Jump to content

FM22 Performance Benchmarking Thread


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, indario said:

Why not?

That's not what RAM does.

Faster RAM will have little to no gains for FM.

It's processor that governs a lot.

 

I spoke to someone and this is the jist of what he and I came to:

For how the game uses threads - it will create as many threads for playing matches and shortlisting as you have cores (including hyperthreads).

But the performance you see varies on the setup for example with matches - Quick Matches for instance (so for loaded but non-managed in leagues) it's are so fast anyway it gets to the point where it doesn't make that much more difference having more cores.

If you use detail level to set more stuff to full match you'll start seeing betters gains for more cores, but of course will still be slower than by just not having the league loaded, or having it at a low detail level.

Similar sort of thing with shortlisting the more / leagues players you have loaded the more benefits you can potentially see with more cores, however this is probably more than offset by the general slowdown from having more stuff loading as there's still a large portion of the game which is single threaded. 

In regards to best processors, as a general guide we tend to suggest using the following comparison site as a good gauge of the performance capabilities - https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmark-List.2436.0.html 

Basic rule of thumb is the higher it is on the list, the better it is. You can edit it to show processors for desktops and also those that are considered 'archived' via the restriction options. 

Hope some of this is of use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

On 24/12/2021 at 13:51, fc.cadoni said:

Will be interesting to see results from AMD Threadripper 3995WX. :D

 

On 26/12/2021 at 14:45, Jarasso said:

For me... More interesting will be AMD Ryzen 6950x with 3d V-cache 😎 I bet with everyone, it will be The Fastest, in Benchmark D 👹

You'll get better results from the fastest single core performance - as much of the game is still single core.

Intel Core i9-12900KF
Intel Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i7-12700KF
Intel Core i5-12600KF
Intel Core i5-12600K
Intel Core i7-12700K

Should technically outperform the threadripper for FM. I don't know anything about the rumoured 6950x.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smurf said:

 

You'll get better results from the fastest single core performance - as much of the game is still single core.

Intel Core i9-12900KF
Intel Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i7-12700KF
Intel Core i5-12600KF
Intel Core i5-12600K
Intel Core i7-12700K

Should technically outperform the threadripper for FM. I don't know anything about the rumoured 6950x.

 

I was thinking the same

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Desktop
Model: Custom
CPU Model: Ryzen 5600X
CPU Base Frequency: 3.70 GHz
CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.60 GHz (PBO and autoOC off)
RAM: 32GB
RAM Clockspeed: 3600Mhz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070
Graphics Level in 3D: High
Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 00 min 55 Sec
Benchmark B: 04 min 42 Sec
Benchmark C: 10 min 55 Sec
Benchmark D: 35 min 00 Sec

 

Quick re-test with PBO and AutoOC on =

Benchmark A: 00 min 52 Sec
Benchmark B: 04 min 30 Sec

Those second numbers mirror pretty closely to what f32q posted. I would imagine the Benchmark C and D are very close as well to his numbers.
 

 

Edited by slipknottin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Laptop

Model: ROG Strix G15 G513

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 7 5800H

CPU Base Frequency: 3.20 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.40 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 1 min 08 sec

Benchmark B: 5 min 50 sec

Benchmark C: 11 min 08 sec

Benchmark D: 32 min 17 sec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to justify upgrading my now ancient rig so figure I'd run it to see how much of an advantage I'd gain moving to a 12600 or 5900x.

 

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: Intel 2500k

CPU Base Frequency: 4.5 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.5 GHz (Full time OC between 4.2 and 4,5 GHz since the day I've had it)

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2133 MHz

GPU: NVidia GTX 1070

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 01 min 47 Sec

Benchmark B: 07 min 27 Sec

Benchmark C: 32 min 41 Sec

2500k 4 threads the really weakness on the last test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Started pricing up an upgrade yesterday and quickly realised the new mid range intel offerings were a good value proposition. 12400F, B660 motherboard and ram for $634AUD.

