Game benchmark cpu: What Can I Run · System Requirements Test

The best games to benchmark your PC in 2022

If you want to test your computer’s gaming performance, you need to use one of the best games to benchmark your PC. A lot of games don’t provide consistent, reliable results, and others could provide a skewed view of how your hardware stacks up. We rounded up 10 titles that are consistent, repeatable, and clearly show how powerful your PC is.

Contents

• Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
• Red Dead Redemption 2
• Control
• Hitman 3
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Civilization VI
• Forza Horizon 4
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Most of the games we chose have built-in benchmarks. All you need to do is find the benchmark — it’s usually in the Graphics menu — and run it. Others don’t have an in-game benchmark, so make sure to use a program like FRAPS and find a short section to play through to test your system’s performance.

Further reading

• The best GPU benchmarking software
• The best GPU overclocking software
• How to overclock your GPU

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla isn’t as demanding as some other titles on this list, but it’s an excellent way to benchmark your PC. It has a built-in benchmark that produces consistent results, serving as a solid baseline that you can compare to other machines.

The game uses the now aging AnvilNext 2.0 engine. It’s capable of impressive visuals still — Valhalla is a beautiful game — but its not as demanding as some other engines. It’s consistent, and that’s what’s important. We’ve ran dozens of tests through Valhalla‘s built-in benchmark with only minor variations between trials.

Read our Assassin’s Creed Valhalla review

Red Dead Redemption 2

Red Dead Redemption 2 has a built-in benchmark, too, but it’s much longer than Valhalla‘s. It provides an overview of sustained performance in a demanding title, stressing your CPU and GPU. In addition, it uses the Vulkan application programming interface (API) by default, serving as a change of pace from the DirectX APIs many games use.

This benchmark has a quirk, though. Instead of presets, Red Dead Redemption 2 has a performance slider that adjusts settings based on your hardware. For the best, most consistent results, we recommend cranking the slider to its max setting when running your first test.

Read our Red Dead Redemption 2 review

Control

Control is a solid DirectX 12 benchmark thanks to its access to real-time ray tracing and Nvidia’s Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS). The game is a machine of physics simulations and lighting, highlighting some of the most demanding tasks PCs can handle today. Unfortunately, it lacks a built-in benchmark, so you’ll need to find a patch of the game to test yourself.

Although Control is great for testing the latest GPU technologies, it’s not consistent. Enemy spawns are random, so it’s hard to find a consistent place to test, and the physics simulations can throw things out of whack. Still, Control is a great way to push your hardware and test the newest features available on graphics cards.

Read our Control review

Hitman 3

Hitman 3 provides an interesting in-game benchmark. Instead of a set scene, the game loads you into the Dartmoor level with infinite ammo weapons and the option to spawn waves of guards. It’s a good way to press your CPU and GPU at the same time, with large, complex environments and dense A.I. on characters.

Although Hitman 3 can stress both, it serves a good GPU benchmark. It’s well-optimized to take advantage of a lot of cores, so most modern gaming CPUs shouldn’t get stressed too hard. A lot of the pressure comes from complex physics simulations and particles, which are mostly handled by your graphics card.

In addition to the Dartmoor benchmark, Hitman 3 includes set benchmarks if you want a repeatable test for performance.

Read our Hitman 3 review

Metro Exodus

The Metro games have long stood as the titans of PC gaming benchmarks, and Metro Exodus is no different. Its graphics options don’t consider what people have, but rather what people could have in the future. It’s a taxing game with the latest Nvidia technologies, ultra-high-quality textures, and some intense lighting options, to boot.

The big reason we’re including it here is the Enhanced Edition. This upgraded version requires a ray tracing-capable GPU because every light source uses ray tracing. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition offers a rare glimpse at a future where graphics cards are capable of rendering solely ray-traced lighting, and it will bring even the most powerful PCs to their knees.

Read our Metro Exodus review

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is, like Metro Exodus, a game designed to take advantage of future hardware. It demands massive amount of video memory to stream in high-resolution textures, as well as many fast CPU cores as possible. In short, it hits on all fronts. The CPU handles all of the intricacies of a flight simulation, while the GPU is hard at work rendering the beautiful world.

