-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
i3 6100 not good enough for BF1
- Thread starter Drake5
- Start date
- Status
Thinking about it the first thing I did was check it was running at 4.4Ghz when I noticed the game was using 100% of the cpu cycles (and it was). On the day of the screen grabs I never checked though.
Wow, so after reading all these posts the conclusion is that the i3 is not a gaming CPU based on the fact that some cant play BF1?
You do all know there are other games out there right? and that the i3 is very capable playing them games without any drama?
See im not dismissing the fact that the i5 and i7 are better, im just saying for the best part, the i3 can keep up in most games, and is half the price of an i5, and a third of an i7.
Yes its fair to say in large multiplayer maps can have a bigger affect on the cpu compared to single player, but there are also other variables that can have an impact on you system too, same happened when BF4 came out, game smoothed out over time, with better drivers, and better game patches, and fairs to say it affected everybody and one stage or another no matter how good your system was, and thats why i vowed never to buy BF game again, as much as i love the game, enough was enough, pay all that money for a game that was not ready for release, just rushed out so E.A could get in on the shelves before C.O.D.
Anyway, if your system cant handle 64 player maps, play on 32 player maps instead, is cheaper than upgrade, and just as much fun, from what i remember
You do all know there are other games out there right? and that the i3 is very capable playing them games without any drama?
See im not dismissing the fact that the i5 and i7 are better, im just saying for the best part, the i3 can keep up in most games, and is half the price of an i5, and a third of an i7.
Yes its fair to say in large multiplayer maps can have a bigger affect on the cpu compared to single player, but there are also other variables that can have an impact on you system too, same happened when BF4 came out, game smoothed out over time, with better drivers, and better game patches, and fairs to say it affected everybody and one stage or another no matter how good your system was, and thats why i vowed never to buy BF game again, as much as i love the game, enough was enough, pay all that money for a game that was not ready for release, just rushed out so E.A could get in on the shelves before C.O.D.
Anyway, if your system cant handle 64 player maps, play on 32 player maps instead, is cheaper than upgrade, and just as much fun, from what i remember
A compromised CPU is not really a recommendable CPU, is it?
"The i3 is a gaming CPU as long as you don't plan on using it for some games"
I don't get why this is such an evocative subject for some people, is there an i3 subset of the Intel fan club or what is going on here?
"The i3 is a gaming CPU as long as you don't plan on using it for some games"
I don't get why this is such an evocative subject for some people, is there an i3 subset of the Intel fan club or what is going on here?
title of thread " i3 6100 not good enough for BF1 "
the statement is true.other games are not what the topic is about going off the title of the post.
This guy speaks da truth. All I see is people claiming you can't game on an i3 who don't own one.
https://www.battlefield.com/games/battlefield-1/tech
battlefield begs to differ.
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-u...rap-the-cpu-requirement-i-have-an-i5-3570k/p2
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/49115/i5-dead-or-wait-for-patch#latest
i3 isnt even a minimum spec.yes i see they added a amd cpu before its used.
https://www.battlefield.com/games/battlefield-1/tech
battlefield begs to differ.
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-u...rap-the-cpu-requirement-i-have-an-i5-3570k/p2
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/49115/i5-dead-or-wait-for-patch#latest
i3 isnt even a minimum spec.yes i see they added a amd cpu before its used.
well how am I playing it fine then? smooth as butter on EVERY map apart from aimens which I occasionally get a tad of stutter,i don't know why you keep saying its unplayable on a i3 when you don't even own one lol I DO and it plays excellently!
yet i just watched a video on youtube showing the fps at lows of 35 with same cpu lol.at ultra at 1080.
you can tell you lagging while shooting at people.show the minimums.[/QUOTE
my frames have never dropped into the 30s! and I'm not laggin at all lol
it has occasionally dropped into the 40s on aimens but on the map in that video it very rarely drops below 70fps,sometimes it may go into 60s but not very often,it plays amazing on my setup,i don't care what videos you have seen lol I actually have an i3 and play the bloody game so
lol yes it can occasionally drop into the 40s on aimens map but it only does it quick then shoots back up,its the only map where I have had the occasional stutter,every other map play smooth as butter for me,im not saying an i5 or i7 wouldn't give better performance I'm saying its more than playable on a i3 cpu maxed out at good frames
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
Can't believe this thread is still going
I know, people using the official minimum requirements and a few people having tech issues on the official forums as 'proof' to shout down people here who are actually playing the bloody game on their own i3's without any issues.
No, it's not. At no point has this been proven apart , all you're doing is continuously referencing people in the BF forums and quoting official requirements.
Occassional drops into the 40's might not suit you, and personally I'd not be happy either, but for the majority of non-enthusiast PC gamers, average framerates of 60-70 with minimums of 40's is nowhere near unplayable.
The question was - is Skylake i3 enough to play BF1? The answer is, as clear as day, yes it is. Not everyone's an enthusiast who needs 100fps with minimum's of 60...not even close.
