EA Sports FC 24 tech review: Laptop and desktop benchmarks

New name, old problems.

Even though EA has been found guilty of violating gambling laws in several countries, the football simulation game FC (formerly FIFA) still enjoys a certain level of popularity. In this review, we'll take a look at the graphical requirements of the 2024 edition.

Florian Glaser, 👁 Florian Glaser (translated by Zhiwei Zhuang), Published 10/16/2023 🇩🇪 🇸🇪 ...

Notebooks used in this review

Right now, our gaming benchmarks are performed using these laptops. Click on the images to visit the respective product page. All other test systems (tower PCs, mini-PCs, etc.) are listed at the end of this article.

Technical aspects

For this year’s performance analysis, we were able to simply reuse most of what we wrote about the previous instalment of FIFA. The latest edition of EA’s football videogame inherits the usual strengths and weaknesses of the series. Whilst close-up shots, replays and so on look quite good and realistic (but also cost more performance), the Frostbite engine is still running significantly below its potential in the default perspective during a match, resulting in mediocre visuals. There is probably still a lot of room for improvement here. Though this helps keep hardware requirements fairly low.

The game’s controls could likewise use some improvement. Mouse and keyboard implementation is still rather meh – especially in the menus, which are once again very convoluted and require an unnecessary amount of clicking to navigate. Moreover, even if you choose the Steam version, the mandatory EA app and EA anticheat program are still going to cause issues. For instance, it takes what feels like forever to launch the game, and you’ll also get inexplicable error messages every now and then. Furthermore, during our testing, we noticed frequent stuttering caused by loading in the per se highly atmospheric and well-produced videos – and this happened regardless of the hardware and settings used.

Moving on to the graphics menu: it is fully accessible in-game, just like the one in FIFA 23. Those who are expecting a plethora of options are sadly going to be disappointed. Apart from rendering quality, the only other quality options you can customise are for cutscenes, grass and crowd. There are also options to let you enable or disable frame rate cap, VSync and dynamic resolution. Of course, you can adjust the resolution and display mode in the graphics menu as well. The developers decided not to include modern features such as DLSS or any sort of useful presets. Comparison images for the individual settings are likewise nowhere to be found, but at least written explanations are provided. It is also less than ideal that you need to restart the game after changing some of the settings.

Benchmark

As in previous years, we used a kick-off match between FC Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund for our benchmark (match settings: summer, 4 pm, clear weather). With one half set to 6 real minutes, we used CapFrameX to record the game’s performance for at least 4 game minutes (equivalent to roughly 40 real seconds). Replays were avoided or skipped due to their low FPS count. Because the football simulation game is as before not taxing on the GPU, more powerful graphics cards may be bottlenecked by the CPU at moderate resolutions and settings.

▶ load Youtube video

Results

FHD (1,920 x 1,080)

Whilst iGPUs have trouble running many games even at 720p and the lowest settings, they are often good enough to handle FC 24 at Full HD. For example, a Radeon 680M only falls slightly below the 60 FPS mark at this resolution when details are set to medium or better (which we generally recommend for this game). However, we regularly encountered odd stutters during gameplay, and image rendering didn't look very clean.

