FM19 Performance Benchmarking Thread

[BMNJohn]

19 hours ago, harrycarrie said:

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.

Unfortunately it's nothing new. I personally top at roughly 35% on all four cores on a 6600K. Actually on a side note, and while I have zero proof for this theory and very well could be mistaken, FM's processing reminds me of the first Crysis: reacts very well to frequency struggles to use the full processing power of modern CPUs. CPU manufacturers have had issue catching up with Moore to say the least. That said, that the 2700X manages to get some advantage in benchmark C over the 9700K is encouraging. Usually, no amount of extra cores would've saved it.

Jump straight to 18 minutes and 05 seconds for the CPU talk. The gist is that at the time Crysis was made, the expectations were that CPU clock speeds would be getting over 5, 6, or even 8GHz. Of course, that never happened and the performance shows. I've wondered if FM wasn't in a similar case, but I'm not sure if it's actually relevant to mention that. Even if it's still sure that FM scales way better with speed than with core count.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by BMNJohn

[Craig_R.U.F.C]

Computer Type: PC

CPU: Intel Core i7 8700k 3.7ghz (not overclocked it yet)

GPU: EVGA Geforce 1070 FTW Edition

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz

OS: Windows 10 x64 

Storage: SSD - M.2 ssd slot on motherboard

Benchmark A: 2min 8 secs

Benchmark B: 4min 22 secs

Benchmark C: 6min 27 secs

[Higgo]

Computer Type: PC

CPU: Intel 9900k (Stock)

GPU: Nvidia EVGA 2080 XC Ultra

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809

Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 04 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 20 sec

Benchmark C: 4 min 44 sec

 

I will also try this again tomorrow with some new 32gb RAM @3200 MHz to see if it makes a difference

[uncle ron]

Considering whether to upgrade the PC after nearly 7 years, current performance...

Computer Type: PC

CPU: Intel Core i5 3570k @4400 MHz OC

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7700 Series 

RAM: 8 GB DDR3 @1600 MHz

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1803

Storage: SSD 

Benchmark A: 3 min 39 sec

Benchmark B: 7 min 29 sec

Benchmark C: 10 min 29 sec

Edited July 21, 2019 by uncle ron

[ajt]

12 hours ago, uncle ron said:

Considering whether to upgrade the PC after nearly 7 years, current performance...

I'm waiting for the new AMD Ryzen cpu's that are releasing over the summer as they should be pretty good. Having waited this long it seems a bit of a waste to upgrade right now. 

[Gee_Simpson]

10 hours ago, ajt said:

I'm waiting for the new AMD Ryzen cpu's that are releasing over the summer as they should be pretty good. Having waited this long it seems a bit of a waste to upgrade right now. 

I still reckon for a mostly single core game like FM, Intel will remain on top. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[ajt]

17 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I still reckon for a mostly single core game like FM, Intel will remain on top. 

Yeah sadly I think so too. I have 2 parts lists on pcpartpicker, 1 Intel and 1 amd. I'll just pick whichever is the best come November for my new pc. Maybe even get a 8700k instead. 

[VP.]

On 18/03/2019 at 00:58, SebastianRO said:

Computer Type: PC

CPU: INTEL CORE I7 8700 @3.20MHZ

GPU: NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1050 TI

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 2400MHZ

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1903

Storage: SATA SSD 240GB & SATA HDD 2TB

Benchmark A: 2 min 35 sec

Benchmark B: 5 min 03 sec

Benchmark C: 8 min 00 sec

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by SortitoutsiVP

[fabioke]

Can't wait for new Ryzen CPU, postponing buying the new FM for a year, because I want to combine my new desktop with a new save.

