SebastianRO Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) Hello everyone, I created this thread in the hope that it will be useful to some of you who are interested in upgrading or straight up buying a computer / laptop for Football Manager. When FM19 launched back in November, I searched for this thread because I was also in the process of buying a PC, but it was then when I realised that there is no benchmarking thread for FM19. The principles of this benchmark test are the exact same that @Powermonger used when he started the FM17 Benchmarking Thread: I have loaded all 51 nations, using a large database, having a total player count of 141,670. Detail level settings are default as well. Just click on the hyperlinks below and download the 2 savegames. Benchmark A: Game starts on 20.08.18 and you need to go on holiday until 27.08.18 - Use a stopwatch to measure the time. Benchmark B: Game starts on 27.08.18 and you need to go on holiday until 07.09.18 - Use a stopwatch to measure the time. Benchmark C: Game starts on 27.08.18 and you need to go on holiday until 02.09.18. - Use a stopwatch to measure the time. - This test will take longer because it has Full Detail activated for England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. After you load the save, ensure that auto save interval is disabled, and also set processing to Fast (Less Responsive), found at Preferences, Match Settings. In order to get the most accurate / consistent result possible, I advise you to restart your PC / Laptop and then close everything that is unnecessary, leaving only FM opened. If you run the game on a laptop, don't forget to plug it in the socket before you begin. The format in which I advise you to post your results, it's exactly the same as in the yesteryears. I will provide you with my results, so you can just follow this template: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my results from the PC, I will also post the results from my laptop tomorow. Computer Type: PC / Laptop CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 @4000 MHz OC GPU: nVIDIA MSI GTX 1660 Ti Twin FrozR RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3200 MHz OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809 Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD Benchmark A: 3 min 06 sec Benchmark B: 6 min 14 sec Benchmark C: 10 min 58 sec ------------------------------------------ I would encourage all of you who are using these benchmarks to post your results here because it really is a huge fountain of information for people that are looking to buy / upgrade their computers in their decisions. In regards to myself, I will create a results form after more of you will post the results, so everyone can see all the relevant results with just 1 click. Now that I have reached the end of this post, I will also post some tips for people wanting to get the best out of their computers / buying a computer for FM: - CPU. The faster it is, the faster the game will process through the days. The number of cores is relevant of course, but FM is also one of those games that favors the single core performance a lot more than the number of cores overall. This is where the clock speed becomes very important. The CPU is the most important piece of hardware when playing this particular game. - RAM. Without getting into too much technicalities, I will say this: 8GB DDR3 or DDR4 is enough to play FM comfortably, but the game truly shines when you have 16GB, especially if you have 15+ leagues loaded from 6-7 different nations. In regards to the speed of the RAM, it is more important than most people think: This game benefits a lot from high-frequency memory, so DDR4 is the best option. If you build a new computer at home, go for the DDR4 @3000 MHz or 3200 MHz, especially if you have an AMD Ryzen CPU (ryzen scales amazingly with faster memory). If you are purchasing a laptop, look for DDR4 @2400 Mhz and that should be absolutly great. - GPU. This is where people are divided in 2 cathegories: ones that play in 2D and others that enjoy the game in 3D. If you use 2D and are not bothered at all by 3D graphics or stable 60 fps, then you don't even need a dedicated GPU and you can save some money. However, if you go down this road, keep in mind that the integrated GPU will take RAM and if you don't have at least 8GB ... you are in a world of hurt. But if you are like me, and like the game in 3D, then you absolutly need a decent GPU. It doesn't need to be the most powerful on the market, but it has to be decent if you play the game @1080p and want smooth and stable 60fps. For comparison's sake, on my laptop, which I only use ocasionally, I have a GTX 1050 Ti and the game runs very well. - SSD VS HDD. The game speed itself will not depend upon this, as I have tested this theory a lot of times. What will hang in the balance though is the loading time of the game and in some cases, the Save Game / Load Game time. However, if you do use a lot of custom graphics, like skins and facepacks, etc, it's a good ideea to have the game (and these custom graphics) on a SSD, as this will ensure the fact that the game is very responsive in the UI. After having a conversation with @bomtarber26, I decided to make a video in regards to the way Football Manager 2019 (and every single previous edition) use the