Looking for CPU comparisons — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Looking for CPU comparisons

So, in short, I've been constantly getting nagged at both sides from intel fanboys and AMD fanboys about the pros and cons of their CPU lineups. I would obviously take the option that makes playing Guild Wars 2 better. I've asked for people to make comparisons but no one put anything on the table. They just continued to ramble on.

No one ever benchmarks this game and its honestly got the heavy potential to be used as a CPU tester since its pretty heavy for it and not in a bad way.

So I want to see what pushes this game within the Ryzen 2xxx, 3xxx, Intel i7 8th gen, i7 9th gen, and i9 9th gen CPUs. Feel free to share whatever CPU and RAM setup even if I'm not looking for it.

example
CPU: i7 7700K
GPU: RTX 2060
RAM: DDR4 16GB 2x8GB 3200MHz 14-14-14-31.
FPS Low: 47 - 51
FPS High: 150 - 155

Just a still image of standing in front of the door when you enter the home instance of Divinity's Reach (use a key to reverse the camera ((not the character)) to load the zone behind you in with the home) while zoomed-in first person will do since there is no real benchmark mechanic for the game that doesn't involve other players.

Here is how I set up the lowest settings.
https://prnt.sc/q5n6fz
https://prnt.sc/q5n6o3
https://prnt.sc/q5n6sv
https://prnt.sc/q5n6zb
https://prnt.sc/q5n7px
https://prnt.sc/q5n7zy

And for the highest settings, I obviously did the exact opposite of every thing (except for changing the position of the camera, of course, just the collision, FOV, and everything camera shake and nameplate related).

Comments

  • People don't use GW2 for benchmarks as it's a MMO, you have no canned benchmark built into the game or from the game like many others, benchmarking is about repeatability, and with GW2 it would change every time you were to run it due to many factors including players.

    Also, it is well known that GW2 is single thread limited and is not a stressor for CPUs, only that one thread, so GW2 is CPU limited, yet not CPU demanding. Since this is the case, Intel is the top choice due to faster single core and higher single core clock speeds, even though a new AMD CPU might have way more total CPU processing power, most of it will sit idle. Even outside of GW2 the 9900k is still the top choice for gaming in general. Now, most other games the delta in FPS between the two is not very large and most people would be hard pressed outside of competitive first person shooters to notice. GW2 however (and a few other games) the delta is much larger because of how poorly the game is optimized that even higher end CPUs in say a WvW 3 way fight will drop under 40FPS, so any gains are welcome, vs a shooter game where you have 150FPS and another CPU nets you 180FPS, who really cares? For gaming minimal FPS matter more than max or average, you can have a game that gets an average 100+ FPS but dips here and there to 20fps, while another only hits 80FPS, but never drops below 60FPS, it will feel much smoother than the one with technically higher max and average FPS.

    https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3533-best-cpus-of-2019-round-up-gaming-video-editing-3d-modeling-disappointment

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • Not to be rude, but I didn't ask for a basic rundown of everything I already know. Its because no one benchmarks it with a single camera angle comparison of what the CPU is working is why I want to see how other CPUs perform in the same exact scenario and whether or not they're worth forking up the money for. As for being CPU heavy, yeah, not in the literal sense. But single core/thread speed intensity (because of it obviously being a game). CPU/RAM matters the most here so I'll just take that information at the very least.

  • Hi Zinchmwah

    I'll grab you some proper benchmarks later when I'm at home if you like, but what I will say is that the testing scenario you propose, while good for getting a result that can be reproduced, won't be representative of realistic in-game performance.

    The critical factor when it comes to GW2 CPU performance is number of players nearby, and in your propsed test there will only ever be one. In my own testing, there are exactly two settings that have meaningful impact - Character Model Limit, and Character Model Quality.

    When there are a large number of players nearby, if those settings are on maximum, the game becomes massively bottlenecked by a single CPU thread, to the point that the GPU isn't even being properly utilized. No CPU is fast enough to give a consistent 60+ FPS at all times with those settings on maximum.

    I'm using a Core i9 9900K and GTX 1080 Ti. If I stand somewhere with many players, even with nothing going on (best example is on the platform at the Wyvern Matriarch in Verdant Brink, while people gather waiting for it to spawn), and everything (including those two settings) at maximum, my frame rate drops to around 30 FPS, and GPU utilization can be <50%, as measured with RivaTuner Statistics Server overlay.

    If I then change just those two settings to Lowest, leaving everything else on max, the performance jumps back up to 60 FPS (I normally play with gsync on, so it's capped at that).