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: Intel 12400F

CPU Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.4 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200 MHz

GPU: NVidia GTX 1070

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 00 min 56 Sec (Average of 2 runs, 55s and 57s)

Benchmark B: 04 min 15 Sec (Average of 2 runs, 4min 07s and 4min 23s)

Benchmark C:  15 min 47 Sec (Average of 2 runs, 15 min 23 Sec and 16min 11s)

Was impressed with the results until C. Checked the load while running the test, maxed out all cores, didn't get too hot.

Bit disappointed it gets blown away buy a 5600X here.

Edited by Thalo
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thalo said:

 

Bit disappointed it gets blown away buy a 5600X here.

Its the extra cores, to be honest though I imagine a typical user is unlikely to put full detail on any other league than the one they are managing in anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Its the extra cores, to be honest though I imagine a typical user is unlikely to put full detail on any other league than the one they are managing in anyway

Same cores and threads though. I'm guessing the all core is way higher than the 12400, which only gets to 4GHz for all cores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thalo said:

Same cores and threads though. I'm guessing the all core is way higher than the 12400, which only gets to 4GHz for all cores.

Yeah sorry you may well be right although Ryzen is renowned for its excellent performance from their cores/threads. 

These 12th gen Intels though, from an FM perspective at least, look exceptional in most typical use cases

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Yeah sorry you may well be right although Ryzen is renowned for its excellent performance from their cores/threads. 

These 12th gen Intels though, from an FM perspective at least, look exceptional in most typical use cases

That's true. Much big cache in the 5600X, might be a factor.

Considering a 5600X would still cost $150 more here, 12400 still represents good value especially in FM. Will be interesting to see how the 12th gen i3 CPUs compete. 12100F is only $179 in Aus compared to $299 for the 12400, and will still hit 4.3 GHz over 4 cores/8 threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thalo said:

That's true. Much big cache in the 5600X, might be a factor.

Considering a 5600X would still cost $150 more here, 12400 still represents good value especially in FM. Will be interesting to see how the 12th gen i3 CPUs compete. 12100F is only $179 in Aus compared to $299 for the 12400, and will still hit 4.3 GHz over 4 cores/8 threads.

Yeah you're looking at it the right way really, it's all about performance per $ / £ which is quite hard to do as you have to factor in RAM and motherboards etc

Shame there isn't an unlocked overclockable 12th Gen i3 really.  That would really represent good value

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 5 3600

CPU Base Frequency: 3.60 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.20 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3200Mhz

GPU: AMD RX 5700 XT

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 01 min 16 Sec

Benchmark B: 06 min 04 Sec

Benchmark C: 12 min 50 Sec

Benchmark D: N/A

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Desktop

Model: DIY HTPC

CPU Model: Ryzen 7 5700G on ASRock B450M Pro4 motherboard

CPU Base Frequency: Long story, but I am undervolting/underclocking so base is 3.7 GHz instead of 3.8GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: PBO is tweaked as well and 4.7 GHz is possible, but afterburner is telling me it is peaking at 4.65 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3733Mhz

GPU: Ryzen 7 5700G overclocked to 2.25 GHz

Graphics Level in 3D: still tweaking; but medium should work using high settings

Storage Type: SSD; save game is on a WD green SATA SSD and FM22 is on WD Black SN750 NVMe SSD

Benchmark A: 01 min 07 Sec average under balanced power plan, it was 1min 47 sec under power saver  

Benchmark B: 05 min 16 Sec average

Benchmark C: 09 min 58 Sec

Benchmark D: *28 min 50 Sec

Benchmarks A&B really kept working on 2 of my cores and my temps were stable in the 55C range for both sets of tests. When I went to benchmark C that is when all the cores kicked in, particularly on Wednesday & Saturday, and my temps jumped to 83C. Room temp was around 64F (17-18C)

*Benchmark D note: The game made it to Saturday by the 11:01 mark, but by about the 15:15 mark the temps hit my thermal limit of 87C and so the CPU backed off to running just 2 cores while the other 6 went to the base clock for about a minute; temps dropped about 20 degrees. By about 16:20 all the cores were active again and temps were climbing. Temps climbed to about 85C twice more before Saturday ended at the 23:45 mark. 