EA Sports FC 24
1920x1080 Low Preset 1920x1080 Medium Preset 1920x1080 High Preset 1920x1080 Ultra Preset
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	312 (152.9^min, 225^P0.1, 244^P1) fps ∼100% 263 (107.2^min, 130.2^P0.1, 201^P1) fps ∼100% 262 (113.1^min, 132.3^P0.1, 202^P1) fps ∼100%
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	254 (87.2^min, 144.4^P0.1, 181^P1) fps ∼81% 220 (30.2^min, 87^P0.1, 153.6^P1) fps ∼84% 211 (68.3^min, 89.1^P0.1, 151.3^P1) fps ∼81%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Neo 17 E23	219 (60.4^min, 152.9^P0.1, 169.7^P1) fps ∼70% 179.3 (44.9^min, 81^P0.1, 138.5^P1) fps ∼68% 171.3 (71.2^min, 82^P0.1, 130.7^P1) fps ∼65%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX Schenker Key 17 Pro E23	216 (111.9^min, 128^P0.1, 164.4^P1) fps ∼69% 177.9 (36.1^min, 72.6^P0.1, 126.7^P1) fps ∼68% 167.2 (2.72^min, 75.9^P0.1, 120.3^P1) fps ∼64%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, i9-12900H Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 G733ZX	231 (83.4^min, 161.2^P0.1, 184.1^P1) fps ∼74% 194.3 (4.14^min, 62.3^P0.1, 143^P1) fps ∼74% 182.8 (49.6^min, 86.9^P0.1, 138.9^P1) fps ∼70%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Laptop GPU, i7-12700H Acer Predator Helios 300 PH315-55	154 (79.4^min, 100.8^P0.1, 115.6^P1) fps ∼49% 134.2 (45.1^min, 60.7^P0.1, 89.4^P1) fps ∼51% 129.7 (33.3^min, 56.2^P0.1, 96.1^P1) fps ∼50%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	192.7 (107.7^min, 138.6^P0.1, 148.9^P1) fps ∼62% 162.3 (33.8^min, 68.1^P0.1, 118.6^P1) fps ∼62% 150.1 (27.4^min, 69.5^P0.1, 105^P1) fps ∼57%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	179.2 (26.5^min, 92.9^P0.1, 121.9^P1) fps ∼57% 149.4 (37^min, 51.6^P0.1, 98.7^P1) fps ∼57% 137.8 (22.4^min, 46.8^P0.1, 72.6^P1) fps ∼53%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Focus 15 E23	163.8 (86.8^min, 119.7^P0.1, 139.3^P1) fps ∼53% 144 (50.2^min, 63.5^P0.1, 111.7^P1) fps ∼55% 132.5 (42^min, 54.9^P0.1, 76^P1) fps ∼51%
AMD Radeon RX 6800S, R9 6900HS Asus ROG Zephyrus G14	181.5 (93.1^min, 122.2^P0.1, 139.6^P1) fps ∼100% 162.4 (58.9^min, 100.6^P0.1, 125.6^P1) fps ∼52% 138.4 (46.8^min, 56.5^P0.1, 104.1^P1) fps ∼53% 126.2 (24.5^min, 51.7^P0.1, 96.5^P1) fps ∼48%
AMD Radeon 780M, R9 7940HS Minisforum Venus Series UM790 Pro	107.8 (71.7^min, 84.4^P0.1, 92.4^P1) fps ∼59% 98.4 (25^min, 65.2^P0.1, 79.9^P1) fps ∼32% 78.2 (42.4^min, 43.5^P0.1, 52.3^P1) fps ∼30% 71.9 (23.6^min, 41.4^P0.1, 60.2^P1) fps ∼27%
AMD Radeon 680M, R9 6900HS Asus ROG Zephyrus G14	80.3 (25.7^min, 27.8^P0.1, 36.1^P1) fps ∼44% 57.9 (13.7^min, 19^P0.1, 23.3^P1) fps ∼19% 42 (12.4^min, 12.5^P0.1, 17.1^P1) fps ∼16% 39.5 (5.97^min, 7.1^P0.1, 12.6^P1) fps ∼15%

QHD (2,560 x 1,440)

A mid-range card is all you need to enjoy the game at QHD. For instance, a GeForce RTX 4050 is already capable enough to churn out around 100 FPS at 1440p and max settings.

EA Sports FC 24
2560x1440 Ultra Preset
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	261 (97.7^min, 124^P0.1, 196.5^P1) fps ∼100%
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	203 (76.4^min, 82.8^P0.1, 132^P1) fps ∼78%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Neo 17 E23	167.6 (37.4^min, 72.7^P0.1, 126.7^P1) fps ∼64%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX Schenker Key 17 Pro E23	163.4 (4.3^min, 21.5^P0.1, 98.5^P1) fps ∼63%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, i9-12900H Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 G733ZX	151.7 (27.1^min, 65.9^P0.1, 112.1^P1) fps ∼58%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	138.4 (38.6^min, 58.7^P0.1, 107.5^P1) fps ∼53%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Laptop GPU, i7-12700H Acer Predator Helios 300 PH315-55	129.2 (32.6^min, 60.2^P0.1, 80.5^P1) fps ∼50%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	121 (30.1^min, 42.9^P0.1, 71.6^P1) fps ∼46%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Focus 15 E23	100.9 (29.4^min, 42.3^P0.1, 58.9^P1) fps ∼39%
AMD Radeon 780M, R9 7940HS Minisforum Venus Series UM790 Pro	51.7 (32.4^min, 33.8^P0.1, 42.6^P1) fps ∼20%

UHD (3,840 x 2,160)

You don’t necessarily need a high-end GPU to run the game at 4K. Even the previously mentioned RTX 4050 has enough power to come close to the 60 FPS mark at 4K and Ultra settings.

