Welcome to another video.

Now.

Ever since A.

M D released their rise and AP use, I said, I plan to see how far into the future they could run new Triple eight releases.

Since then, I made the mistake of lending the rise and 5 24 100 g to a friend who is apparently about as useful as an inflatable dartboard because I managed to break a couple of the pins.

So until I can find a replacement, it's all about this.

The rise and 3 22 100 g with the battlefield five Bater now in full swing, I couldn't resist the chance to see if our budget focused friend here could run the game with respectable performance.

While the final version of the game may differ in terms of performance, this should give us some idea of what we might be able to expect come November now, because I believe anyone who is opting for one of these AP use will be on a tighter budget.

I've paired mine with eight gigs of 2400 megahertz RAM, which here in the UK at least can be found quite a bit cheaper than the faster clocked memory.

Not only that, but I wanted to focus more on a worst case scenario type situation.

Sort of like if it's playable on slow around, then it will only be better on the faster stuff.

So enough chit chat.

Let's take a look at how Battlefield five's open beta runs on an entry level rise and CPU with integrated Vega eight graphics.

So I started with the Narvik Arctic map and tested the game at 7 20 p.

900 p and 10.

80 p.

Immediately, it was clear that we'd have to opt for the low settings.

Now a 10.

80 p with 100% resolution scaling, which we stuck with throughout the game, averaged 35 frames per second, pretty impressive for an integrated GPU solution.

There was some stutter, though, as represented by random moments of slow down.

But these didn't happen too often.

And if I'm being honest, I think 10 80 p is a little too challenging for this configuration.

Unless you were to either turn down the resolution scaling or just the resolution.

So that's what I did.

A 900 p.

Things felt quite a bit smooth out with an average frame rate of 43.

The 1% lows and 10.1% lows were also a bit better, too, which of course, meant less in game stutter.

But I will let you into a little spoiler.

The next match will be testing.

Rotterdam seems to perform a little bit worse before moving on to that, though.

Let's go way down to 7 20 p for another slight increase in performance.

While it's not a significant of a jump between the 10 80 p and 900 p performance, every extra frame is, of course, a nice bonus.

Again, there was less Stata.

So in my opinion, I'd go with either this resolution or 900 P that you'll probably have to stick with the low settings.

I'm not sure if this would be the case with faster memory, especially considering the GPU is maxed out at 99 to 100% usage.

Most of the time.

The onboard Vega eight is definitely the week a part of this ap U.

But of course, I would be interested in seeing what sort of results you could expect with the 2200 g on faster clocked Ram moving on to the second beat a map Rotterdam, and once again I started off with 10 80 p Here we barely touched on 30 frames per second as the average, and there were quite a few more frame drops.

Which isn't surprising considering that this map is comprised of a more built up lay out, the less open the map, the love of the frame rate seems to be that being said, capping the frame rate to 30 in this case would help smooth things out a little bit.

But just like the Arctic map, a lower resolution would be the better bet.

At 900.

People saw a nice increase to the mid thirties, and at this point, I think this is the resolution I probably choose to play at.

It looks a little better than 7 20 p and doesn't perform all too differently.

Though, Of course, if you were playing on the 2200 g and you were playing online, you'll probably be wanting to maximize your performance as much as possible.

Speaking of which, at this lower resolution, the average frame rate is improved, but the 1% in 10.1% figures aren't too different, meaning we still saw some Stata.

But what if we wanted to say, Try and eliminate more of these frame drops would over clocking this AP you both the CPU and I GPU in fact, give us a result.

That's much different.

Well, to find out, I jumped into the rise and master software, which can be downloaded for free from the AMG website and played around with a couple of options here.

I decided to jump back into the more demanding map Rotterdam at 10 80 p settings with the low in game options, just like we did before to compare to how it performed before the over cup.

And as you can see, we did see a slight difference in performance.

Of course, with an overcooked the options that you say are entirely up to you.

So you may be able to squeeze a little extra performance out of this chip.

But of course, as I mentioned before, Faster Round may also do the job.

However, I was looking at a sort of worst case scenario type situation here, and I think you could still get away with playing the battlefield beta on lease a pier if I'm being honest, it's not terrible experience, but just bear in mind that you may have to stick to those lower resolutions.

This performance may differ entirely to the final game, which launches in November, so we'll just have to wait and see Onda.

Hopefully I'll have another rise and 5 24 100 g by then as well, and we'll be able to make the comparison once again and see how the final release performs with an integrated Vega GPU.

So there we have it now.

Also remember that you will need a more expensive be 3 50 bold to over clock the rise in AP use.

But I think this one's still did a pretty respectable job at the stock setting.

So as for this video, thank you for watching.

If you enjoyed it, leave a lock on it.

Leave a dislike if you didn't subscribe to the channel if you haven't done so already.