-
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
I've not used a Skylake i3, but when I had a Pentium K system (Haswell) the performance was very choppy even with an overclock. That went away when I moved to an Athlon 860k system.
I would say don't bother buying a Z170 board and overclocking the dual core. Just drop in a i5.
Maybe hyper threading is 15-20% performance but the i3 is at a much lower clockspeed so probably pretty debatable whats faster.
The OP is seeing the same drops in performance I was with the dual core. That all went away with a quad core regardless of CPU clock speeds.
The OP is seeing the same drops in performance I was with the dual core. That all went away with a quad core regardless of CPU clock speeds.
I was curious so I swapped my 1070 in to my wifes rig to test out how much the i3 6100 would bottleneck in BF1, here are my results from a 2min benchmark run of the first campaign, Through Mud and Blood, a 2min tank drive to the windmill same route and actions taken each time.
Hopefully you can make sense of my notes as I can't be bothered to format it
1080p Ultra Preset DX11
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
Palit 1060 Dual 6gb 74c max. 1860mhz av. boost, stock
min. 71fps
av. 84fps
max. 97fps
Usage: 95-100% GPU, 90-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
Palit 1060 Dual 6gb 77c max. 2076mhz av. boost, Overclocked
min. 74fps
av. 89fps
max. 101fps
Usage: 90-100% GPU, 95-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
MSI 1070 Gaming X 8gb 69c max. 1949mhz av. boost, stock
min. 77fps
av. 91fps
max. 107fps
Usage: 75-80% GPU, 95-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
MSI 1070 Gaming X 8gb 72c max. 2063mhz av. boost, Overclocked
min. 79fps
av. 93fps
max. 115fps
Usage: 70-75% GPU, 95-100% CPU
So basically the 1060 6gb and i3 6100 are a good match as you are pretty much getting max usage out of both at 1080p Ultra. The 1070 cruises along at less than 80% usage and only gives <10fps extra while pegging the i3 6100 at max usage. Not much point in having anything more powerful.
Looks like the CPU upgrade should help OP the most, but I am surprised you are getting framerate dips to be honest. I also went in some busy 64p maps and performance was still over 70fps with stock i3 and 1060 so the RX470 seems to be having issues somewhere as well IMO.
Hopefully you can make sense of my notes as I can't be bothered to format it
1080p Ultra Preset DX11
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
Palit 1060 Dual 6gb 74c max. 1860mhz av. boost, stock
min. 71fps
av. 84fps
max. 97fps
Usage: 95-100% GPU, 90-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
Palit 1060 Dual 6gb 77c max. 2076mhz av. boost, Overclocked
min. 74fps
av. 89fps
max. 101fps
Usage: 90-100% GPU, 95-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
MSI 1070 Gaming X 8gb 69c max. 1949mhz av. boost, stock
min. 77fps
av. 91fps
max. 107fps
Usage: 75-80% GPU, 95-100% CPU
i3 6100 3.7ghz stock
8gb RAM 2133mhz
MSI 1070 Gaming X 8gb 72c max. 2063mhz av. boost, Overclocked
min. 79fps
av. 93fps
max. 115fps
Usage: 70-75% GPU, 95-100% CPU
So basically the 1060 6gb and i3 6100 are a good match as you are pretty much getting max usage out of both at 1080p Ultra. The 1070 cruises along at less than 80% usage and only gives <10fps extra while pegging the i3 6100 at max usage. Not much point in having anything more powerful.
Looks like the CPU upgrade should help OP the most, but I am surprised you are getting framerate dips to be honest. I also went in some busy 64p maps and performance was still over 70fps with stock i3 and 1060 so the RX470 seems to be having issues somewhere as well IMO.
you failed straight off the bat sorry to say.
mp is a true test in battlefield campaign is pretty different.
go do operations or a big conquest full on 64 players.then bench the same minute runs. min max and avg.
you will see a world of difference.
compared to single player you can see difference close to half in some cases.
mp is a true test in battlefield campaign is pretty different.
go do operations or a big conquest full on 64 players.then bench the same minute runs. min max and avg.
you will see a world of difference.
compared to single player you can see difference close to half in some cases.
I didn't notice much difference to be honest, I ran out of time last night but was planning to trying to do a repeatable bench in MP but its not easy. Any thoughts on how to be do that appreciated.
Main thing with single player is to get repeatability.
Regardless it still shows the i3 is perfectly fine for a good experience in BF1.
Main thing with single player is to get repeatability.
Regardless it still shows the i3 is perfectly fine for a good experience in BF1.
Just jumped on to a 64 players St Quentin Scar map, got in to some firefights in the middle of the map:
2016-10-26 07:01:15 - bf1
Frames: 9666 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.550 - Min: 44 - Max: 117
The only drop was when I died and it zoomed out to the overall map view, the drop was just while it zoomed. I wouldn't have noticed unless I was staring at the counter like I was
More maps need testing but again, I don't see anything wrong with that performance at 1080p Ultra?!
2016-10-26 07:01:15 - bf1
Frames: 9666 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.550 - Min: 44 - Max: 117
The only drop was when I died and it zoomed out to the overall map view, the drop was just while it zoomed. I wouldn't have noticed unless I was staring at the counter like I was
More maps need testing but again, I don't see anything wrong with that performance at 1080p Ultra?!