Edited June 30, 2019 by fabioke

[Gambit]

Did a quick run with the new 3900x. This is the 3rd day since its release and there are some bios and chipset driver issues being talked about online(I'll update this when things get more stable), but it didn't do terribly until C. I thought it might get another 10-20 seconds off the run

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
GPU: ASUS Strix GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3200 MHz
OS: Windows 10 x64 Version 1803
Storage: WD Black NVME SSD
A: 2m 42 seconds
B: 5m 29 seconds
C: 7m 48 seconds 

Benchmark A: 2 min 42 sec

Benchmark B: 5 min 29 sec

Benchmark C: 7 min 48 sec

[JamieTC13]

On 10/07/2019 at 04:31, Gambit said:

Did a quick run with the new 3900x. This is the 3rd day since its release and there are some bios and chipset driver issues being talked about online(I'll update this when things get more stable), but it didn't do terribly until C. I thought it might get another 10-20 seconds off the run

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
GPU: ASUS Strix GTX 1080 TI
RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3200 MHz
OS: Windows 10 x64 Version 1803
Storage: WD Black NVME SSD
A: 2m 42 seconds
B: 5m 29 seconds
C: 7m 48 seconds 

Benchmark A: 2 min 42 sec

Benchmark B: 5 min 29 sec

Benchmark C: 7 min 48 sec

their very good scores but a 4 core 4 thread intel CPU still keeps up with it but i suspect that is still down to Intel having a bit better single core performance and that is still what this game rely's on the most but that build you have their mate a a solid kick ass build 

and as you can see i get top scores mostly due to my i5 8600k being at 5ghz  and the better single cor performance but in any thing els other than football manager and gaming you would crush us haha

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by jckc221013jamie

[ajt]

Hmm I can't afford a 3900x so I guess I'll be going with my 9600k build instead. Thank you for the benchmark!

[Gambit]

40 minutes ago, ajt said:

Hmm I can't afford a 3900x so I guess I'll be going with my 9600k build instead. Thank you for the benchmark!

 

Yeah, if FM is your focus go with an Intel for faster single core performance.

 

On 11/07/2019 at 00:18, jckc221013jamie said:

their very good scores but a 4 core 4 thread intel CPU still keeps up with it but i suspect that is still down to Intel having a bit better single core performance and that is still what this game rely's on the most but that build you have their mate a a solid kick ass build 

and as you can see i get top scores mostly due to my i5 8600k being at 5ghz  and the better single cor performance but in any thing els other than football manager and gaming you would crush us haha

 

Single core is king for gaming and Football Manager is no different in this case. I'm pretty sure I got better results in B and C with my 8700k, but in the workflow I use for my job the 3900X is significantly better.

[BMNJohn]

On 12/07/2019 at 19:35, ajt said:

Hmm I can't afford a 3900x so I guess I'll be going with my 9600k build instead. Thank you for the benchmark!

Makes sense if FM is the only game you care about, or if you care about FM above all else. Personally I'm looking to switch away from my 6600K towards a 3600: I'll likely loose some performance in FM, but gain a lot more in other scenarios and other games. But I can see an argument to be made in favour of a 9600K.

[SebastianRO]

I've just got a new laptop, a Lenovo Legion Y740, which uses a i7 9750H, which I have undervolted. Without testing proper numbers, I feel like the game is snappier and runs a tad bit faster than it does on my PC, which has a Ryzen 5 2600 OC @4.0 GHz. When I'll get back home from my holiday I will update this post with results and update the overall spreadsheet in the OP. I would also say that singe core is king for FM, however AMD CPUs provide better value overall.

[roykela]

Computer Type: PC Desktop (Custom built)

CPU: Intel i7-9700K @3.60 GHz- Turbo 4.7 GHz used

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti

RAM: Corsair 16GB DDR4-2666MHz

OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1903

Storage: Samsung HD103UJ 1TB (Game installed)
                Intel SSD SC2CT180A4 168GB (OS Installed)

Benchmark A: 2 min 30 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 57 sec

Benchmark C: 8min 21 sec

I just upgraded to this system. Kind of regret i didn't run the benchmarks on my old system before i ripped it all out.
The old was Intel i7-3820K @3.60 GHz - Turbo @3.80 used
RAM Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600MHz

The rest was the same. What i can say is that it is a massive improvement. Game is flying now, compared to the old system i had.
I'm playing a journeyman career (kinda) with all leagues loaded, and with default detail.
The old system didn't have a problem with those game settings, but i now know that it was very slow, compared to what it is now.