Beyond your CPU and GPU, Microsoft Flight Simulator stresses every part of your system, down to your networking. While Metro Exodus and Control stress your GPU, and Hitman 3 and Civilization VI tax your CPU, Microsoft Flight Simulator does both, offering a good overview of system performance.

Keep in mind how demanding this game is, however. It will reveal bottlenecks in your system that otherwise wouldn’t show up in other games.

Civilization VI

Civilization VI isn’t good for testing frame rates. It’s not very demanding, and it’s designed to scale down to low-end hardware. However, it’s great for benchmarking your CPU. Using the in-game benchmark, you can run a simulation of end-game turns and time how long it takes for those turns to complete.

This is useful for testing the speed of CPU cores. Overclocking a processor usually shows clear improvements in the turn time benchmark, showcasing the improvements in clock speed. If you want to sanity check that your overclock is actually improving your gaming performance, Civilization VI is a good benchmark to use.

Read our Civilization VI review

Forza Horizon 4

Forza Horizon 4 is a stunning racing game, and it includes a dense in-game benchmark. The benchmark offers three different frame rate read-outs — GPU, CPU render, and CPU simulation. It also shows how much RAM and video memory the benchmark required, giving you an indication of if you can turn up your settings or not.

In addition to great insight into your performance, Forza Horizon 4 scales well across hardware. It was designed to run on everything from the base Xbox One to the Xbox Series X, after all. It shows clear steps between graphics cards as they climb in performance and price, offering a good indication of how your PC stacks up.

Read our Forza Horizon 4 review

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Shadow of the Tomb Raider includes a built-in benchmark that’s highly repeatable — similar to Assassin’s Creed Valhalla. Outside of being a pretty game that can tax high-end hardware, the built-in benchmark provides solid insights into performance, including CPU and GPU rendering times and 95% low frame rates.

It’s best as a DirectX 12 benchmark, however. Although you can run Shadow of the Tomb Raider with DirectX 11, the game shows noticeable performance improvements with the newer API. With DirectX 12 selected, Shadow of the Tomb Raider shows solid scaling across settings and hardware. That combination is hard to find, as most titles scale more toward settings or hardware.

Read our Shadow of the Tomb Raider review

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is almost solely a CPU benchmark. Although a GPU benchmark is available, the main reason to use Ashes as a benchmark is that it can take advantage of a lot of cores. In early 2021, the developers updated the game to take advantage of up to 32 cores, which is far more than most games.

It likes a lot of fast cores, making Ashes is a great benchmark for testing not only your CPU’s clock speed, but also its core count. Outside of testing your processor, Ashes also includes some demanding graphics settings with the Crazy preset if you have a high-end GPU you want to stress.

Editors’ Recommendations

• The best GPUs for 4K to make your games look the best

• Returnal might be the first PC game to recommend this much RAM

• The best gifts for PC gamers

• GPU prices and availability (December 2022): How much are GPUs today?

• Cooler Master’s Orb X gaming pod is futuristic and utterly absurd

Call of Duty: Warzone 2.

0 CPU and GPU Benchmark

Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 is a new free-to-play battle royale game, a sequel to 2020’s CoD: Warzone and part of the latest Modern Warfare II release, but as a F2P title, it doesn’t require the full game to enjoy the multiplayer action. Today we’re taking a look at CPU and GPU performance in this title, and as expected, it was a bit of a nightmare to test, because that’s just how it is for multiplayer games.

While we usually like to benchmark around 40 GPUs, given what’s involved here, that just wasn’t feasible, but we think we have a good sample of current-gen hardware. In total we tested 7 CPUs and 10 GPUs across three resolutions using two quality presets. The results are super interesting, which you will see in a second.

But how do you test a multiplayer battle royale game like Warzone 2.0? It’s never easy, especially if you want to test more than one or two hardware configurations. Gathering accurate data is a real mission and super time consuming. This is because no two matches play out the same way, with players dropping in different locations, system load can vary, and you also need to land in the same location to carry out the path for the benchmark pass and ideally you want to do this somewhere where you won’t often end up being killed, so good luck with that.