computer's resources. I think this is a good indicator for some of you that are on the fence in regards to the CPU/RAM/GPU usage. Edited April 10, 2019 by SebastianRO Added Benchmark Graph 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JordanMilly Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Are you sure the dates to holiday to are correct, because the second one would require you to be able to holiday back in time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, JordanMillward_1 said: Are you sure the dates to holiday to are correct, because the second one would require you to be able to holiday back in time. Sorry, my bad. Have corrected it to 07.09.18 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Ben Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Well done for taking the time, can i ask though why not keep the same format as the previous years benchmark test for comparison? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 40 minutes ago, Brother Ben said: Well done for taking the time, can i ask though why not keep the same format as the previous years benchmark test for comparison? There wasn't much consistency in the past years either. The only thing that was (almost consistent) was the start date and end date of the holidays (more or less). I figured that at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, since we are all doing the same benchmark. This was the reasoning behind it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternallyMissed Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Okay, thats my PC: CPU: Intel Core i3 2100 3.10 Ghz (2 cores) RAM: 4 GB DDR 3, 1333 Ghz Storage: 500 GB HDD SATA 3.0 OS: WIndows 10 x64 (clean system. installed 3 days ago) And my results: Benchmark A: 6 min 19 sec Benchmark B: 10 min 58 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff EdL Posted March 20, 2019 SI Staff Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) Computer Type: PC CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X @3.7Ghz (Stock) / 4GHz (turbo boost) RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @2933 MHz OS: Windows 10 1809 X64 Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD - Samsung 970 Evo Benchmark A: 3 min 03 sec Benchmark B: 5 min 44 sec Benchmark C: 7 min 01 sec Probably a good idea to mention which Windows 10 version as I have, as really each release is more like a traditional different version, or akin to a a MacOS point version - and certainly could affect performance. It would be good to have a test with more matches in full detail as well, as this really tests the multi-threading and thus multiple CPU cores much more. Edited March 23, 2019 by EdL Added Benchmark C 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 @EdL Great suggestion, I just added a "Benchmark C" which is just as the other 2, except for the fact that I have activated full detail for England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
optimusprimal82 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) Not exactly bought for gaming but it's what I FM on all the same! Computer Type: Laptop CPU: Intel i7 6820HK @2.7 (3.6GHz turbo) RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @2400 MHz OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809 Storage: PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD Benchmark A: 3 min 18 sec Benchmark B: 6 min 45 sec Benchmark C: 10 min 56 sec Result for 'C' a little surprising when compared to the Ryzen in first post given the Intel's lower clock, cache and cores but hey-ho, if i think more about it i'll spend an hour looking into something that isn't that important! Edited March 20, 2019 by optimusprimal82 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alian62 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Computer Type: PC CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~4.2GHz NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 17134) (17134.rs4_release.180410-1804) Ram : 16384MB RAM Benchmark A 2 min 32 sec Benchmark B 5 min 11 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieTC13 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) Computer Type: PC / Desktop Custom built CPU: Intel i5 8600k OC to 5ghz and cache at 4.7ghz RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz corsair vengence GPU: RTX 2060 msi ventus OS: Windows 10 Pro Version 1809 Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD Samsung evo 970 500gb Benchmark A - 2 mins 12 secs Benchmark B - 4 mins 31 secs Benchmark C - 5 mins 48 secs Edited April 9, 2019 by jckc221013jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 @prot651 @jckc221013jamie Good scores guys, did you manage to give Benchmark C a shot ? That one is the most CPU intensive of the 3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieTC13 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, SebastianRO said: @prot651 @jckc221013jamie Good scores guys, did you manage to give Benchmark C a shot ? That one is the most CPU intensive of the 3. Just done it now mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 14 hours ago, optimusprimal82 said: Result for 'C' a little surprising when compared to the Ryzen in first post given the Intel's lower clock, cache and cores but hey-ho, if i think more about it i'll spend an hour looking into something that isn't that important! That is because Intel gives you more performance / core. That has always been the case. AMD's CPU design is very different, as they favour more cores as opposed to single core performance and this pays off in heavy multi-core applications (i.e video editing/rendering, 3d modelling, etc). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 Computer Type: Laptop - Lenovo Legion Y520 CPU: Intel Core i5 - 7300HQ GPU: nVIDIA GTX 1050 Ti RAM: 8GB DDR4 @2400 MHz Single Channel OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809 Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD Samsung evo 970 256 GB Benchmark A: 3 min 30 sec Benchmark B: 7 min 45 sec Benchmark C: 12 min 58 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff EdL Posted March 23, 2019 SI Staff Share Posted March 23, 2019 Added my C result in now, thanks 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XaW Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) Computer Type: Laptop - MSI GE72 CPU: Intel i7-6700HQ 2,6GHz GPU: nVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M RAM: 8 GB DDR4 SDRAM @2133 MHz OS: Windows 10 x64 Storage: HDD SATA 6Gb/s / 7200 opm (My OS in on an SSD, but it's too small too keep games on) Benchmark A: 4 min 07 sec Benchmark B: 8 min 10 sec Benchmark C: 13 min 18 sec Edited March 23, 2019 by XaW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) Update: I just added a graph in the Original Post with all the PCs and laptops that you guys submited so far. If you guys have different ideas or suggestions in regards to the chart / graph itself, let me know. Edited March 23, 2019 by SebastianRO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Computer Type: PC CPU: Intel i5-6600K OC to 4.5Ghz GPU: XFX Black Edition R9 390 (8gb) RAM: 16Gb Corsair DDR4 @3200Mhz OS: Windows 10 x64 Storage: Samsung Evo 940 SSD Benchmark A: 2 Mins 12 Secs Benchmark B: 4 Mins 52 Secs Benchmark C: 7 Mins 41 Secs Ill be honest, I am impressed with how my system held up to the benchmarks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 @Garrlor Indeed, very nice results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, SebastianRO said: @Garrlor Indeed, very nice results Cheers buddy! I built it from the ground up to be fast and work together well, so it's nice to see that it is holding up to some demanding stuff! It plays the Division 2 on high on 1440p with no dramas too! Looking at the results so far, it looks like the Ryzen 7 is doing some sterling work when the more you throw at it, which to me is where AMD chips shine. I wish AMD would really get thier act together because they have the potential to blow Intel out of the water. I remember back in the late 90's thier CPUs were amazing, lightning fast and cheap as chips. When I built my current system I was still waiting on the Zen architechture being released. I am going to wait for thier new graphics cards and processers, both done on 7nm dies.... could get really tasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) @Garrlor AMD already beats Intel in heavy multi-core tasks. Intel still has an advantage in single core performance though. That said, I opted for an AMD build (build it myself last month a few days after the launch of GTX 1660 Ti) because in terms of single core, AMD does well enough for anything I throw at it and in multi core is down right excelent. I paired my Ryzen 5 2600 with the best B450 motherboard out there (MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC) + a beQuiet Dark Rock 4 and the results are so so good in every game. Runs cool, quiet (OC at 4.0 GHz) and I only paid £345 for these 3 I didn't want to spend extra money on a 2700X because I want to get the new one in the summer when it launches. Yea, AMD just has to keep doing what they're doing and it's fine in the CPU and iGPU department (they are already a much better value than Intel). However, they are seriously behind nVIDIA in the GPU's market and I am not very optimistic the next 2-3 years, but hopefuly I am wrong. P.S On my laptop, a Lenovo Legion Y520 I have an Intel CPU - i5 7300HQ which has really suprising (good) results because of its single core performance. You can see it in the graph in the OP. I also included your results in the graph - OP Edited March 23, 2019 by SebastianRO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 @SebastianRO I have a 1440p Freesync monitor, so I am nailing my colours to team Red! The RX580 is one of the best value graphics cards on the market right now, it might not have all of the ooomph of the Nvidia cards but it is a steal for the performance/price ratio. I am also a big fan of the Vega 56 being flashed with a Vega 64 Bios, drives the performance up to GTX1080 levels at a much lower cost. AMD currently do the best combined CPU and GPU, and the way they are driving some of the technology developments (Vulcan API) and the intergration with DX12 gives me real hope that the next set of graphics cards and CPU's will be outstanding. To be honest, the next graphics card doesnt have to beat a 2080, just get close and cost a lot less! I was reading an article the other day that they are going to open up both types of VRAM for the new graphics cards, meaning that you can get performance versions alongside the more budget friendly ones which for me would be a great decision. Graphics will be the next upgrade for me, as the 390 is a good card but runs hot and could be easily upgraded. Looking at my performance in the bench tests I think I have another couple of years in my 6600K before I look to the next system! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 @Garrlor I have a 1080p Freesync monitor @75 Hz but it works with my nVIDIA card since they support Freesync now For me, the monitor is the next upgrade. I want a 1440p with very good color accuracy and a great panel overall. I don't care about more than 60Hz because I mainly play FM. BTW, can you post 2 screenshots from FM since you are using a 1440p panel ? I am interested how it looks with and without Zoom. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 @SebastianRO I have an MSI Optix MAG27CQ, 144Hz Freesync monitor. I absolutely love it, colours are great and performance is amazing! I will grab you some screenshots tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, Garrlor said: @SebastianRO I have an MSI Optix MAG27CQ, 144Hz Freesync monitor. I absolutely love it, colours are great and performance is amazing! I will grab you some screenshots tomorrow. I just watched a review of your monitor on youtube and it seems to be exactly what I am looking for Thanks for the tip and looking forward for the screenshots whenever you have time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 @SebastianRO Some screenshots as promised! I have just used the default skin so that you get a good idea, I used your Benchmark A game for the screenies in tribute. Normal 1440p 125% Zoom 1440p With regards to needing more than 60Hz refresh rate, using a Display Port cable and running at 144Hz native is actually better for your eyes, especially playing a game like FM where you are doing a lot of reading. My wife moved from a 60Hz to a 144Hz monitor (actually she stole my 32" AOC curved 1440p!) and the difference in her eyes at the end of a day of working is huge, according to her at least. If you want any more screenshots, let me know. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 24, 2019 Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 @Garrlor About a year ago I was told that FM doesn't fare well with 144hz panels, this is why I never considered buying one. Granted, in past editions people were having serious issues with this game on high refresh rates and I didn't know that this has been corrected. Thanks for the screenshots Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 @SebastianRO I think someone might have been pulling your leg mate. I used a 144hz 32 In monitor with FM17, FM18 and now FM19 with no dramas whatsoever. The key could be Freesync, but I have had no stuttering or tearing in the 3D match engine and I set everything to high. It glides through the screens with no problems. Was the person who told you this trying to sell you a very expensive monitor or TV at the time? It could honestly just be that my system works well for the game and Freesync makes up for any big changes in refresh rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieTC13 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 35 minutes ago, SebastianRO said: @Garrlor About a year ago I was told that FM doesn't fare well with 144hz panels, this is why I never considered buying one. Granted, in past editions people were having serious issues with this game on high refresh rates and I didn't know that this has been corrected. Thanks for the screenshots yep i have seen many post relating to that issue that people with 144hz monitor's was having bad experiences with FM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 24, 2019 Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 @Garrlor 54 minutes ago, Garrlor said: Was the person who told you this trying to sell you a very expensive monitor or TV at the time? This wasn't the case, since I know enough about computers to never ask anyone about really anything. I was browsing through the forums and I have seen tons of people complaining that the game is unplayable (stuttering) on 120 and 144 Hz panels, so in order to make it feel smooth they had to set the monitor to run at 60Hz when playing FM. I remember a mod replying to this question back in FM16 or FM17 days telling me that the match engine specifically has issues with running at more than 60 Hz and I never checked to see if this has been corrected at any point since then. Now that I know for a fact that it works, next week I will be buying that monitor 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KILIYATSIA Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) On 20/03/2019 at 19:27, SebastianRO said: That is because Intel gives you more performance / core. That has always been the case. AMD's CPU design is very different, as they favour more cores as opposed to single core performance and this pays off in FileZilla Malwarebytes Rufus heavy multi-core applications (i.e video editing/rendering, 3d modelling, etc). Well done for taking the time, can i ask though why not keep the same format as the previous years benchmark test for comparison? Edited March 24, 2019 by KILIYATSIA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted March 24, 2019 Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 29 minutes ago, KILIYATSIA said: Well done for taking the time, can i ask though why not keep the same format as the previous years benchmark test for comparison? For no specific reason, really These tests that I have uploaded here will test your PC / laptop in every relevant way though. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) As I said in my last post the other week, I have bought a high-refresh rate monitor with variable refresh rate. I really wanted to get the MSI Optix MAG27CQ that @Garrlor has because of the curved design and the VA panel. However, even though nVIDIA supports Adaptive Sync now, that specific model from MSI is a hit or miss in relation with an nVIDIA GPU (and I own an nVIDIA graphics card). In short, the adaptive sync function doesn't work all the time. After I have read a lot of reviews, I decided to go with Dell S2716DG G-SYNC, since it's 100% guarantee in my case and boy oh boy .... I would have never thought that this game in particular can run so so smooth. In 3D, the finess of player's movements looks better than in real life. In regards to the text, it's clearly better than before since I have made the jump from 1080p to 1440p and that shows. I have made a video that showcases how the game makes use of the computer's resources in order to keep 144 FPS. I have done it both in FM18 and FM19 and .... yea ... FM19 doesn't do something right in my case at least, but you will understand by watching the video until the end. @jckc221013jamie FM16 had issues with the game set to run at 144 FPS, while FM17 and FM18 performed outstanding. FM19 was almost there, but it doesn't utilize the resources quite right (in my case at least). Edited April 8, 2019 by SebastianRO 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajt Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Computer Type: desktop CPU: Intel i5-2500k @ 4.3 ghz (overclocked) GPU: AMD rx 570 4gb RAM: 8 GB DDR3 @1333 mhz OS: Windows 7 x64 Storage: 240gb SATA SSD a: 3:41 b: 7:57 c: 12:14 pretty rubbish but it has been on the go since 2011. would like to see a benchmark from an i7-8700k / i7-9700k if someone has one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieTC13 Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 21 hours ago, SebastianRO said: As I said in my last post the other week, I have bought a high-refresh rate monitor with variable refresh rate. I really wanted to get the MSI Optix MAG27CQ that @Garrlor has because of the curved design and the VA panel. However, even though nVIDIA supports Adaptive Sync now, that specific model from MSI is a hit or miss in relation with an nVIDIA GPU (and I own an nVIDIA graphics card). In short, the adaptive sync function doesn't work all the time. After I have read a lot of reviews, I decided to go with Dell S2716DG G-SYNC, since it's 100% guarantee in my case and boy oh boy .... I would have never thought that this game in particular can run so so smooth. In 3D, the finess of player's movements looks better than in real life. In regards to the text, it's clearly better than before since I have made the jump from 1080p to 1440p and that shows. I have made a video that showcases how the game makes use of the computer's resources in order to keep 144 FPS. I have done it both in FM18 and FM19 and .... yea ... FM19 doesn't do something right in my case at least, but you will understand by watching the video until the end. @jckc221013jamie FM16 had issues with the game set to run at 144 FPS, while FM17 and FM18 performed outstanding. FM19 was almost there, but it doesn't utilize the resources quite right (in my case at least). P.S On youtube, the image seems a bit choppy in the 3D Match Engine because I recorded the footage using my 60hz monitor settings. Yes, I forgot to change the settings, since I only have this beast for a couple of hours. very interesting post and video thank you for that and yes i can now see the comparison between previous version's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 3, 2019 Author Share Posted April 3, 2019 @ajtI added you to the benchmark chart in the OP and thank you for posting the results. @jckc221013jamie What resolution and settings are you playing at ? How do you find the performance of the game judging by the last 3-4 editions including the FM19 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieTC13 Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 2 hours ago, SebastianRO said: @jckc221013jamie What resolution and settings are you playing at ? How do you find the performance of the game judging by the last 3-4 editions including the FM19 ? I'm playing at just 75hz but 1440p resolution and versions 18 and 19 have been horrible with the ai calendar processing lag and the match engine lag and stutter it just make's the feel of the game not nice but when i put vertical sync on the match engine lag and stutter goes but with the odd little stutter hear and their every thing from 17 and under was perfect for me very very smooth i had no problem i understand with every new version it is gonna be a bit more demanding but for the lag and the stutter that is just on another level of terribly optimised i play the most demanding games like metro exodus and all them games and they run like a dream so i ain't got as clue what they are doing or where the 3d engine side of it is going tbf lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 