Naa the 8400 is aprox 10% point better in the all important 99% frametimes in mp bf1 vs 1600x. Avg is useless as a metric.
The 1600x is performing more like the 7800x here. I would guess the 99.9% frametimes is more or less the same for all those 6c processors.
But that also shows how stellar value the 8400 is. Imo much better than the 7700k !
Right now here the 8400 and a cheap z370 is still a tad more than a 1600x and cheap asus/asrock 350 board. Matter of time before cheaper intel boards come. When 8400 becomes available in serious numbers i think 1600(x) prices will ajust down like 15% or so. They have kept price high. Unfortunate it looks like start of dec before cf really moves of the shelves.Average framerates are not the only factor, yes, but they are far from "useless".
Still, if we compare 99th numbers at 720 in other games besides BF1, 8400 is 14%-20% higher, except for Prey and TW:WH; and Ghost Recon is 38% higher for 8400 but I think it's because of bad ryzen optimization, so IMO it doesn't count.
1600/1600X are still great purchases with a cheaper mainboard, even more so if AMD reduce their price.
Naa the 8400 is aprox 10% point better in the all important 99% frametimes in mp bf1 vs 1600x. Avg is useless as a metric.
The 1600x is performing more like the 7800x here. I would guess the 99.9% frametimes is more or less the same for all those 6c processors.
But that also shows how stellar value the 8400 is. Imo much better than the 7700k !
I am not sure i understand. Computerbase test bf1 in dx11. Dx12 is a mess. They are the only one doing proper real life mp testing as i know.That benchmark is false. AMD + Nvidia DX12 is not good. They are basically equal. If you compare DX12 with AMD CPU on DX11.
I am not sure i understand. Computerbase test bf1 in dx11. Dx12 is a mess. They are the only one doing proper real life mp testing as i know.
Imo you wouldnt even want your framerate to tank say 1% of the time so a better test is frametime closer to the min. Absolute min is also nonsense but i srill think 99% strike an okey balance for many even if my personal preference is closer to 100 here. At least for the cpu bound frametime spikes. Its like they come at the most unfortunate times
Aa far as i can tell all those 6c machines on the market be it ryzen bwe sklx or cl would be pretty difficult to separate in a subjective test.
No. They test in dx11 as far as i can read.That benchmark was done in DX12 mode as you can see i7 7700K beating R71800X.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...st/5/#diagramm-performancerating-fps-1280-720
No. They test in dx11 as far as i can read.
And its only in avg the 7700k is faster than the 1800x. In the 99% its much slower.
The 7700k simply tanks sometimes having dips to 50fps.
Thats why i said avg is useless. It is for ALL practical purpose in fps gaming utterly useless. 99% is imo the average we need. Some want 95% some want 99.99% but nobody in their sane minds care if their fps is 100 or 300 when nothing happens.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nitt_spielebenchmarks_in_720p_1080p_und_2160pThen they messed something up. Where is DX11 mentioned?
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nitt_spielebenchmarks_in_720p_1080p_und_2160p
"
Sämtliche Prozessoren und Speicher wurden in den Auflösungen 1.280 × 720, 1.920 × 1.080 sowie 3.840 × 2.160 bei maximaler Detailstufe unter DirectX 11 getestet"
The reason is its extremely difficult to test mp consistently. Also the maps is very different and evolve.
Computerbase also test the different maps in bf1 cant find link now. But they are different.I play BF1 a lot. Maps doesn't make such difference. I know that.
Check up link that I gave you. They had to use DX12 for BF1.
Yet, even in different maps load is same.
It's not just about the maps. It's about how long they played and recorded the FPS, how much of it was heavy sections and how much was lighter sections. All of these would affect the total framerate. I doubt they'd publish that score if they thought it was false. If you think they made a mistake, ask them.