We also found that realistically you can only execute a single pass per game, not only because we were getting killed at the end of the test almost every single time, but because as the match progresses, the frame rate generally increases as there are fewer players.

For example, with just 30 players left we saw 1% lows increase by 25%, though the average frame rate was only boosted by ~6%, suggesting that there was a lot less stress on the CPU in late game. We were only able to test this a few times as it required a late game circle.

Speaking of which, we decided to conduct our testing in a central location as this would allow us to land with relative ease every time, regardless of the flight path and the landing zone. The potential downside to benchmarking a quieter section of the map is that the performance can be a bit higher than what you’ll typically see in the busier sections of the map, and we did look into this, noticing that performance was often ~10% better for the benchmark pass.

But there’s very little we can do about this as you won’t often complete even a 20 second pass in the busy area, let alone a 60 second pass. What we did notice is that scaling was similar for the hardware configurations we checked, so the margins between the various CPU and GPUs tested should remain the same.

What all of this means is, testing the hardware configurations that we did, took at least as long as all the testing we did for Modern Warfare 2 using the built-in benchmark — but for 44 graphics cards.

For this Warzone 2.0 testing, loads of time was lost just waiting for games, eventually loading into a game and getting to the section used for testing, and on numerous occasions we were killed while testing, invalidating the results forcing us to start over.

For this testing we’ve covered 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions, using the «Ultra» and «Minimum» quality presets. We’ll start with the CPU benchmarks which was gathered using the RTX 4090 and we’ve only been able to test Zen 4 and Raptor Lake CPUs.

AMD’s Zen 4 processors were tested with DDR5-6000 memory and Intel’s Raptor Lake with DDR5-6400, as those are the optimal kits we have for each platform right now, and they’re similar in terms of pricing.

CPU Benchmarks

CPU: Ultra Preset

Starting with ‘Ultra’ preset testing at 1080p, we find that the Core i9-13900K is the fastest CPU, pushing the RTX 4090 to 242 fps on average, with 177 fps for the 1% lows.

This was just 2% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X when comparing the average frame rate, though it was 6% faster when comparing 1% lows.

From the 13600K to the 13900K we’re looking at a mere 7% difference in performance for the average frame rate and 9% for the 1% lows, so even though the Core i9 is faster, the margins aren’t huge.

The Ryzen 7700X, 7900X and 7950X all stood between the 13600K and 13900K. It was just the 7600X that was slower, trailing the 13600K by a 4% margin, though 1% lows dropped by an insignificant margin. All CPUs allowed the RTX 4090 to render more than 200 fps on average which is good to see.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p resulted in a hard GPU bottleneck at around 200 fps with similar 1% lows across the board. So even with the GeForce RTX 4090, if you’re for some reason playing Warzone 2.0 using ultra quality settings, provided you have a fairly modern CPU, you will almost always be GPU limited.

This is also true for 4K resolution gameplay, of course, as we run into a serious GPU bottleneck limiting the average frame rate with the RTX 4090 to 145 fps with 1% lows for 77 — 79 fps. That being the case, let’s check out the more competitive ‘Minimum’ quality preset.

CPU: Minimum Preset

For those looking to drive maximum frame rates and get that visual competitive advantage, the minimum preset works well, though we’re sure tweaking a few of the settings will be optimal.

Here we find yet again that at 1080p the 13900K is the performance leader, pushing 252 fps on average, making it 4% faster than the Ryzen 7950X. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 processors matched the 13700K, while the 7700X only managed to match the 13600K. They did so with 227 fps, making both parts 10% slower than the 13900K.

The 7600X disappoints here with 213 fps making it 6% slower than the 13600K and 15% slower than the 13900K.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p has virtually no impact on the performance of AMD Zen 4 processors, though we do see a hit to the 13700K and 13600K along with the 1% lows of the 13900K.

The 13900K remains ahead of the 7950X by a 4% margin, though it’s a mere percent faster when comparing 1% lows. The 7900X and 13700K are now neck and neck, while the 7700X is slightly faster than the 13600K, and the 7600X is able to match the Core i5 processor.

