BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured

wazza300 · 31 Oct 2013 at 19:23

bf4 this,bf4 that :mad:

play some other games

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 19:23

Well the OP's benchmark is showing they're all bottlenecking a 7990, except maybe the 3970, but we can't be sure (At stock settings)
I don't know why you try and try and try to find a way that the FX83 doesn't bottleneck something like a 7990.

It doesn't make it unplayable.

It's like you don't comprehend what a bottleneck actually is (Seems like a lot of people don't to be honest, of they're just ignoring it), and basing on the FX95 results, even at 4.7GHZ you're going to get minor bottlenecking.

But of course, we don't know how limited this scene is.

I personally don't think an FX83 and a 7990 is a bad choice in BF4, it's just not the best choice.

And it's the 7990 that would be bottlenecked by the FX83.

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 19:53

wazza300 said:
bf4 this,bf4 that

play some other games

Tell me about it. You're looking at spending a good couple of grand for what ? To waste precise time out of your already busy life to play a silly game. LOL sounds like lose lose to me

As one managing director said when he walked in on our after hours LAN party....

" Gaming.... it's worse that ******* ! " (master****** well you know what I mean)

CD32 · 31 Oct 2013 at 20:19

Where is my Z80 processor in that list I was hoping to get a few more years out of it. :confused:

PowerPie5000 · 31 Oct 2013 at 20:44

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
the FX6300 has decent performance when compared to Intel CPUs in many games.

The FX-6300 is a brilliant CPU for the price! I upgraded my brothers CPU from a Phenom II x4 955 to an FX-6300 (the best his Gigabyte board can support) and there's quite a noticeable improvement! I then went and upgraded his GPU from a 1GB Radeon 6850 (Club3D OC edition) to a 2GB Radeon 7870 GHz edition (HIS IceQ X) and the performance gain is huge!!

I'd say his PC is now "Battlefield 4 Ready" without costing a fortune

.

gpuerrilla · 31 Oct 2013 at 20:56

Martini1991 said:
I don't know why you try and try and try to find a way that the FX83 doesn't bottleneck something like a 7990.

It's simple. I don't take what martin says as gospel even though you self admit you know your stuff. There happens to be two guys with this component criteria and I am asking them to do some analysis.

Martini1991 said:
It's like you don't comprehend what a bottleneck actually is (Seems like a lot of people don't to be honest, of they're just ignoring it), and basing on the FX95 results, even at 4.7GHZ you're going to get minor bottlenecking.

I am more interested in finding the right card that compliments the FX that's all. I cannot see anything wrong with that, and I am yet to see you provide some solutions/answers instead of retorting "bottleneck".

Martini1991 said:
I personally don't think an FX83 and a 7990 is a bad choice in BF4, it's just not the best choice.

Here we go again... then what IS? :rolleyes:

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:00

The best choice is surely the choice which gives the best performance :confused:

That doesn't make everything else unplayable.

Anyway, going to just leave you on ignore now, because I can't put up with it anymore.

Gazb · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:05

Rroff said:
One thing those results don't really show is how smooth the different CPUs feel - atleast going by the bf4 beta and having had a play with a few different CPUs theres quite a big difference in how smooth different CPUs feel even at the same framerates i.e. 4 core CPUs tend to feel bogged down a lot more when playing even compared to slower 6 or 8 core CPUs. (This is fairly unique to BF4).

This. ^
This is something I remember people saying about the difference in i7's over i5's in some games and doing tests by turning hyper threading off etc.
That even though the frame rates were very similar the i7 would quite often 'feel' better/smoother.
I'm not really sure how you would test for this though, minimum frame rate, render times etc?

I would like to see if in multiplayer the 8 cores on an AMD CPU help it stay smooth or make it feel smoother compared to a 6 or 4 core CPU, as I said I'm not sure if it can be done but it would be interesting.

Rroff · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:08

You used to get the inverse in some games though its not so common now - with HT enabled you'd get the same framerates or sometimes very very slightly lower but it would be quite stuttery for some people - disabling HT and it would be smooth as smooth. The raw framerate numbers themselves don't tell the whole tale.

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:15

Gazb said:
I would like to see if in multiplayer the 8 cores on an AMD CPU help it stay smooth or make it feel smoother compared to a 6 or 4 core CPU, as I said I'm not sure if it can be done but it would be interesting.