Edited July 18, 2019 by roykela

[Gee_Simpson]

7 hours ago, roykela said:

Computer Type: PC Desktop (Custom built)

CPU: Intel i7-9700K @3.60 GHz- Turbo 4.7 GHz used

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti

RAM: Corsair 16GB DDR4-2666MHz

OS: Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1903

Storage: Samsung HD103UJ 1TB (Game installed)
                Intel SSD SC2CT180A4 168GB (OS Installed)

Benchmark A: 2 min 30 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 57 sec

Benchmark C: 8min 21 sec

I just upgraded to this system. Kind of regret i didn't run the benchmarks on my old system before i ripped it all out.
The old was Intel i7-3820K @3.60 GHz - Turbo @3.80 used
RAM Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600MHz

The rest was the same. What i can say is that it is a massive improvement. Game is flying now, compared to the old system i had.
I'm playing a journeyman career (kinda) with all leagues loaded, and with default detail.
The old system didn't have a problem with those game settings, but i now know that it was very slow, compared to what it is now.

Oh wow, really? 

I made a mistake of buying all the parts for a new PC then returned most of them. I was outwith the 14 day limit for 5 items, now I'm stuck with my i9 9900k processor and a motherboard, with a copy of Windows 10. I managed to sell the 3600mhz RAM, haven't tried to sell the SSD yet. Nobody is buying the processor at my £445 price, or the motherboard for £145. 

Would you say it's worth it? I have a i7 3770 with 8GB RAM and decided it was ok for now but now with you saying the difference is massive, I may take my i9 9900k off ebay and keep it. Do you play any other games? 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[roykela]

I was contemplating the 9900k actually, but came to the conclusion that it was way overkill for me personally.
I like multitasking but i don't multitask that hard. 

The point in the game that takes the longest time for me is transfer window openings. Both January 1st and July 1st, where January is the worst of them.
With my 3820 i could spend around 15-20 minutes waiting for the game to "move on". With all leagues loaded and player count of around 390k, that was to be expected.
I passed January yesterday (irl) and it hardly took any time at all. Around 3-5 minutes, i think. That's where i really noticed the difference.
It just flew by, compared to my old setup.


Doing a quick comparison (i hope i chose the right cpu you currently have) would indicate that you would see a very noticable change in processing speed:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-i7-3770/3334vs896



I do play other games but i haven't really tried other games yet after upgrading.
I play Elite Dangerous, Euro Truck Simulator 2, Grim Dawn, RimWorld, Stellaris, Surviving Mars, Darkest Dungeon and also others.
But, as mentioned, i haven't given myself time to try those out yet. No idea if i'll notice differences there as they're (probably?) not as cpu-heavy as FM. 

If you're still in the possession i would, personally, advise you to keep it. But hopefully there are more tech-savvy people here that know more than i do about the subject.
As they would have better knowledge and thus be able to give you better-founded advice.

 

[ajt]

Cheers for the benchmark Roykela. I think I'll be getting an i5-9600k when I upgrade. Although the i7 is tempting haha.

The new ryzen processors seem great if you do a lot of rendering or stream a lot but I mainly just play games with some music production.

[BMNJohn]

1 hour ago, ajt said:

Cheers for the benchmark Roykela. I think I'll be getting an i5-9600k when I upgrade. Although the i7 is tempting haha.

The new ryzen processors seem great if you do a lot of rendering or stream a lot but I mainly just play games with some music production.

To be honest from what I've seen, it's more the other way around: you really have to be doing nothing but gaming, and very specific gaming tasks (such as FM) to get an Intel processor. The 3600 might be slightly less fast, but it's also a lot more consistent and way cheaper than a 9600K with all things considered such as the motherboard and RAM. Again, if you're doing mostly if not only FM, any recent Intel CPU that clocks very high will do. No need for more cores and threads nonsense, no need to buy a 9900K over a 9700K if you can get the 9700K around 5GHz because FM will not take advantage of the extra 8 threads. Hell, some 7700K, despite being worse for gaming overall and having no upgrade path already clock a bit below 5GHz too, and they can be purchased used; so if you cared only about FM and no other games at all, it could be considered. In any other situation I wouldn't recommend it, but for FM? Why not.