At 4K resolution we are primarily GPU limited, even with the minimum quality settings. So if you’re gaming at 4K, Zen 4 and Raptor Lake will deliver comparable levels of performance, based on what we’re seeing here with the RTX 4090.

GPU Benchmarks

GPUs: Ultra Preset

For the GPU benchmarks we have an assortment of GPUs because we couldn’t test all the graphics cards we would have wanted. Using the ultra quality preset at 1080p we unsurprisingly find the RTX 4090 at the top of our graph, beating the RTX 4080 by a slim 12% margin due to the mostly CPU-limited test conditions.

The RTX 4080 was also just 12% faster than the 6950 XT as the Radeon GPU rendered 193 fps, making it 13% faster than the 6800 XT.

As we found in our previous Modern Warfare 2 testing, Radeon GPUs excel in this title, and we’re seeing more of that here as the 6800 XT easily beat the RTX 3080 by a 13% margin, while the 6700 XT matched the RTX 3070.

Then we see that both the Radeon 6600 XT and 5700 XT smoked the RTX 3060 by a 20% margin.

Jumping up to 1440p affords the GeForce RTX 4090 a little more breathing room and now the Ada Lovelace flagship is 24% faster than the 4080 and 48% faster than the 6950 XT.

The Radeon 6800 XT is now also just 7% faster than the RTX 3080, though the 6700 XT was able to pull out a good lead over the RTX 3070.

Shockingly, the 5700 XT was seen delivering RTX 3070-like performance, easily beating the RTX 3060, this time by a 21% margin.

Then at 4K, the RTX 4090 is seen to be 31% faster than the RTX 4080 and almost 60% faster than the 6950 XT. The RTX 3080 finally caught the 6800 XT, while the RTX 3070 matched the 6700 XT. The old mid-range Radeon 5700 XT was still roughly 20% faster than the RTX 3060.

GPUs: Minimum Preset

Now with the minimum quality settings loaded, please note the game was completely reset each time when going from Ultra to Minimum (or vice versa) as a full game restart is required to re-compile shaders and load all settings…

At 1080p we can see that the Radeon 6950 XT is able to match the GeForce RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 due to the CPU bottleneck. The 6800 XT also matched the average frame rate of RTX 40 series GPUs, though 1% lows were considerably lower.

This meant that the 6800 XT beat the RTX 3080, while the 6700 XT beat the RTX 3070. Then we see that the 6600 XT was 30% faster than the RTX 3060, while the 5700 XT was 22% faster.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p helps to reduce the CPU bottleneck, but even so the RTX 4090 was unable to beat the 4080, even with the Core i9-13900K onboard.

Meanwhile, the Radeon 6000 series had no issue beating the GeForce 3000 series with the 6800 XT knocking off the RTX 3080 by a 13% margin.

Finally we see that the RTX 4090 is 20% faster than the 4080 at 4K resolution, while the 6950 XT was 12% slower than the 4080. The Radeon 6800 XT was 10% faster than the RTX 3080, the 6700 XT matched the RTX 3070, and the 5700 XT embarrassed the RTX 3060 by more than a 20% margin in this scenario.

Wrap Up

Having spent so much time testing Warzone 2.0, we wish we had more data to show for our efforts, but that’s just how it goes with multiplayer titles. For GPU testing, the built-in benchmark works well enough, and we don’t believe the margins have changed from our original coverage, even with a few new driver updates.

For CPU testing, though, this really has to be done in-game, and that’s what we’ll be doing for our big head-to-head CPU benchmarks moving forward. But for day-one CPU results, Warzone 2.0 isn’t practical as any game update will likely break the results, which would force us to update all our data each time. When testing just a few CPUs this is not a problem, but when you’re doing a round up with over 20 processor configurations it’s just not feasible.

For the absolute best performance in Warzone 2.0 the recipe is rather obvious right now: the Core i9-13900K + GeForce RTX 4090 is the way to go. Bang for your buck though, the Core i5-13600K with something like the Radeon RX 6800 XT would be a killer combo given the 6800 XT can be had for under $600 these days, and was generally faster than the RTX 3080.