3, 2019 Author Share Posted April 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, jckc221013jamie said: I'm playing at just 75hz but 1440p resolution and versions 18 and 19 have been horrible with the ai calendar processing lag and the match engine lag and stutter it just make's the feel of the game not nice but when i put vertical sync on the match engine lag and stutter goes but with the odd little stutter hear and their every thing from 17 and under was perfect for me very very smooth i had no problem Indeed, I can relate to the stuttering / vsync issues in FM18 and FM19, however, that depends on the GPU as I have found that later. On my laptop I have a GTX 1050 Ti and I was experiencing this stutter from time to time (not all time time). When I have built this PC last month and I threw a GTX 1660 Ti inside of it, I have experienced a smooth gameplay. In regards to the stutter and lag, the only thing that will forever eliminate it, is a G-Sync or FreeSync monitor (depending on which type of GPU you have). I had a Dell S2717H with FreeSync at 75 Hz, but unfortunatly I couldn't make use of its Freesync technology because I was using an nVIDIA GPU and the minitor didn't had a DisplayPort, just HDMI. However, the G-Sync tech in my current Dell (S2716DG) eliminates all the stutter and the inconveniences in every game I have tried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsxAvo Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 On 21/03/2019 at 10:35, SebastianRO said: Computer Type: Laptop - Lenovo Legion Y520 CPU: Intel Core i5 - 7300HQ GPU: nVIDIA GTX 1050 Ti RAM: 8GB DDR4 @2400 MHz Single Channel OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809 Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD Samsung evo 970 256 GB Benchmark A: 3 min 30 sec Benchmark B: 7 min 45 sec Benchmark C: 12 min 58 sec I don’t mean to sound rude but how does your build outperform XaW’s build below since fm is cpu intensive? I’m looking to build a pc and this thread is looking to be really helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMNJohn Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, ViewsxAvo said: I don’t mean to sound rude but how does your build outperform XaW’s build below since fm is cpu intensive? I’m looking to build a pc and this thread is looking to be really helpful. Those are both laptop parts, which is very important to stress out. The frequency of both CPUs is about the same both at base clocks and Turbo frequencies. The TDP is about the same. Therefore they're very comparable parts; except for that the 7300 has 4 fewer threads. My guess is that because of the lower thread count and perhaps a different laptop cooling design, the 7300 is able to maintain its Turbo frequencies a bit longer than the 6700HQ, which would amount to a difference in performances. I am not saying one of these two CPUs is overheating; I'm saying that the Turbo Boost duration may be different. In previous FM benchmarking threads, you could see that for desktop parts you would often see at relatively equivalent frequencies at even the 4 cores/4 threads 6600K or 7600K weren't falling far behind CPUs with more cores or threads like the 7700K (4C/4T) or 8700K (6C/12T). Indeed, you can see in the OP that a 6600K (4C/4T) performs very closely to the 8600K (6C/6T) despite the 8600K being clocked significantly higher (5GHz vs. 4.5GHz). https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/97456/intel-core-i5-7300hq-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-50-ghz.htmlhttps://ark.intel.com/content/www/fr/fr/ark/products/88967/intel-core-i7-6700hq-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-50-ghz.html Tl;Dr: Those two CPUs have nearly the same speed and architecture and core and thread count doesn't make a big difference unless you have a lot of competitions on Full Detail. Therefore, whichever CPU can keep its clocks higher for the duration of the bench will perform better. Edited April 4, 2019 by BMNJohn 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 4, 2019 Author Share Posted April 4, 2019 @ViewsxAvo I believe it might come down to exactly what @BMNJohn said and another thing that I know 100% to be true, is RAM speed. I have faster RAM in my laptop with lower latency than XAW. This is a big decider usually between CPU's performance in intensive tasks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMNJohn Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, SebastianRO said: This is a big decider usually between CPU's performance in intensive tasks. I may want to nuance that slightly. It's true in general, and it's particularly true for AMD Zen (Ryzen/Threadripper) CPUs. Recent AMD have poor latency compared to Intel CPUs due to their architecture. In other words, if you have an AMD CPU and have absolutely to choose between faster RAM and faster frequencies, you 'll benefit more from faster RAM. If you have an Intel CPU and absolutely have to choose between the twos, pick faster clock speed. Obviously and ideally, you want both regardless of your CPU brand... and the motherboard to support both, cuz' not every motherboard handle RAM and/or CPU OC well... but I digress. That's a can of worm I really shouldn't open, I don't want to spread misinformation. Nowadays if you're building a desktop