But if you care about the value for money proposition and even for gaming, I'd pick a 3600 over a 9600K. Really comes down to what you really value the most. To be perfectly honest for myself, part of the reason I'm considering switching from my 6600K is also because I've kinda had enough of random audio losses with my 4C/4T CPU that I don't have with my much less fast old 4C/8T laptop; even though my desktop is able to achieve lower latency with my interface than my laptop. It's fast within FM and games, but not that consistent in the 1% and .1% lows. In other words it can stutter pretty poorly when things get heated, and it's more noticeable to me than an extra 5 FPS.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by BMNJohn

[ajt]

18 minutes ago, BMNJohn said:

But if you care about the value for money proposition and even for gaming, I'd pick a 3600 over a 9600K. Really comes down to what you really value the most.

 

 

I specifically play FM and a bit of WoW/witcher 3. The only new game that I'm very interested in is cyberpunk. I have been researching my decision for months, following intently on the amd subreddit.

The only reason I might get a 9700k is for the extra cores. When the new consoles come the core count used in gaming may increase. That's just me speculating though of course. As for the price, my 2 builds (9600k vs 3600) are less than £40 difference. Both come with Motherboards with good vrm suitable for over clocking 

[BMNJohn]

2 hours ago, roykela said:

But hopefully there are more tech-savvy people here that know more than i do about the subject. As they would have better knowledge and thus be able to give you better-founded advice.

It's more that FM is so incredibly specific that even general advice doesn't completely apply to it.

13 minutes ago, ajt said:

I specifically play FM and a bit of WoW/witcher 3. The only new game that I'm very interested in is cyberpunk. I have been researching my decision for months, following intently on the amd subreddit.

The only reason I might get a 9700k is for the extra cores. When the new consoles come the core count used in gaming may increase. That's just me speculating though of course. As for the price, my 2 builds (9600k vs 3600) are less than £40 difference. Both come with Motherboards with good vrm suitable for over clocking 

The 3600 has no overclocking headroom, so buying a $200 motherboard is completely pointless, just like buying a cooler for it since it already comes with one. The only point is PCIe 4.0... and if you don't do any productivity work that requires high bandwidth, it's useless. Although I won't lie and will say that some board manufacturers have kinks to iron out when it comes to updating the BIOSes of older motherboards from the B450 and X470 families. AMD has pushed a lot of products in very little time, and companies that work with them can struggle to keep up.

Edited July 18, 2019 by BMNJohn

[ajt]

The motherboard I selected was tomohawk b450 with flashable bios. I know I don't need any of the new fangled technology on the new boards. I've had my 2500k since 2011 and would be happy to get 4 years out of this new build. I could probably pick either one of them and be happy tbh.

[BMNJohn]

1 hour ago, ajt said:

The motherboard I selected was tomohawk b450 with flashable bios. I know I don't need any of the new fangled technology on the new boards. I've had my 2500k since 2011 and would be happy to get 4 years out of this new build. I could probably pick either one of them and be happy tbh.

I was just surprised that you only end up with a £40 difference between the twos, that's all. Actually almost: I know Intel did some price cuts recently, like 15% and if motherboard vendors follow it could close the gap. I specced out two builds, one for each CPU but without a GPU since I don't know what kind of monitor you're going to use. If you pick a K spec CPU from Intel, Gigabyte makes the best Z390 boards. The Z390 UD is the most cost efficient one for a 9600K, but you can consider a Z390 Aorus Elite for £50 more. However, £50 can also net you a better GPU, which would have more impact on performance in other games than spending the equivalent £50 on a better motherboard.

So even when you said there's "only" a £40 difference between your two builds, it can make a difference when you're under £900 when  it comes to getting the most out of your money. OTOH, going from a Crucial BX500 to a MX500 is worth it because the MX500 is so much better; and 550W PSUs aren't significantly cheaper than 650W PSUs. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it isn't. Here they're £60 apart before adding the GPU.

9600K : https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/pFLvgw
3600: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/gFLvgw

EDIT: The end question would be whether you'd rather spend those £60 on a CPU to have better FM performance; or whether you'd rather spend that money on a better GPU that would give you overall better gaming performance except in FM. That is for you to decide.