As we found in our 40+ GPU benchmark of Modern Warfare 2, the old Radeon RX 5700 XT is a weapon in this game and nothing has changed with Warzone 2. At 1440p using the ultra quality settings it was just 3% slower than the RTX 3070 and just 14% slower using the minimum quality preset, chucking out over 120 fps on average.

The RTX 3060 is disappointing in this titles considering how much it costs, and the Ryzen 5 7600X was also disappointing, though certainly not to the same degree. Still, trailing the 13600K by ~7% wasn’t nice to see and while we’re sure 7600X owners will be happy with the performance, when GPU limitations are removed the 13600K is the superior performer here.

Shopping Shortcuts:

• Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 on Amazon
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT on Amazon
• Intel Core i9-13900K on Amazon
• Intel Core i5-13600K on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 9 7900X on Amazon
• AMD Ryzen 7 7700X on Amazon

games on pc, search and tests of games, video cards, processors

BenchGame ^.com

Everything about games and pc.

System requirements for games.
Online PC compatibility test for games.
Search for games by PC system parameters.
Comparison of processors, video cards.
Questions and answers about video games!

Will the game work?

About our software.

Our features

Use our service with flexible tools that are constantly being improved.

Site Information

Site Information

BenchGame.com launched on February 12, 2017. At the moment it is:
Catalog of video games;
System requirements of games;
Video screenshots;
Testing video games for compatibility with your computer;
Reviews, news, guides and more;
Comments;
Game feedback and rating system;
Components: Processors, Video cards;
Comparison, technical data of PC components;
The main answers you will get here:
What games can you play on your computer?
What are the system requirements for the desired game?
We hope you enjoy BenchGame, and if you have any ideas let us know, maybe they will be reflected on the site.

How do I know if the game will start on my computer?

Will the game start?

If before buying or installing a video game you are in doubt whether this game will run on your computer!
And you don’t understand what system requirements are and what parameters your computer has, or you are a simple gamer,
who are just interested in video games, then our site will help you figure everything out in a couple of clicks of a bear.
With us you can test your PC, find out at what settings the game will work on your computer.
Every day we replenish the database with new games, processors, video cards, etc!

About testing

Testing

Our testing tool still has some room for improvement and the test results are still approximate.
But, even now, the test gives quite fair results whether you can comfortably play, it is very difficult to calculate such data, since they depend on many factors,
Let’s even take the optimization of games, agree that even on top systems, some games show a slide show.
At this stage, the system compares the minimum and recommended system requirements of the video game (if any) with the parameters of your computer.
It compares not only, for example, the number of processor cores or the amount of video memory, but also various performance benchmarks of components.
The testing calculation algorithm is constantly improving.

On BG you can find everything about games

Bench Game:

1. get information about the game;
2. check if your PC is compatible with the system requirements of the game;
3. pick up games for your PC — search and selection of games;
4. view game ratings and player ratings;
5. see trailers, screenshots;
6. read news, reviews and cheat codes for the game;
7. find out PC components — processors and video cards;
8. PC component performance ratings;
9. compare technical data of processors and video cards;
10. and more, stay tuned. ..

About CPU testing in games.

This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

Processors in games, now only lazy people don’t test. I also decided to do this, but the question immediately arose, how to actually test them? The fact is that those tests that the Internet is filled with are, in my opinion, completely uninformative. Well, judge for yourself, we are most often shown a description of the settings in the game, a certain table with the final numbers of the test on several processors, and a small commentary on this table. And so on several games. In addition, an article on testing usually describes the test bench, the software used, and sometimes describes the testing methodology. And how exactly were these resulting figures obtained? In what location, with what time of testing? What was the load on the video card, processor, SSD from which the game was launched? As a rule, nothing is said about this, and this categorically does not suit me. Or here’s a question: what resolution to test, 1080p or 720p? In my opinion, you need to test in both resolutions, but not in one article. I’ll explain in more detail. If we have two or more processors with different architectures for testing, then, provided that the testing was carried out at the same clock volumes and frequencies of RAM, as well as the same clock frequencies of the CPU and the same number of active cores, we can get a difference in the performance of one or different processor architecture, under game load. But there is a nuance here. By testing processor A with architecture A and processor B with architecture B, we can find out that architecture A in most games gives an advantage over architecture B. At the same time, processor B in real game modes will be faster than processor A, because it has more cores, or more high clock speed, or it can run faster RAM. Therefore, for myself, I divided articles on testing processes in games into two types.