    Anyway - I'll do the test later with the settings you suggest.

  • Zinchmwah.2067Zinchmwah.2067 Member ✭✭
    edited December 4, 2019

    I am well aware of everything I am being told her. Please don't waste your breath. The scenario I have made is just as effective as having players around. Take, for example, Sun's Refuge. There are no players yet it becomes pretty laggy once it's filled with lots of NPC characters. Outside variables will only give variables. The better I know that I can improve in instance/story locations, the more I will feel comfortably immersed and capable of recording without stutters due to high character count and other things.

    Lets put it like this.

    My 7700K and 3200MHz of 16Gb of RAM get 45 - 50 FPS in a specific location. If someone has a 9900KS or a 3900X with 3600MHz of 32GB of RAM that gets 60 - 65 FPS or even 55 - 60 FPS then I would be down to pay for that.

  • dace.8019dace.8019 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 4, 2019

    I've used a bunch of different CPUs (at various stock- and overclocks) and let me tell you, you are wasting your time looking to benchmark. I've not sought to reproduce a something of a benchmark, but i have been following FPS in the same sort of content over them. The differences are often minimal between capable, modern (and even not so modern) CPUs. It's not worth the effort because the game runs so awfully outside of your proposed "benchmarking" and you will spend much more time in the instances where it runs poorly than in your scenario - thanks to the factors other have pointed out.

    All you can do is hedge your bets and go for the beefiest IPC that you can OC and I guarantee you will still be disappointed by GW2s performance. The game will run a bit better but when in crunch mode it will still limp at basically the same FPSes or an FPS unacceptably close to the poor numbers you might be seeing anyway.

  • @Zinchmwah.2067 said:
    Not to be rude, but I didn't ask for a basic rundown of everything I already know. Its because no one benchmarks it with a single camera angle comparison of what the CPU is working is why I want to see how other CPUs perform in the same exact scenario and whether or not they're worth forking up the money for. As for being CPU heavy, yeah, not in the literal sense. But single core/thread speed intensity (because of it obviously being a game). CPU/RAM matters the most here so I'll just take that information at the very least.

    People don't use a single camera angle because that is not a benchmark, nor does that tell you the full story of the CPU's performance, sorry.

    What you stated last is all that matters, and as such, means if you want the best for GW2, you get a 9900k, as it has IPC and clock speed advantage over most CPUs.

    @Taniniver BlindDragon.9503 said:
    Hi Zinchmwah

    I'll grab you some proper benchmarks later when I'm at home if you like, but what I will say is that the testing scenario you propose, while good for getting a result that can be reproduced, won't be representative of realistic in-game performance.

    The critical factor when it comes to GW2 CPU performance is number of players nearby, and in your propsed test there will only ever be one. In my own testing, there are exactly two settings that have meaningful impact - Character Model Limit, and Character Model Quality.

    When there are a large number of players nearby, if those settings are on maximum, the game becomes massively bottlenecked by a single CPU thread, to the point that the GPU isn't even being properly utilized. No CPU is fast enough to give a consistent 60+ FPS at all times with those settings on maximum.

    I'm using a Core i9 9900K and GTX 1080 Ti. If I stand somewhere with many players, even with nothing going on (best example is on the platform at the Wyvern Matriarch in Verdant Brink, while people gather waiting for it to spawn), and everything (including those two settings) at maximum, my frame rate drops to around 30 FPS, and GPU utilization can be <50%, as measured with RivaTuner Statistics Server overlay.

    If I then change just those two settings to Lowest, leaving everything else on max, the performance jumps back up to 60 FPS (I normally play with gsync on, so it's capped at that).

    Anyway - I'll do the test later with the settings you suggest.

    This guy gets it.

    You might say he is wasting his breath, but you are wasting your time, he is correct. His 9900k like mine, is the best you are going to get for GW2, you can find others that you might be able to highly OC to match or beat the 9900k, however at that point you can also OC the 9900k, of which most are able to hit 5GHz all core with proper cooling and 5.2GHz isn't unheard of.

    This is not magic, CPU's are well reviewed and documented for gaming performance in highly threaded and lightly threaded gaming, the results apply to GW2 as well, like what I linked above.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 4, 2019

    To provide a bit of context I've got a 5 year old amd chip clocked at 4.3 and the gfx card is never strained. it's noticeable that people milling about does indeed kills perfomance - hit 60 fps cap elsewhere. If I upgraded to a new chip I would get about 18% faster performance on that single thread where the cpu is maxes out give or take (probably triple in other areas, but 60 fps is fine anyway at that point) That's with a 5 year technology jump.