Edited July 18, 2019 by BMNJohn

[jedidja]

Hi all

 

I hope this is the correct thread for this query, my apologies if it isn’t. 

I’m interested in buying a Corsair pre built computer, either i160 or i180. I was wondering which would give the best result for a game like fm19? I assume the i180 as it has more cores but I would appreciate some expert opinion if it would make all that difference to in game processing speed or amount of leagues loaded. 

The i160 has an i9 9900k with 8 cores and the i180 has an i9 9920x with 12 cores. They both have 32g of ddr4 ram. 

Thanks

[uncle ron]

Replaced my i5-3570K with the following...

Computer Type: PC 

CPU: Intel i7-9700K @4900 MHz OC

GPU: AMD Radeon RX570 8gb

RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809

Storage: Samsung 970 EVO Plus Polaris 250GB M.2 2280 PCI-e 3.0 x4 NVMe Solid State Drive

Benchmark A: 2 min 19 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 44 sec

Benchmark C: 7 min 45 sec

Confirmation that a system with more than 16 GB of ram makes no difference relative to the other similar benchmarks.

Edited August 7, 2019 by uncle ron

[jwchriste]

Same PC used in last year's benchmarks:

Computer Type:  PC

CPU: Intel i7-8700K @ 5200MHz OC

GPU:  nVidia 1080ti (x2)

RAM: 32GB DDR4 @ 4000MHz

OS: Windows 10 Pro x64 Version 1903

Storage: Samsung SSD 960 PRO 512GB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe

Benchmark A: 1 min 50 sec

Benchmark B: 3 min 40 sec

Benchmark C: 5 min 32 sec

Speedy RAM helps quite a bit!

[Brother Ben]

On 10/08/2019 at 18:32, jwchriste said:

Speedy RAM helps quite a bit!

An impressive overclock can't do any harm either 

[thegr8anand]

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X stock
GPU: MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio Oc'd +70core/+1000mem
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 Oc'd @ 3733 MHz (14-15-13-22 CR1)
OS: Windows 10 x64 Version 1903
Storage: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500gb

A: 2m 26 seconds
B: 4m 39 seconds
C: 6m 03 seconds 

 

Since with 3900x you have to choose one of higher single-core performance at stock or better multi-core performance with all core oc. For comparison 3900x with all-core oc @ 4225mhz

A: 2m 20 seconds
B: 4m 30 seconds

 

Didn't bother with C but can expect some improvement like A and B.

[Abaddon879]

Thought I'd give a bit of perspective with my 10 year old machine, and my 4 year old laptop. Definitely feeling the need for an upgrade with these times. Should be able to half my times with more modern hardware it looks like.

Computer Type: PC
CPU: Intel i5-750 @3800 MHz OC
GPU: nVIDIA Asus GTX 960 Strix 2GB
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 @3200 MHz
OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1803
Storage: HDD

Benchmark A: 4 min 33 sec
Benchmark B: 9 min 30 sec
Benchmark C: 14 min 09 sec

 

Computer Type: Laptop
CPU: Intel i7-6700HQ 
GPU: nVIDIA 960M 
RAM: 8 GB DDR3
OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1903
Storage: SSD

Benchmark A: 3 min 33 sec
Benchmark B: 7 min 33 sec
Benchmark C: 11 min 29 sec

[Abaddon879]

Any Ryzen 3600/3700x/3800x owners for comparison against the 3900x? Be interesting to see what difference, if any, is had by going up the AMD stack.

[thegr8anand]

With 3700x/3800x probably the same as fm doesn't use all the cores.

[Brother Ben]

I'll be interested to see how Stadia benchmarks, assuming that conditions are perfect, good internet speed etc

[Gee_Simpson]

I ended up selling most of the parts I bought, including the i9 9900k. Missed the return deadline of 14 days as I assumed I had 30 and didn't check until it was too late, so unfortunately I did make a loss, probably around £70. I ended up adding 8gb ram to my current setup so I now have 16gb with the i7 3770. For some reason with 8gb I would sometimes get a notification that the game had to close because it had run out of memory. Looks like I needed that extra 8gb.

[Abaddon879]

As a little experiment, I thought I would use FM as my overclocking test subject for my new 9700K.