The enviorment will make a diference
There might be background cpu usage
And adressing the obvious:
the i3 6100 is a 3.7Ghz cpu with a 3Mb ,,Intel® Smart Cache``
Wille the i3 6320 is a 3.9ghz cpu with a 4Mb ,,Intel® Smart Cache``
It is not the same product
There might be background cpu usage
And adressing the obvious:
the i3 6100 is a 3.7Ghz cpu with a 3Mb ,,Intel® Smart Cache``
Wille the i3 6320 is a 3.9ghz cpu with a 4Mb ,,Intel® Smart Cache``
It is not the same product
Terrorfirmer rather than go round and round in circles. the cpu isnt even the minimum requirement.it drops to 30-40 fps. while you may find that acceptable Dice doesnt who make the game.nor do many others.
it may some of the time play nice but if we honest is 30-40 fps acceptable or good enough ?
for you it is. for me it isnt.thats why we debate about it.
even with the requirements maybe a bit strong and tbh you should have atleast a i5 for comfortable fps constant the i3 isnt really suited for bf1 and big games.
a 1960s mini might make it to 60 mph but you wouldnt use it like that every day when you can cruise in a modern car easily.more comfortable and with less fps drops
it may some of the time play nice but if we honest is 30-40 fps acceptable or good enough ?
for you it is. for me it isnt.thats why we debate about it.
even with the requirements maybe a bit strong and tbh you should have atleast a i5 for comfortable fps constant the i3 isnt really suited for bf1 and big games.
a 1960s mini might make it to 60 mph but you wouldnt use it like that every day when you can cruise in a modern car easily.more comfortable and with less fps drops
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
Actually if you even read my post I clearly said I wouldn't be personally happy with dips into the 40's.
I also wouldn't personally be happy to play the game at anything less than 1440p ultra @ 80-100fps but I don't go around telling people what they should have shouldn't find acceptable.
If someone else plays at 1080p low settings @40-50fps and they're having fun, who am I to tell them 'Sorry, not good enough, you can't play the game because DICE say your PC isn't good enough'.
The FX-6350 is also listed as a minimum requirement and that CPU also dips badly in BF1. But I guess because DICE say it's OK then we just accept that as gospel?
Dice also say the GTX660 is the minimum requirement for the game even though we know from experience that the game runs perfectly fine on slower cards at lower settings - should we also throw them in the bin because DICE says they won't work?
People here are way too eager to assume that 60fps should be the minimum, which is just ridiculous - not everyone needs that, or cares, and even if they do, not everyone's in a position to buy a new PC.
Loads of XB1 and PS4 titles run locked at 30fps, like Fallout 4, but you don't hear the masses claim the game is unplayable or that the consoles 'can't play the game'.
No-one's trying to tell people they can play BF1 on a Pentium 2, a more appropriate comparison would be cars from 2005 compared to cars from 2016.
There's a reason why the majority of cars on UK roads are older cars - not everyone can afford to buy a new car every year and not every one can afford to buy a top-end i5 system every few years either.
End of the day, telling people with Skylake i3's that they can't play the game, or shouldn't, is just elitish arrogance in the highest.
So once again - If you have a Skylake i3 based system, can you play Battlefield 1?
The answer is yes, with a fairly strong framerate which will dip slightly in some of the more hectic urban maps but never into unplayable levels.
Anyone who walks away from that simple fact with 'The game is unplayable on Skylake i3' is deluded and simply projecting their own standards.
I also wouldn't personally be happy to play the game at anything less than 1440p ultra @ 80-100fps but I don't go around telling people what they should have shouldn't find acceptable.
If someone else plays at 1080p low settings @40-50fps and they're having fun, who am I to tell them 'Sorry, not good enough, you can't play the game because DICE say your PC isn't good enough'.
The FX-6350 is also listed as a minimum requirement and that CPU also dips badly in BF1. But I guess because DICE say it's OK then we just accept that as gospel?
Dice also say the GTX660 is the minimum requirement for the game even though we know from experience that the game runs perfectly fine on slower cards at lower settings - should we also throw them in the bin because DICE says they won't work?
People here are way too eager to assume that 60fps should be the minimum, which is just ridiculous - not everyone needs that, or cares, and even if they do, not everyone's in a position to buy a new PC.
Loads of XB1 and PS4 titles run locked at 30fps, like Fallout 4, but you don't hear the masses claim the game is unplayable or that the consoles 'can't play the game'.
No-one's trying to tell people they can play BF1 on a Pentium 2, a more appropriate comparison would be cars from 2005 compared to cars from 2016.
There's a reason why the majority of cars on UK roads are older cars - not everyone can afford to buy a new car every year and not every one can afford to buy a top-end i5 system every few years either.
End of the day, telling people with Skylake i3's that they can't play the game, or shouldn't, is just elitish arrogance in the highest.
So once again - If you have a Skylake i3 based system, can you play Battlefield 1?
The answer is yes, with a fairly strong framerate which will dip slightly in some of the more hectic urban maps but never into unplayable levels.
Anyone who walks away from that simple fact with 'The game is unplayable on Skylake i3' is deluded and simply projecting their own standards.
- Status