    Turns out as above if I turn down body count and quality I get 30 fps in heavily populated areas.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • @Zinchmwah.2067 said:
    I am well aware of everything I am being told her. Please don't waste your breath. The scenario I have made is just as effective as having players around. Take, for example, Sun's Refuge. There are no players yet it becomes pretty laggy once it's filled with lots of NPC characters. Outside variables will only give variables. The better I know that I can improve in instance/story locations, the more I will feel comfortably immersed and capable of recording without stutters due to high character count and other things.

    I'd dispute that assertion about it being as effective as having players around, since my FPS doesn't drop below 60 FPS in the scenario you proposed, even with the character limits on on maximum - it just isn't taxing enough for my CPU in that location.

    Anyway - I said I'd do the benchmarks you asked for (even though I question their value) so here they are:

    CPU: i9 9900K
    GPU: GTX 1080 Ti
    RAM: DDR4 64GB 4x16GB 3200MHz 16-18-18-36.
    FPS Low: 87 - 88
    FPS High: 153 - 155

  • @Taniniver BlindDragon.9503 said:

    @Zinchmwah.2067 said:
    I am well aware of everything I am being told her. Please don't waste your breath. The scenario I have made is just as effective as having players around. Take, for example, Sun's Refuge. There are no players yet it becomes pretty laggy once it's filled with lots of NPC characters. Outside variables will only give variables. The better I know that I can improve in instance/story locations, the more I will feel comfortably immersed and capable of recording without stutters due to high character count and other things.

    I'd dispute that assertion about it being as effective as having players around, since my FPS doesn't drop below 60 FPS in the scenario you proposed, even with the character limits on on maximum - it just isn't taxing enough for my CPU in that location.

    Anyway - I said I'd do the benchmarks you asked for (even though I question their value) so here they are:

    CPU: i9 9900K
    GPU: GTX 1080 Ti
    RAM: DDR4 64GB 4x16GB 3200MHz 16-18-18-36.
    FPS Low: 87 - 88
    FPS High: 153 - 155

    Thanks. Just to be certain, that's with the FOV slider all the way to the right? If so, then that's well worth the price for a 9900K and 16GB extra ram for someone like me who just wants more FPS in a story instance (I could care less about what FPS I get in boss fights, I know it is going to be low but it is still fun).

  • @TinkTinkPOOF.9201
    The camera angle I chose was for viewing as much regular world content but not enough to hinder the FPS that you wouldn't see much difference due to possible bottlenecking of the thread.

    Putting it in a heavy situation where it only makes 1 fps difference from a 7700K wouldn't tell me anything, would it? When I upgraded from 2133MHz of 8GB of ram I went from a max of 40 FPS to 50 and some. Worth the $125 for me. I was able to enjoy a lot of stories as I played it again even more than last time. I already know the 9900K or even KS is the best weather or not it's worth putting money down for, but still doesn't cover for any of AMDs 3rd gen that is up close to the i9s. As someone spends every day watching techtuber videos who is always waiting for benchmarks and embargo lifts on information and CPU comparisons, you can keep trying to tell me things I already know, or be relevant to my personal preference of just making story quests less laggy and more immersive during recording/not recording.

    One thing that is certainly nibbling me is that AMDs leading CPUs might be fast enough that it wouldn't matter in GW2 (compared to games that will utilize threads and cores a lot better) and I can even benefit off of more lanes for an M.2 drive that takes recordings, one that reads games and an HDD that holds a lot of important things. A card reading drive for my Camera/Phone's SD cards and an Asus BluRay drive because of anime, music and game emulation. Other things included are probably an Elgato/other external recording devices (I have VHS tapes that need to be turned into digital) and a Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 Sound Card. If not, and the 9900K/KS or other future incoming i7/i9 is still in the league of gaming far enough that I wouldn't want to go with AMD, then I'll be fine with Intel.

    So if anyone has one, I'd be really thankful to see its worth in Guild Wars 2.

  • I have a 3900x and can run 4 instances at once without much slowdown. Previously, I ran a 4770k and 3 would cripple the system.

  • edited December 5, 2019

    @Zinchmwah.2067 said:

    Thanks. Just to be certain, that's with the FOV slider all the way to the right? If so, then that's well worth the price for a 9900K and 16GB extra ram for someone like me who just wants more FPS in a story instance (I could care less about what FPS I get in boss fights, I know it is going to be low but it is still fun).