Here are my stock settings and timings

Computer Type: PC
CPU: Intel i7-9700k (Stock)
GPU: nVIDIA Asus GTX 960 Strix 2GB (Not installed)
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @2400 MHz (Stock)
OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1903
Storage: M.2 SSD

Benchmark A: 2 min 34 sec
Benchmark B: 4 min 58 sec
Benchmark C: 8 min 03 sec

Very much in line with what @roykela saw from his. Will be interesting to see how far this CPU will allow me to go, and where I can get the RAM to go, and how much improvement each gives.
I will update this as I increase my CPU clock and my RAM speed to track how they scale.

RAM Frequency
So with a small boost to RAM frequency (I don't have a fast RAM kit currently), it gives a small gain of 13-18 seconds. Nothing spectacular, but memory speed clearly has an impact when considering FM. I might try and get a faster memory kit capable of 3600MHz+ to see how far this can be pushed.

Computer Type: PC
CPU: Intel i7-9700k (Stock)
GPU: nVIDIA Asus GTX 960 Strix 2GB (Not installed)
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz (XMP)
OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1903
Storage: M.2 SSD

Benchmark A: 2 min 20 sec
Benchmark B: 4 min 40 sec
Benchmark C: 7 min 50 sec

CPU Frequency
With quick, dirty, and very unstable CPU auto overclock to 4.9GHz all-core (better cooling needed to make it stable as the frequency fluctuated quite a bit), it gives a small difference of between -4  and 6 seconds in tests A and B, but almost a whole 2 minutes on test C. Proves exactly what has been said in the past that the game is predominantly lightly threaded, except when it comes to processing a lot of background matches in other leagues, where the multiple cores really get worked.

Computer Type: PC
CPU: Intel i7-9700k @ 4.9GHz (OC)
GPU: nVIDIA Asus GTX 960 Strix 2GB (Not installed)
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz (XMP)
OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1903
Storage: M.2 SSD

Benchmark A: 2 min 14 sec
Benchmark B: 4 min 44 sec
Benchmark C: 5 min 59 sec

Edited September 6, 2019 by Abaddon879

[Hercules]

I'm thinking of building a new computer cause the one i got now is about 7-8 years old and quite out of date. 

I’m NOT a gamer, but a huge FM-nerd. So I don’t need a fancy graphic-card or a build of that kind. But still I want a computer that will “last” some time and that will give the game a faster and better feeling and experience. 

This thread is a very good one for people like me that have basic knowledge of hardware but misses the more technical skill. 

As people wrote in this thread i look for a CPU with fast single-core. And It comes down to either a 
Intel I5 9600K or Intel I7 9700K.

And when I look at the benchmark-tests It doesn’t look like a massive difference? When you look at the overclocked CPU’s they perform the same on single core, but of course the I5 drops a little bit in multicore. But will it make a big difference in the games speed to work the database?  (there is quite a big difference in price here in Sweden due to our lousy economy at the time. So is it worth the extra 200£ to get an I7?
The setup I looking at is the following. Maybe the Motherboard is overkill aswell cause im not a “gamer” but it’s the one that in my novice mind is the better one of the Z390 boards. But then again my demands is that it has M2, can work with DRAM4 3200MHz and is no real bottleneck for speed. 

Im NOT good at overklocking. Actually never done it… setting the RAM to XMP is about it… ;-) 

So do you guys have any suggestions or inputs? 

CPU - Intel I5 9600K or Intel I7 9700K
MB - ASUS ROG STRIX Z390-F GAMING
RAM - Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 3200Mhz CL16 Vengeance
SSD M.2 - Samsung 970 EVO Plus 250GB

Any thoughts, tips or input? 
Thanks for a good and interesting thread. 
 

[Leo2u]

• System: Intel Core i5-8600K 3.6GHz Six-Core | Intel Z370 Chipset | 8GB DDR4 RAM | 120GB SSD | 1TB HDD | Genuine Windows 10 Home 64-bit
• Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB 

I think to buy else one 8 GB of RAM and 240 SSD 

Here PC builds are not bad, especially like the first variant)
 

So my advice is not to overclock, but just buy a good computer.
In addition, overclocking reduces component life.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Leo2u

[Mr U Rosler]

I'd be very interested to see where Stadia fits into the FM2020 version of this thread.

