Trolling or just ignorant, not so sure.
-
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
Trolling or just ignorant, not so sure.
Your point wasn't valid from the first page of this thread and you had been proved wrong by a number of people.
So think what you want.
Last edited:
Ignorant it is, suggest you watch some benchmarks and learn the difference between a pentuim and i3 for gaming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-FlDMzn4Mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqz6Y5TIQE
Last edited:
the simple answer is for single player a i3 is decent enough.
for mp at 1080 or above it will struggle and even be a slide show.until bf1 devs either patch how the game is now or a better cpu is used.
99 percent of the benchmarks done are in single player.which is light years away from maps like scar with rain and 64 mp games.
its literally half the fps again difference from single player.
so as said earlier the only way to do it and get accurate figures is go play the maps in 64 man server in action.not on edge.do 60 sec timed benchmark with min,max,avg fps and post details.
do that with fraps 3 times then look at the results. you will see even i5s cant cut it at the current build of bf1 regardless of what people say.people are having drops in mp as low as 30 fps on i5s.that maybe bf1 current builds fault or it maybe just that the extra horsepower in i7 and above are being used.
the i7s dont drop in fps like the lower cpus.i tried all maps.
for mp at 1080 or above it will struggle and even be a slide show.until bf1 devs either patch how the game is now or a better cpu is used.
99 percent of the benchmarks done are in single player.which is light years away from maps like scar with rain and 64 mp games.
its literally half the fps again difference from single player.
so as said earlier the only way to do it and get accurate figures is go play the maps in 64 man server in action.not on edge.do 60 sec timed benchmark with min,max,avg fps and post details.
do that with fraps 3 times then look at the results. you will see even i5s cant cut it at the current build of bf1 regardless of what people say.people are having drops in mp as low as 30 fps on i5s.that maybe bf1 current builds fault or it maybe just that the extra horsepower in i7 and above are being used.
the i7s dont drop in fps like the lower cpus.i tried all maps.
Pentium Dual Core will stutter in games...Had a G3258 @ 4.2ghz and while a fantastic CPU wasn't suitable for multi threaded games.
I3 Hyper threading. Dual Core 4 threads.
This will help immensily in todays games. And its a very capable gaming CPU.
But
Having Four Physical cores will always yield better performance.
i7 4 core 8 threads...For online gaming this will yield better results still.
To suggest that a Skylake i3 is not a gaming CPU is quite frankly BS
I3 Hyper threading. Dual Core 4 threads.
This will help immensily in todays games. And its a very capable gaming CPU.
But
Having Four Physical cores will always yield better performance.
i7 4 core 8 threads...For online gaming this will yield better results still.
To suggest that a Skylake i3 is not a gaming CPU is quite frankly BS
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
bf1 is going to use all the cores, many games dont so i3 would suit other choices better then this. Overclock it a lot?
Shame you cant divert physics to the GPU or can you ? I would guess its not adaptable enough
Its something to do with hitbox detection, more player models is a notable tax on cpu. When they altered csgo to stop model parts being seen through small wall sections it lowered fps for a lot of people but I think its coming from the cpu. Luckily that game doesnt really keep many models on screen but bf1 with all 64 players in front of you is probably an amazing stress test. Would be good to get it tested for the humble gamer
Shame you cant divert physics to the GPU or can you ? I would guess its not adaptable enough
Don
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 8,993
- Location
- Kent
The OP says that his FPS dips, not that it is actually struggling.
I find it hard to believe that the minimum specs that BF1 needs to run is an i5 6600k, anyone with an older CPU such as an i5 2600K playing this game?
More importantly, is anybody else in this thread running BF1 on an i3? Not on maximum settings?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
Just to add to this thread, those that are saying the i3 is not suitable for gaming are just plain wrong. Lumping it in with Pentium processors is just plain unfair.
I agree fully with Raven, the BF1 'minimum' specs are absolute garbage, no idea why game dev's so radically over inflate requirements. They do it all the time, not just DICE.