    Yep, with the FOV slider all the way over, and all the other settings you posted screenshots of. It sure makes the game look odd with the FOV like that!

  • Zinchmwah.2067Zinchmwah.2067 Member ✭✭
    edited December 5, 2019

    @Taniniver BlindDragon.9503 Yeah, it might. But I really like the way it looks. Everything is so much more visible and it REALLY helps me when I'm driving mounts a whole lot, too. But boy does it hammer on the CPU. I remember before 9th gen came out someone had an 8700K and they were getting at least 5 - 10 more FPS than me when we were in Vabbi hunting bounties in the squad. (No fights taking place) and I thought that was pretty cool. 6700 and 7700 really had not much difference between them. The ram upgrade was more impactful than spending $275 for a 7700K but at least my sister got to have my 6700 instead of getting something cheap.

  • @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    I have a 3900x and can run 4 instances at once without much slowdown. Previously, I ran a 4770k and 3 would cripple the system.

    OK, I can't wait to see how it compares to an Intel CPU! I had a 4770 at one point, too. I remember it used to struggle with the old lions arch, especially winters day. SO many people in one location.

  • 3900x 2080ti full details, GW2 barely breaks a sweat.

  • Zinchmwah.2067Zinchmwah.2067 Member ✭✭
    edited December 6, 2019

    @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    3900x 2080ti full details, GW2 barely breaks a sweat.

    Yeah, your FPS must be so high. What were they, again?

  • I use 9700k and a 2070 Super w Gsync display. I run in 1440p ultra mode in all 3 modes. In pvp matches I hit 120 FPS (my max fps based on refresh setting), in pve and wvw my frame rate varies but I usually stay over 60 FPS and I have never had lag or low FPS tearing issues w gsync on. The game looks nice with the photo/reshade overlay on in ultra mode.

  • I don't think I've bothered to measure tbh. I'll check later

  • @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    I don't think I've bothered to measure tbh. I'll check later

    lol ok

  • @Moradorin.6217 Not a fan of PP bandaids, my self.

  • Unless I am missing something obvious... Only Moradorin and an image in the OP mentions (part of) their measured resolution. Not really sure what "the exact opposite" of "Full Screen 1024x768" is.
    The measurements seems to be missing some parameters.

  • This discussion is very interesting to me as I usually run 3 instances of GW2. Currently I have a NVIDIA 2080 TI video card and a Core I7 6850K, which is a 6 core 12 thread CPU. 64GB of RAM. The display is a 4K screen.

    With all three instances running there are times when something is not keeping up with the events in the game. When I switch an instance to the foreground often there are a few seconds of 'catching up' going on. Characters moving around at light speed, responding to keyboard input with ridiculous speed. It's like one of those old black and white films from the 20's where everything is moving at crazy speeds. Once the catching up is done everything is fine.

    This does not occur when I run just two instances.

    Looking at my CPUID results there is usually one thread that is running at a higher % of capacity than all the others.

    The claims of the AMD being able to handle 4 instances sound good to me. However I also suspect that the higher single thread performance of the Intels might be more apropos to what I want to do.

  • Ansau.7326Ansau.7326 Member ✭✭✭

    Is this the location?

    RIP Chrono 10/2015-7/2019

  • What's a good place to benchmark? I'm thinking tequatl.

  • @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    What's a good place to benchmark? I'm thinking tequatl.

    The entrance of the home instance in DR in the first-person view.

  • @Ansau.7326 said:
    Is this the location?

    Yes.

  • Here are some other options if you guys prefer.

    https://prnt.sc/q82bcq

    https://prnt.sc/q82bgj

  • Zinchmwah.2067Zinchmwah.2067 Member ✭✭
    edited December 12, 2019

    @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    What's a good place to benchmark? I'm thinking tequatl.

    And so he was never heard from again. Guess I'm going with intel.

  • Metasynaptic.1093Metasynaptic.1093 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    I think there might be some strange artificial limiting. In DR home instance I had 50fps, but none of my cores were working particularly hard and my gpu was at 40%. Will investigate further. 1440p max everything.

  • @Metasynaptic.1093 said:
    I think there might be some strange artificial limiting. In DR home instance I had 50fps, but none of my cores were working particularly hard and my gpu was at 40%. Will investigate further. 1440p max everything.

    That's probably because of its a single core/thread game. That's about the equivalent as my 7700K as I expected before in my YT arguments. Not worth imo.

  • I didn't get a 3900x to run one instance of GW2 well, I got it to run 4 without issues swapping between them, which it does quite nicely.