gaming: Ashes Classic (DX12)
Comments Locked

220 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gastec - Friday, May 22, 2020 - link

    Basically you just have to type "allyourbasearebelongtous +$50/surprisemechanic" and you get all the framerate you want in your favorite multiplayer FPShooter.
  • Boshum - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I think it's a viable alternative to Ryzen 3000, so it's not pointless. It's about equal in performance for most people. A little more expensive and power hungry core for core, but it's more of a flavor thing now. It's still better for certain gaming and application scenarios. Hyperthreading makes the low to midrange a much more reasonable option too, with heat and power being no big deal there. The only place it can't compete with Ryzen is at the very high end for power users doing heavy multi-core work.
  • Dribble - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I'd be the sort of person to look at a 10700K but power usage is just too high. I want to be able to stick a high end air cooler on it, o/c and still have it run pretty quiet. I'd have to go water with one of these and I can't be bothered with that. Not worth it for the small performance increment over more efficient chips.
  • IBM760XL - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Agreed. The 10700K and 10900K use more power per core than my ancient-but-trusty 2500K, at least with stock settings. Sure, the new chips get somewhat better IPC, but I can't justify switching from a Sandy Bridge that's nice and quiet even at 100% load, to a Comet Lake that will require Serious Cooling to have an outside chance of being as quiet.

    I could look at lower-end hex-core Comet Lake chips instead, but why would I do that when I could just as well get an octo-core Ryzen 7 3700, or a Ryzen 5 3600 that will have better performance than an i5-10500?
  • Boshum - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I should think the 10500 and 3600 would be pretty close at stock, though you have more overclocking options with the 3600. It's the future Rocket Lake vs Ryzen 4000 options that is more interesting.
  • warrenk81 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    typo in the dropdown for the final page, move/more.
  • colonelclaw - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Grammar error, too. Less/fewer.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Well, Intel's back on top for gaming, by a small marging, with chips that can fry an egg. Maybe it'll force AMD to lower their prices on their high-end chips. I don't really fancy a 250+ Watt CPU.
  • DrKlahn - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    You can already get the 3900x for $410 on Amazon. Unless you have a use case that heavily favors Intel that would seem to be a pretty good value already. A good B450 board capable of handling it could be had for not much more than the difference in chip cost (provided that fits your needs).
  • Irata - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Yup, and like the article says that includes an HSF that will do the job.

    Contrast that with the 10900k which retails for $530 on Newegg (not available) and which requires you to spend $ 200+ for a proper cooling set up and you are looking at $ 410 vs. $ 730, i.e. paying 56% more for the 10900k. And that does not even include case fans, mainboard, PSU.

    If gaming is what one is after, the 9700k looks much more attractive than the 10900k.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now