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
Good work with the testing and data Dave.
if it fits, yes ^^^^.
@ Daaaveee, your telling us that with CPU loads of 80 to 100% the i3 is perfectly fine, it isn't, with constant loads like that its not healthy for the CPU, the motherboard, the PSU and i very much doubt the gameplay is entirely smooth.
When the CPU is at 90%+ its running out of cycles, it can't do any more, if asked to perform another task it simply says no, the queue is back there.
What most reviewers do when they perform benchmarks is walk up the path, or anything where there is nothing going on, they do this because its easy to keep consistency.
It also doesn't put any stress on the CPU, so what you end up with is results that bare no resemblance to reality.
If you have x amount of threads all running at 90+% there isn't anything more the CPU can do, so the whole thing slows down, if you have more threads then you have some free threads that you can call on to do some work, everything is nice and stable.
Below are screenshots of an i5 and an FX83## in action, what happens between the two when they are not doing much and doing more, the action scene in this the i5 performance grinds right down, the FX-83## keeps the performance up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJhd_2y66A
People please stop recommending i3's as gaming CPU's, they are not. it also encourages Intel to keep making and selling dual core CPU's as £120 products and quad core CPU's as £200 products.
@ Daaaveee, your telling us that with CPU loads of 80 to 100% the i3 is perfectly fine, it isn't, with constant loads like that its not healthy for the CPU, the motherboard, the PSU and i very much doubt the gameplay is entirely smooth.
When the CPU is at 90%+ its running out of cycles, it can't do any more, if asked to perform another task it simply says no, the queue is back there.
What most reviewers do when they perform benchmarks is walk up the path, or anything where there is nothing going on, they do this because its easy to keep consistency.
It also doesn't put any stress on the CPU, so what you end up with is results that bare no resemblance to reality.
If you have x amount of threads all running at 90+% there isn't anything more the CPU can do, so the whole thing slows down, if you have more threads then you have some free threads that you can call on to do some work, everything is nice and stable.
Below are screenshots of an i5 and an FX83## in action, what happens between the two when they are not doing much and doing more, the action scene in this the i5 performance grinds right down, the FX-83## keeps the performance up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJhd_2y66A
People please stop recommending i3's as gaming CPU's, they are not. it also encourages Intel to keep making and selling dual core CPU's as £120 products and quad core CPU's as £200 products.
This is very typical of my own experience moving from an FX 83## to the 4690K
Intel is better when fewer cores are needed AMD do better when more cores are needed.... heavy AI and physics calc, ecte...
It does not make one better than the other, it just makes them different, if the i5 can't keep pace with the FX83## in such situation the i3 certainly can't.
Last edited:
well heres some data to show why.
i3 and i5s and dx12 almost half performance.so basically avoid using dx12 if you want the best performance.quite funny seeing how some were saying dx12 was better for cpu performance and how smooth it is in comparison.
50 percent drop on some card cpus cfgs ! thats some smoothness
http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html
i3 and i5s and dx12 almost half performance.so basically avoid using dx12 if you want the best performance.quite funny seeing how some were saying dx12 was better for cpu performance and how smooth it is in comparison.
50 percent drop on some card cpus cfgs ! thats some smoothness
http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html
All I can do is post my experience with using the CPU, it feels fast and responsive and I don't see any noticeable dips in framerates. Without sitting you down to experience it for yourself, what else can I do but post the benchmarks?
We could debate the finer points all day with regard to usage etc. but I still stand by the i3 6100's performance in BF1 at 1080p Ultra DX11 based on first hand experience.
We could debate the finer points all day with regard to usage etc. but I still stand by the i3 6100's performance in BF1 at 1080p Ultra DX11 based on first hand experience.
GamerNexus dx11 vs dx12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX2vE-P9eJ0
Amd barely benefits from dx12, nvida loses performance in dx 12.
As for the op i3, if he didn't have a h110 board then clocking the I3 would reduce most if not all the stuttering. The only solution is a 6500 but looking the prices i'd not bother.
Either find a 2nd hand 6500 or buy a z board which can adopt an older bios to overclock non k chips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX2vE-P9eJ0
Amd barely benefits from dx12, nvida loses performance in dx 12.
As for the op i3, if he didn't have a h110 board then clocking the I3 would reduce most if not all the stuttering. The only solution is a 6500 but looking the prices i'd not bother.
Either find a 2nd hand 6500 or buy a z board which can adopt an older bios to overclock non k chips.
Last edited:
He has an i5 on the way
Last edited:
Yeah also don't think op has h110 board, i misread it's dave with 110 board.
Either way i'd have bought a zboard and clocked the I3 first.
op does not have a zboard.
well heres some data to show why.
i3 and i5s and dx12 almost half performance.so basically avoid using dx12 if you want the best performance.quite funny seeing how some were saying dx12 was better for cpu performance and how smooth it is in comparison.
50 percent drop on some card cpus cfgs ! thats some smoothness
http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html
wow DX12 SUX, OP should be running DX11 to cure frame drops.
I know that jeesus
- Status