Need an upgrade but not gonna throw £1k+ at a new system if Stadia is returning processing results inline with an i7 8700/9700.

The anticipated downsides of Stadia, a small amount of lag etc are not particularly relevant to FM and i'm hopeful FM could be one of the stronger offerings on the platform. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Mr U Rosler

[Hercules]

2 hours ago, Mr U Rosler said:

I'd be very interested to see where Stadia fits into the FM2020 version of this thread.

Need an upgrade but not gonna throw £1k+ at a new system if Stadia is returning processing results inline with an i7 8700/9700.

The anticipated downsides of Stadia, a small amount of lag etc are not particularly relevant to FM and i'm hopeful FM could be one of the stronger offerings on the platform. 

Stadia is not for me... I'd like to play FM with logos, kits, facepacks, stadiums and also customed editor updates. 
 

[jwchriste]

I'd save the money and get the 9600k.  If you were to spend extra, I would put it into faster RAM - something that your board will support via XMP since you don't want to manually overclock.  FM does like speedy RAM. The hard drive doesn't even matter for game processing (could make load times quicker though), so you could even skimp on that if a regular SSD is cheaper than an M.2 PCIe variety.  FM seems to keep most of its data in RAM while playing, so faster RAM > faster hard drive.

[BMNJohn]

12 hours ago, Leo2u said:

In addition, overclocking reduces component life.

I feel the need to be overly pedantic with this statement: overclocking doesn't necessarily reduces component life; overvolting tends to, especially with excessive voltages. Frequent thermal cycling also is worse than running a fixed temp 24/7 (doesn't mean one sould buy second hand mining cards though). You can very well overclock while running a lower voltage, increasing your performances while actually making them run cooler and safer. This for example happens if you possess a Vega 56 or Vega 64: they run really high voltages stock. Reducing the voltages allowed you not only to make the card cooler and therefore quieter, but to also overclock it a bit further; tried it with a couple Vega 56 and my experience confirms that. This is also what happens on Skylake 6000s CPUs: they run pretty high voltages stock. My 6600K stock runs at 3.9GHz with something like 1.3V; I'm able to run it very stable at 1.22V at 4.0GHz, tested with Prime 95.

Silicon is a bit more resilient than we tend to give it credit for; that said, it does come into question when you overclock and are chasing an extra 100 or 200MHz when the CPU stops scaling: is a 0.05V or 0.075V worth it? Most likely not (those are exaggerated voltage values to make a point). That said, there's no point buying a K SKU Intel CPU is you don't OC it; and if you don't OC a 9600K AND it doesn't OC high because you lost the silicon lottery, then there's no point not using a stock Ryzen 3600 instead unless the prices are really, really good. Which essentially means there's little point buying an Intel CPU that isn't a 9700K or a 9900K since those chips have no competition and are the best ones strictly for gaming and nothing else. And you really have to lose the silicon lottery really bad not to get a 9900K that doesn't get to 5.0GHz all cores... assuming you have a good motherboard and a good CPU cooler. Beyond that point the chip hits the wall extremely hard.

The highest bit of irony is that many motherboard manufacturers just have the board automatically OC your Intel CPU in your back anyway, just to make their board more desirable to less savvy users. Regardless of that, Auto OC software in BIOS is way better today than it used to be, having the motherboard dictate the behaviour of the CPU anyway. So basically for most casual users, just use XMP for your RAM, use AutoOC in BIOS and be done. Don't tweak anything.

That was a pretty big digression there.

Additional note: the Silicon Lottery website is a lot, LOT more strict in their definition of what's stable and what isn't.

9 hours ago, Mr U Rosler said:

I'd be very interested to see where Stadia fits into the FM2020 version of this thread.

Need an upgrade but not gonna throw £1k+ at a new system if Stadia is returning processing results inline with an i7 8700/9700.

The anticipated downsides of Stadia, a small amount of lag etc are not particularly relevant to FM and i'm hopeful FM could be one of the stronger offerings on the platform. 