First: Testing processes in games. We take one processor and drive it in real game modes. The emphasis in testing is on the informativeness and realism of the test. Built-in benchmarks are not used in these conditions, since they do not reflect the load in a real game.

recommendations

Second: «Testing under gaming load.» We take two or more processes, if not with a different architecture, then at least with a different cache size or a different revision, and bring them to equal testing conditions. The emphasis in testing is on the repeatability of the test. Accordingly, we use built-in and standalone benchmarks, as well as replays, if they are implemented in the game.

Next, let’s look at the process of testing the Intel Core i5-4670K processor in Far Cry 4.

Test bench configuration.

System board ASUS Z97M-PLUS

CP Quadcore Intel Core i5-4670k, 4100 MHZ (41 x 100)

Coole of the processor Thermalright Macho 120 Rev. 120 Rev. min)

3D accelerator Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 G1 GAMING [GV-N1060G1 GAMING-6GD]

Memory:
DIMM KINGSTON HYPERX KHX2133C11D3/4GX 4 GB DDR3-1333@2133 CL11-12-11-32
DIMM KINGSTON HYPERX KHX2133C11D3/4GX 4 GB DDR3-133 @333 @333333333 @333 @33333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 @333 Kingston HyperX KHX2133C11D3/4GX 4 GB DDR3-1333@2133 CL11-12-11-32
DIMM Device (128 GB, SATA-III)
SSD Apacer AS2280 240GB ATA Device (240 GB, SATA-III)
99
To monitor the CPU load, the system monitor was used in the task manager

Windows 8.1 operating system 64.

Driver version 391.01

Video card memory runs at 2003.4 MHz in all modes, maximum GPU boost is 1961.5 MHz .

Testing was carried out at a resolution of 1920×1080.

The game was launched with an Apacer SSD.

Performance and load measurements were made in the vicinity of the lake near Banapur. FPS measurement time — 300 seconds.

Let’s start with the maximum settings.

V-sync disabled.

Starting position for running.

The load on the processor is quite high, but it does not even reach 90% load. Less than 3 GB of video memory is used, and the video card itself is loaded to the fullest, and it is it that limits, in this case, performance.

SSD activity.

Frame time.

FPS

Frame time curve.

V-sync enabled.

Starting position for running.

Turning on vertical sync reduces the load on both the video card and the processor. Moreover, the video card sometimes even goes into standby mode, dropping the frequency of the video processor to 50%.

SSD activity.

Frame time.

FPS

Frame time curve.

Now consider the minimum settings.

V-sync disabled.

Starting position for running.

Here we see a rather interesting picture. The processor is fully loaded on two cores, but nevertheless it is not the bottleneck. The video card, unlike the processor, is loaded very unevenly, so it is quite possible that performance, in this case, is limited by RAM.

SSD activity.

Frame time.

FPS

Frame time curve.

V-sync enabled.

Starting position for running.

The processor is less than 50% loaded, and the video card is generally idle all the time.

SSD activity.

Frame time.

FPS

Frame time curve.

Now consider the test modes.

Maximum graphics settings, v-sync disabled. This mode allows you to estimate the load on the processor, at maximum quality settings. In our case, we see that there is enough processor, but a faster video card can be used.

Maximum graphics settings, v-sync enabled. This mode allows us to evaluate how much we can reduce the load on the processor and video card, without degrading the quality of the picture in the game. For me, this matters, because I have a completely silent computer, and accordingly there are certain restrictions on heating.

Minimum graphics settings, v-sync disabled. This mode shows what the maximum load on the processor we can get in the game, if we are not limited by the video card.

Minimum graphics settings, v-sync disabled. This mode shows what minimum system load we can get in the game without loss of playability.

In my opinion, these four modes are quite enough to consider all the nuances of the CPU behavior in a game application. Next, we move on to technical issues. Of course, the maximum amount of information on tests in the game is good, but on the other hand, is all the information needed? This is me to the fact that only one game has 28 screenshots, if you show all the results.