gaming PC, the sweetspot for RAM in terms of price/performance ratio is around 3200 MHz CL16 or 3000MHz CL15. In theory both have the same latency, but RAM manufacturers advise to pick the faster sticks even with slightly worse latency (in this case 3200MHz CL16). That said, RAM prices are coming down since early this year, and this bit of information may become completely irrelevant in a few weeks or months. Edited April 4, 2019 by BMNJohn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 4, 2019 Author Share Posted April 4, 2019 @BMNJohn I completly agree. Indeed, RAM speed and latency matters more on AMD based systems, but you can see the pattern being there on Intel as well, even though not as "punchy". When I built my Ryzen system, a month ago, I went with 3200 MHz, CL16 and the CPU absolutly flies. I borrowed some 2666 MHz from a friend and the difference is there in any task: gaming, video rendering and benchmarking. When I have put my RAM back in .... it felt like I have upgraded my CPU I will always go with faster RAM regardless of the platform, it's just something I've always done. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XaW Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 17 hours ago, ViewsxAvo said: I don’t mean to sound rude but how does your build outperform XaW’s build below since fm is cpu intensive? I’m looking to build a pc and this thread is looking to be really helpful. 11 hours ago, SebastianRO said: @ViewsxAvo I believe it might come down to exactly what @BMNJohn said and another thing that I know 100% to be true, is RAM speed. I have faster RAM in my laptop with lower latency than XAW. This is a big decider usually between CPU's performance in intensive tasks. I actually think this is influenced by me not using an SSD. But the RAM speed is also something that affects, so partially both, I guess. It should also be noted that my laptop is a few years old, so it's not as quick as it was when I bought it. This reminds me, I think I need to clean it, now where is my can of compressed air...? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrlor Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 On 04/04/2019 at 15:34, ViewsxAvo said: I don’t mean to sound rude but how does your build outperform XaW’s build below since fm is cpu intensive? I’m looking to build a pc and this thread is looking to be really helpful. If you are using a laptop and want to keep your cores running at its max boost for longer you can undervolt it. This generally will decrease the temps and let it run at highers speeds with less throttling, but I would follow a guide online before trying anything like this. As for the clock speed on older CPU's one thing that you can never factor in is the overall build quality. Mine is the i5 from the OP, which is overclocked but it is running with an NZXT Kraken X61 (240mm water cooler), 16GB 3200Mhz Corsair Vengance LPX RAM and a Asus Z170 Pro motherboard. Compared with your average currys build, or even something from a place like PC Specialsit or Cyberpower, I picked premium parts that perform well together. My CPU never breaks 65C, even playing some of the most demanding games around which means it can keep up its full speed all of the time, the RAM can keep pace and the motherboard helps smooth the communications path between them. I spent probably 3 weeks of intense research on each component that I put into my PC, from the fans to the CPU to the Mobo to the PSU. If I had the budget (or if I didnt buy my NZXT Hue + LED set, but my PC looks amazing when its on so its worth it right?) then I could have bought an M.2 drive with 3000Mb/s read/write which would have sent FM and general performance up even further. I think there is a decent enough collection of PC geeks in here to help you out when it comes time to build a PC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrycarrie Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 On 03/04/2019 at 13:13, ajt said: pretty rubbish but it has been on the go since 2011. would like to see a benchmark from an i7-8700k / i7-9700k if someone has one I'll do one tomorrow, just bought a new system with a 9700k. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrycarrie Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) Desktop Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700K CPU @ 3.60GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz (has turboboost to 4.6GHz which CPU-Z says it runs at) 16gb DDR4 2666mhz NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB M.2 SATA 500GB SSD Drive SATA HDD 2TB A - 2min 21s B - 4min 49s C - 7min 24s Interesting thing to note using MSI Afterburner monitoring is it does not use all cores to max, with only a couple hitting 50% load whereas other games hammer all 8 cores. Nor does it use full 2666 on RAM, even under heaviest loads. Edited April 9, 2019 by harrycarrie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajt Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 cheers harry looks like it will be good buy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SebastianRO Posted April 10, 2019 Author Share Posted April 10, 2019 @harrycarrie Very good results for a stock CPU mate. Thanks for taking the time and I have also updated the chart in the OP. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now