Today, we do some benchmarking, playing a little with Assassin's Creed Origins to see how it behaves on different processors. For those of you who are unaware of Assassin's Creed Origins was recently released, and it has created some excitement in the PC tech community because of its aggressive use of the processor.
During the release, some media rushed on the benchmarks and it quickly became clear that the game was extremely CPU-intensive and not as ARMA 3 or Planet Coaster do. Rather than taxing only a few threads, the game eats hearts, a lot of hearts. There are reports of this using a Threadripper 1920X for example. As a result, the modern quad-core were killed and there were reports that the game was simply unplayable on the Core i5-7600K. Well, that has culminated our interest.
We have already seen the 7600K processor and other quad-core processors wrestling in big battles Battlefield 1 to 64 players and although the performance is not always ideal, it is certainly playable in our opinion. Whatever it is, I believe it was the results of the Computer Base that caused the most excitement, as they showed that the Core i5-7600K was being trampled by the Ryzen 5 1500X as it only happened to match the Ryzen 3 1300X. However, the lowest 1% results were the most shocking since the i5-7600K dropped to 41 fps, making it slightly slower than the 1300X. Honestly, I do not know how it is possible, but let's ignore it for a moment.
Essentially the 7600K was almost 30% slower than the Ryzen 5 1600X and almost 40% slower than the 7700K. However, results released by GameGPU about 3 days ago show that the 7600K never drops below 60 fps and beats the Ryzen 5 1400 while easily beating the Ryzen 3 processors. The higher number of Ryzen games still doing very well in their test, but the 7600K does not seem pathetic.
Looking at where each media tested, as best I can tell, GameGPU has tested a more demanding section of the game, which adds to the confusion. So we decided to take a look and see if we could know what was going on.
To measure the performance of the processor, we found that riding on your mount, in this case a camel, and trotting through the town of Siwa (seewa) is the way to go, there are usually a lot of non-player characters here gives the CPU time. So, using the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and three quality presets, let's look at some of the results as a graph before checking out a bit of play.
Landmarks
Let's start with the Ultra High Quality preset, we use a GTX 1080 Ti after all. Here, the 8th generation Core series is limited to just over 90 fps on average with a low 1% 71 fps result. The 7700K is about average, but it was 7% slower for the minimum, as it is often close to its maximum.
Then we see a fairly big drop for the 7600K which has bottomed out at 52 fps, making it 21% slower than the 7700K and 27% slower than the new Core i5-8400. It also means that it's a bit slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 5 1600X, although faster than the 1500X R5.
We would just like to point out that all the processors were tested using the same DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. I'll come back to that in a few moments with some gameplay footage, but the 7600K and 1500X have both provided very playable performances in the busiest sections of the game.
Reducing the preset quality to a high level allows for decent performance and the Core i5-7600K in particular does a lot better. While the minimum frame rate for the 1500X was increased by 17%, the 7600K experienced a massive 27% increase to 66 fps and was now able to deliver a very smooth performance. The 7700K has also been able to maximize the GTX 1080 Ti alongside the 8th generation Core processors.
Decreasing the average presets only boosted the minimum frame rates of the Core i5-7600K and Ryzen processors. It is worth noting that the minimum and average frame rates of the Core i7-7700K as well as the 8th generation processors have been significantly increased, suggesting that the Ryzen and 7600K processors create a bottleneck. constriction.
Here is an overview of scaling the 7700K, 7600K and R5 1500X using the different quality presets. We are seeing solid and steady gains as the GTX 1080 Ti has more leeway with the 7700K. The 7600K is almost at its peak using High, while the R5 1500X sees virtually no improvement from high to medium.
Video Game
We saw the graphics and I know that there were those who shouted that the bar charts did not tell the whole story, the 7600K would have been a stuttering mess. Well, in an effort to avoid this noise, here are some gameplay images recorded with an external capture device. All the sequences were recorded in 1080p using the very high quality presetting, so the worst case then.
Let's first compare the 6-core / 6-thread Core i5-8600K to the Ryzen 5 1600X 6-core / 12-thread. Here you can see that all 6-threads of the 8600K are heavily used and sometimes the processors are completely maximized, but the image rates remain high and more importantly. The game was free jitter in my tests. The processor is not overclocked, the multi-core enhancement is not enabled and we have installed 16GB of DDR4-3200 memory.
One thing to note here is the use of the GPU which is 97% locked on the 8600K system. Now we look at the R5 1600X, the use of the GPU is mixed with the CPU threads so sorry, we can see that the GPU use is usually about 80%, but fluctuates a lot and sometimes dropped as low as 53%. This is interesting because the CPU usage has almost never cracked by 90% and was often about 80%. Despite this, due to the much lower use of GPUs, the Ryzen processor was overall much slower.
Ok, so the time for the quad-core, the 4-wire 7600K versus the 8-wire 1500X. Both processors were widely used, the 7600K was almost constantly at maximum while the 1500X was sitting around 95% for the most part. The use of the GPU was similar around 70-80% but sometimes jumped much higher on the Core i5 processors, which is ultimately what gave it the advantage. Under a heavy load, they were pretty much the same, but when the CPU was offered a little respite, the 7600K ran off a bit.
The most important thing to note here is that even with a lot of NPC around both processors, the experience is fluid and playable.
For those who are questioning about dropping memory speed on the 7600K configuration to the DDR4-2400, from 3200, reduces the frame rate from 5 to 10 fps. So, a decent reduction, but not massive and the performance was still playable.
Putting everything together
This test was not scheduled for this week. In fact, we have something much bigger in the work that you will see in the next few days, so consider it a fill. The main objective here was to see how low-end CPUs, and not low-end processors, are managing in Assassin's Creed Origins. In particular, we were really eager to see if the Core i5-7600K would be crushed in a game that we can accurately assess, but it should not be.
We know the 7600K struggles in Battlefield 1 battles at 64 players, but unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to accurately compare a multiplayer title. There is no point in walking around in an empty map or avoiding action, it completely cancels the goal.
Whatever it is, to get back on track, the 7600K played well at Assassin's Creed Origins and the section of the game we tested did not experience any clashes. We are keen to further explore the game, but for now, we are satisfied with the tests performed.
It was disappointing that the Ryzen 7 1800X and R5 1600X could not hold a candle to the Core i5-8400 despite rumors circulating on the Internet. As many of you know, we really appreciate the Ryzen 5 1600 as a balanced / best value offer at TechSpot and while it spoils the 7600K, quad-core Intel's fast aging provides still playable performance. Meanwhile, the HT-enabled Core i7-7700K could keep the 1600X in its mirrors.
Business Shortcuts:
There are certainly more tests to be done but for now though Assassin's Creed Origins is very heavy on the CPU, the results and performance trends are not that different other recently launched titles like Project Cars 2, just to quote an example.
[ad_2]
Source link