Edited by shortshifted78
update graphics level
Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: Intel Core i3-10100F

CPU Base Frequency: 3.60 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.30 GHz

RAM: 16GB DDR4

RAM Clockspeed: 2666MHz

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT-1030 2GB

Graphics Level in 3D: High

Storage Type: SSD


Benchmark A : 01 min 12 Sec
Benchmark B : 05 min 58 Sec
Benchmark C : 17 min 01 Sec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Desktop

Model: Custom

CPU Model: Intel Core i7 8700K

CPU Base Frequency: 3.60 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.70 GHz

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 (CAS 15)

RAM Clockspeed: 3600 MHz

GPU: NVIDIA RTX 3060 Ti 8GB

Graphics Level in 3D: Very High

Storage Type: SSD NVMe

Benchmark A: 01 min 02 Sec

Benchmark B: 05 min 05 Sec

Benchmark C: 11 min 28 Sec

Benchmark D: xx min xx Sec

Edited by Diez
Link to post
Share on other sites

My new 5900X build:


Type: Custom desktop

Model: Desktop

CPU Model: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

CPU Base Frequency: 3.7 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.8 GHz

RAM: 64GB 

RAM Clockspeed: @3200 MHz (16-18-18-38)

GPU: AMD Radeon 5700 XT 8GB

Graphics Level in 3D: Very high

Storage Type: NVMe SSD M.2 (Gen 4)


Benchmark A: 50 secs ️

Benchmark B: 4 min 14 secs

Benchmark C: 7 mins 11 secs 

Benchmark D: 19min 07 secs

 

Auto OC Enabled:

Benchmark A: 47 secs️

Benchmark B: 4 min 11 secs

Benchmark C: 7 mins 0 secs

Benchmark D: 18 mins 26 secs

 

Edited by Powermonger
Add Auto OC results
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Leeroi said:

Hi, noob question here! In scenarios B and C, does the 123 leagues refer to playable leagues?

Finally got a decent computer so starting to look at a better database setup for my saves.

Yes, its every league available "out of the box" in FM22.

All playable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Type: Workstation

Model: Custom

CPU Model: Intel Core i5 12600K

CPU Base Frequency: 3.70 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.90 GHz

RAM: 16 GB

RAM Clockspeed: 3600 Mhz

GPU: R9 290

Graphics Level in 3D: low

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 52 sec

Benchmark B

Benchmark C

Benchmark D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Glad to see I have the longest times of all haha. What would my options be if I wanted to do a save that had some depth of players but wouldn't be impossible to wait on?

 Type: Laptop

Model: Dell XPS 13 (4k Res 2018 Model)

CPU Model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8550U CPU @ 1.80GHz   1.99 GHz

CPU Base Frequency: 1.99 GHz(capped at 1.79 in game can't get it unlocked past that) GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 4.0 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2133Mhz

GPU: Intel UHD 620 Graphics

Graphics Level in 3D: Very Low with crowd on Low

Storage Type: SSD

Benchmark A: 6 min 48 Sec

Benchmark B: 33 min 35 Sec

Benchmark C: 1 hr 27 min 20 Sec

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Doesn't sound right.  What power profile do you have your laptop on?

Ultimate performance. I go back and forth with enabling the right settings but thats the best performance I get (posted an hour ago). The laptop I think is throttled it comes with only Dell and Balanced power plans and I had to fight through hell to get Dell's removed and other settings like Processor Max state I can't enable no matter what I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brother Ben said:

Doesn't sound right.  What power profile do you have your laptop on?