This is a good point since a lot out there say that SMP on AMD is far superior to Intel's hyperthreading.

However since Intel is far stronger per core the net result ends up in Intel's favour. Personally I've never liked Intel's hyperthreading but it's not bad enough to warrant going to weaker AMD cores

//edit thought you were comparing to a 4 core Intel but yes it should be if the OP is valid. + I still feel that scaling is upto 8 threads only

rolypolyman · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:27

Hi, ok can anyone answer this. Currently I have a 2500K and xfire 7950. Would I get less bottlenecking with an FX6300 or FX8320 in Crysis3, FarCry3 or BF4?

ALXAndy · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:41

rolypolyman said:
Hi, ok can anyone answer this. Currently I have a 2500K and xfire 7950. Would I get less bottlenecking with an FX6300 or FX8320 in Crysis3, FarCry3 or BF4?

The only way to ever know that is to try it. And AFAIK no one has tried it

Sorry, not the most helpful there but I would imagine your CPU is fine.

teppic · 31 Oct 2013 at 21:57

Tek Syndicate did tests of Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 with the 8350 and 3770K both overclocked, both are basically the same with 2x7970s. The i5 doesn't compete as well though in those games.

Rroff · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:04

Subliminal Aura said:
This is a good point since a lot out there say that SMP on AMD is far superior to Intel's hyperthreading.

However since Intel is far stronger per core the net result ends up in Intel's favour. Personally I've never liked Intel's hyperthreading but it's not bad enough to warrant going to weaker AMD cores

//edit thought you were comparing to a 4 core Intel but yes it should be if the OP is valid. + I still feel that scaling is upto 8 threads only

BF4 seems to have been optimised for 8 not particular fast cores so hyper threading it seems actually works really well with the game almost as good as having an actual extra core.

PowerPie5000 · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:12

Rroff said:
BF4 seems to have been optimised for 8 not particular fast cores so hyper threading it seems actually works really well with the game almost as good as having an actual extra core.

Definitely what i want to hear as i plan on swapping out my i5 3570k for an i7 3770k, and i don't want to switch over to AMD (unless they surprise us all with Steamroller

).

opethdisciple · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:16

I hope you guys realise, that the FX processors only get their performance in BF4 when running Win 8.1.

rolypolyman · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:22

Ok I guess what I'm really asking is will the 8320\50 serve me better than my 2500k going into the next couple of years. I can get a decent board and an FX8320 for £200 and recoup most of that selling my 2500k, mb etc. whereas I cant really afford a new board and 4770k or even just dropping a 3770k into my current board.

Ps: I never buy second hand. Just me.

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:23

rolypolyman said:
Hi, ok can anyone answer this. Currently I have a 2500K and xfire 7950. Would I get less bottlenecking with an FX6300 or FX8320 in Crysis3, FarCry3 or BF4?

It wouldn't be worth switching to.
If you're not against second hand, you can get an i7 3770K for about 160.

You can get 100 for your i5 2500K now tbh.

Does your 2500K not overclock anymore? 4.2GHZ is pretty low.

An i7 3770K is about 240, that's about 140 after selling your CPU if you're only going brand new, that'll be the better performer.

teppic · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:25

rolypolyman said:
Ok I guess what I'm really asking is will the 8320\50 serve me better than my 2500k going into the next couple of years. I can get a decent board and an FX8320 for £200 and recoup most of that selling my 2500k, mb etc. whereas I cant really afford a new board and 4770k or even just dropping a 3770k into my current board.

I think that it's more likely that next gen games will work better on an 8320 (overclocked) than a 2500K, because of the lack of HT. This is also what game developers say. But you could still sell your 2500K and get a 2nd hand 3770K?

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:26

rolypolyman said:
Ok I guess what I'm really asking is will the 8320\50 serve me better than my 2500k going into the next couple of years. I can get a decent board and an FX8320 for £200 and recoup most of that selling my 2500k, mb etc. whereas I cant really afford a new board and 4770k or even just dropping a 3770k into my current board.

I would rather fancy a used 3770k than be twisted into recommending an AMD setup

Surely you can get one for under £200 .... I'm sure I've seen some in MM for crazy cheap @ £160ish