EA Sports FC 24
3840x2160 Ultra Preset
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	188 (90.5^min, 107.3^P0.1, 145.7^P1) fps ∼100%
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, i9-13900K Desktop-PC Asus ROG Strix Z790-F	166.9 (60.3^min, 75.4^P0.1, 121.8^P1) fps ∼89%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Neo 17 E23	153.2 (35.2^min, 49.8^P0.1, 106.2^P1) fps ∼81%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX Schenker Key 17 Pro E23	125.2 (25.7^min, 57.6^P0.1, 94.7^P1) fps ∼67%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, i9-12900H Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 G733ZX	97.8 (43.7^min, 47.3^P0.1, 77^P1) fps ∼52%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	82.4 (31.6^min, 34.9^P0.1, 61.7^P1) fps ∼44%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Laptop GPU, i7-12700H Acer Predator Helios 300 PH315-55	81.8 (32.4^min, 36.7^P0.1, 62.2^P1) fps ∼44%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Pro 15 E23	70.7 (39.3^min, 42.6^P0.1, 58.2^P1) fps ∼38%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX XMG Focus 15 E23	56.8 (21^min, 27.3^P0.1, 39.9^P1) fps ∼30%
AMD Radeon 780M, R9 7940HS Minisforum Venus Series UM790 Pro	26.8 (15.4^min, 15.5^P0.1, 17.1^P1) fps ∼14%

Note

Because gaming tests are very time-consuming and are often constrained by installation or activation limits, we are only able to provide you with part of the benchmark results at the time of publishing this article. We will be adding more graphics cards over the coming days and weeks.

Overview

All test systems

Notebook	Graphics card	Processor	Memory
XMG Neo 17 E23	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 @175 W TGP (16 GB GDDR6X)	Intel Core i9-13900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
Schenker Key 17 Pro E23	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 @175 W TGP (12 GB GDDR6X)	Intel Core i9-13900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
XMG Pro 15 E23	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 @140 W TGP (8 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i9-13900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
XMG Pro 15 E23	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 @140 W TGP (8 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i9-13900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
XMG Focus 15 E23	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4050 @140 W TGP (6 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i9-13900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
Asus ROG Strix Scar 17	Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti @150 W TGP (16 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i9-12900H	2 x 16 GB DDR5
Acer Predator Helios 300	Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 Ti @150 W TGP (8 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i7-12700H	2 x 8 GB DDR5
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14	AMD Radeon RX 6800S (8 GB GDDR6) & AMD Radeon 680M	AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS	2 x 16 GB DDR5

Tower PC	Graphics card	Processor	Memory
Custom I / Asus ROG Strix Z790-F / G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB	Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 (16 GB GDDR6X) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (20 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i9-13900K	2 x 24 GB DDR5
Custom II	Palit GeForce RTX 4090 GameRock OC (24 GB GDDR6X) Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 FE (24 GB GDDR6X) MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Suprim X (8 GB GDDR6X) Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (8 GB GDDR6X) Nvidia Titan RTX (24 GB GDDR6) Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Super (8 GB GDDR6) Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 Super (8 GB GDDR6) KFA2 GeForce GTX 1660 Super (6 GB GDDR6) PNY GeForce GTX 1660 (6 GB GDDR5) KFA2 GeForce GTX 1650 Super (4 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 7600 (8 GB DDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (16 GB DDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6800 (16 GB DDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (12 GB DDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (12 GB DDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (8 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 6600 (8 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 5700 (8 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (6 GB GDDR6) AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (8 GB GDDR6)	AMD Ryzen 9 7950X	2 x 16 GB DDR5

Mini-PC	Graphics card	Processor	Memory
Minisforum NUCXi7	Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 @125 W TGP (8 GB GDDR6)	Intel Core i7-11800H	2 x 8 GB DDR4
Minisforum HX99G	AMD Radeon RX 6600M @100 W TGP (8 GB GDDR6)	AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	2 x 16 GB DDR5
Minisforum Neptune Series HN2673	Intel Arc A730M	Intel Core i7-12650H	2 x 8 GB DDR4
Minisforum UM790 Pro	AMD Radeon 780M	AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS	2 x 32 GB DDR5

4K monitors	Operating system	Nvidia driver	AMD driver
Gigabyte M32U	Windows 11	ForceWare 537.58	Adrenalin 23.10.1

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Glaser - Managing Editor Gaming Laptops - 640 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009

I discovered my interest in computers in my childhood, growing up with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 in the early 1990s. I was especially fascinated with computer games, even from an early age. From Monkey Island through Lands of Lore to Doom, I tried every game I could get my hands on. I have been working for Notebookcheck since 2009 with my focus mostly being on high-performance gaming laptops.

Translator: Zhiwei Zhuang - Translator - 254 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2022

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in environmental engineering, I moved from Singapore to Cologne in 2014 and began pursuing a career as a freelance translator. Much of my translation work focuses on science, engineering and technology. My fascination with computers and mobile electronics began when I was young. And I have fond memories reading countless tech and gaming magazines. Working with Notebookcheck gives me the opportunity to incorporate my personal interests into my professional work.

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > EA Sports FC 24 tech review: Laptop and desktop benchmarks

Florian Glaser, 2023-10-16 (Update: 2024-08-15)

Legend
5	Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps
	May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.
30	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
60	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 58fps
	May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.
?	Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.
	Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.
The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.