Also wanted to add that during the tests I had my CPU go down as much as 1.20 ghz and it got up to 70 degrees. For the C benchmark I had my laptop outside and it was at a good 60-65.

Didn't want to dare run D haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OVO Kabs said:

Also wanted to add that during the tests I had my CPU go down as much as 1.20 ghz and it got up to 70 degrees. For the C benchmark I had my laptop outside and it was at a good 60-65.

Didn't want to dare run D haha

70 degrees aint bad for a laptop, mine regularly hits 80 -90.

There is something else going on here that is preventing your laptop from reaching its turbo speed.  Did you check the power profile?

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

70 degrees aint bad for a laptop, mine regularly hits 80 -90.

There is something else going on here that is preventing your laptop from reaching its turbo speed.  Did you check the power profile?

I disabled the intelppm in my registry as it was throttling my CPU to under 1.0ghz under FM load. FM and discord/firefox is the only thing I use on this laptop so bummer it doesn't seem to work how it should. Does my performance benchmark not seem accurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Brother Ben there is something wrong going on with your laptop, it should be performing way better.

Have you checked if turbo boost is disabled in the bios? If it is enable it then you can use a program like throttlestop to limit the CPU clock speed at around 3.4 GHz then undervolt. I you do that the temps wont go higher than 70 degrees 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Quick CPU for optimizing the CPU performance, I have turbo on currently; would thorttlestop be better? @DarJ I looked up the specs for my lap top and it has everything but the integrated graphics is only 128vram and FM requires 256. Menus are really buggy to load and it is slow to process menus but I made do because I figured I had to other option  

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, OVO Kabs said:

I have Quick CPU for optimizing the CPU performance, I have turbo on currently; would thorttlestop be better? @DarJ I looked up the specs for my lap top and it has everything but the integrated graphics is only 128vram and FM requires 256. Menus are really buggy to load and it is slow to process menus but I made do because I figured I had to other option  

I just did a quick google and found someone that was having the same problem as you and installing the dell power manager app worked for him so try that.

This is the forum if you want to read through it. https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/dell-xps-cpu-only-running-at-65-speed.3389849/

If it works for you let me know

Edited by DarJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarJ said:

I just did a quick google and found someone that was having the same problem as you and installing the dell power manager app worked for him so try that.

This is the forum if you want to read through it. https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/dell-xps-cpu-only-running-at-65-speed.3389849/

If it works for you let me know

Alas that did not help. I removed all my dell apps like the user stated. I will try the Dell forums this is really a rare issue its frustrating to say the least.

idk3 idk

Link to post
Share on other sites

@OVO KabsI think I understand why it does that. I looked back at the image you posted earlier of quick CPU and you can see that the TDP is only 15W so even if the processor is capable of more it is power limited to just 15 W because the chassis won't be able to handle cooling. The frequency of 4GHz can be achieved at around 40W or more.

To keep it simple the processor is not receiving enough power to go that fast and it was done by design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its okay if I need a new laptop. I'll count it as a bad purchase made and will need to do better diligence and manage until I can budget enough for a new device. May try flipping my current XPS to settle the cost.

I know I am limiting my odds on wanting a thin ultrabook that can run FM

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OVO Kabs said:

I know I am limiting my odds on wanting a thin ultrabook that can run FM

If you've got the money for it the base M1 mac will do a good job and it's thin and light as well 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DarJ said:

If you've got the money for it the base M1 mac will do a good job and it's thin and light as well 

What year model? I have fallen behind on mac os devices really since I got my 2016 Air stolen at a hotel but for the two weeks I had it I recall it running FM17 like a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OVO Kabs said:

What year model? I have fallen behind on mac os devices really since I got my 2016 Air stolen at a hotel but for the two weeks I had it I recall it running FM17 like a beast.

The M1 macbook air came out in 2020

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...