Depends if Stadia allows you to use mods. I don't see myself playing FM with no German+Japanese NT fix and without at least a name fix, no matter how great the performance is. And that's without mentioning all the extra leagues and other content (logo packs, face packs, skins, etc.) created by the community! It probably would satisfy a very casual user, but I doubt people ready to benchmark their CPU in FM are among those people.

What's interesting is that Stadia runs on AMD hardware, so we'll see if that can trickle down some benefits to more core/thread heavy CPUs at the local user level on a recent CPU. Especially since both Intel and AMD have to at least some extend moved towards higher core/thread counts, something that FM struggles  to exploit as seen in the results in this very thread.

Edited September 11, 2019 by BMNJohn

[Mr U Rosler]

There is talk of some mod compatability with Stadia. 

If I get it I'll run the benchmarks. 

Think the latest rumours are AMD gpu, Intel CPU but either way the hope is the game will be optimised for it which will hopefully trickle down and see better multicore optimisation for all. 

It's an extra option, good to have options. 

[Jakobhg]

Computer type: PC
CPU: Intel Core I9 9900K @5.0 GHz OC.
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER WINDFORCE OC 8G
RAM: 16GB DDR4 @3600 MHz
OS: Windows 10 Pro X64 version 1903
Storage: SSD

Benchmark A: 2 min 21 sec
Benchmark B: 4 min 29 sec
Benchmark C: 7 min 20 sec

[Gee_Simpson]

Getting that itch to upgrade again after managing to sell all my parts (including a i9 9900k). I made a loss of around £80 in total because I didn't return the items quick enough, so I had to sell them all on ebay 

I only play FM and that's it, I would be upgrading exclusively for FM, I don't use a PC for much else really, browsing, iTunes etc just standard stuff. I have no plan to play any other game, I prefer consoles and will buy the PS5. 

Considering the AMD 3900x but again it seems like Intel reigns supreme for exclusively FM, so again probably only considering either the i9 9900k or the i7 9700k. Not sure if there's much point in buying the i9 over the i7 really, over £100 difference between the two and the i9 runs very hot. GPU I had lined up was the GeForce 1660 but that's very much overkill for FM. The reason for this is mostly because I plan to get around 6 or 7 years out of this system without upgrading like I have with my current system (i7 3770, 8GB initially but upgraded to 16 recently, GeForce GT 640 which is now very old). 

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Feriboy2]

I ran the test too, expected better results

Computer Type: Desktop
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 @3.8 GHz OC
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX580 Nitro+ 4GB
RAM: 16GB DDR4 3200 MHz CL16
OS: Windows 10 64bit 1903
Storage: 512GB NVME SSD

Benchmark A: 1st run: 3 min 13 sec               2nd run: 3 min 19 sec
Benchmark B: 1st run: 6 min 04 sec               2nd run: 6 min 22 sec
Benchmark C: 1st run: 8 min 51 sec               2nd run: 8 min 55 sec

[JamieTC13]

Is there going to be an FM2020 benchmark mate

[Ursid]

Computer Type: PC

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X @ Stock

GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT @ Stock

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 3600 @ 3600

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1909

Storage: SSD - Adata 8200 Pro 1TB m.2 nvme

Benchmark C: 5 min 5 sec

[Feriboy2]

45 minutes ago, Ursid said:

Computer Type: PC

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X @ Stock

GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT @ Stock

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 3600 @ 3600

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1909

Storage: SSD - Adata 8200 Pro 1TB m.2 nvme

Benchmark C: 5 min 5 sec

wow, you are the 3rd ryzen 9 3900x owner in the thread and yours is the fastest by far (previous 3900x benchmark C times 7:48 and 6:03) Can you do Benchmark A and B too?

[Gee_Simpson]

How is there such a massive difference between the three 3900x systems? Would be interested to see test A and B also. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[jwchriste]

On 15/11/2019 at 13:37, Gee_Simpson said:

How is there such a massive difference between the two 3900x systems? 

I wonder if differences in cpu cooling affect this.  A lesser cooler may allow you to hit peak boost frequencies, but only for a short time, while a better cooler may allow for sustained peak boost frequencies.