Wolfenstein springs to mind, Dev's recommended an i7 even though benches proved that there was zero difference between an i5 and i7 in all benchmarks, and even very little difference between an i3 and i5.
Who would actually believe that the 'minimum requirement could simultaneously be an FX-6350 and a 6600K? The difference between those two processors is night and day.
Also remember Fallout 4 - the minimum requirements were a GTX550Ti or a HD7870, even though the latter is twice as fast!
Game requirements are frequently just random nonsense, I don't know why, but they are. You have to go by experience.
An i3-6100 runs the game excellently, not as good as an i5 obviously but very acceptably and very reliably.
I haven't personally played the game on an i3-6100 but I have played the beta on the i3-4160 and it ran excellently with a GTX970. I've even run the beta on an i3-3240 and it also ran fine, although the FPS was not brilliant it was stable enough and would be fine for most players with modest expectations (40-50).
The OP said he was experiencing dips, not that it was performing badly. It may be the case that he's getting 70fps with dips to say, 50fps. Which is not surprising for a dual core processor, but it's far from terrible performance.
Fully agree. I've seen a lot of rubbish in general posted here and in other tech forums by people who have clearly never even used an i3.
Yes, I have run it on i3-3240, i3-4160, i5-2400, i5-2500, in terms of older processors. All run fine, the i3-3240 isn't brilliant but it's OK (usually 40-50). Runs perfectly on the Sandybridge i5's locked to 60fps, i3-4160 largely holds up fine too.
If you're aiming for 100fps at ultra settings, the i3-6100 isn't going to hold up obviously. For the vast majority of people, it runs the game perfectly paired with a decent card.
I agree fully with Raven, the BF1 'minimum' specs are absolute garbage, no idea why game dev's so radically over inflate requirements. They do it all the time, not just DICE.
Wolfenstein springs to mind, Dev's recommended an i7 even though benches proved that there was zero difference between an i5 and i7 in all benchmarks, and even very little difference between an i3 and i5.
Who would actually believe that the 'minimum requirement could simultaneously be an FX-6350 and a 6600K? The difference between those two processors is night and day.
Also remember Fallout 4 - the minimum requirements were a GTX550Ti or a HD7870, even though the latter is twice as fast!
Game requirements are frequently just random nonsense, I don't know why, but they are. You have to go by experience.
An i3-6100 runs the game excellently, not as good as an i5 obviously but very acceptably and very reliably.
I haven't personally played the game on an i3-6100 but I have played the beta on the i3-4160 and it ran excellently with a GTX970. I've even run the beta on an i3-3240 and it also ran fine, although the FPS was not brilliant it was stable enough and would be fine for most players with modest expectations (40-50).
The OP said he was experiencing dips, not that it was performing badly. It may be the case that he's getting 70fps with dips to say, 50fps. Which is not surprising for a dual core processor, but it's far from terrible performance.
Fully agree. I've seen a lot of rubbish in general posted here and in other tech forums by people who have clearly never even used an i3.
Yes, I have run it on i3-3240, i3-4160, i5-2400, i5-2500, in terms of older processors. All run fine, the i3-3240 isn't brilliant but it's OK (usually 40-50). Runs perfectly on the Sandybridge i5's locked to 60fps, i3-4160 largely holds up fine too.
If you're aiming for 100fps at ultra settings, the i3-6100 isn't going to hold up obviously. For the vast majority of people, it runs the game perfectly paired with a decent card.
Last edited:
well the definition of " fine " is with the user.
if running at 1080 on low and getting 30-40 fps is okay well okay.to many others that isnt exceptable.
i have many people playing with me in teamspeak.we have been benching as we play together in mp.
i5 are struggling and dropping even on low settings at 1080 to 30 fps in most 64 man games. so how is a i3 going to do any better ?
30 fps isnt gaming to many.i understand if you on a budget then fair enough.just for battlefield the specs really are correct.
you should have a i5 minimum really if you want to enjoy the game fully.i3 just isnt good enough with the current build.
go on the battlefield forums read the threads.
if running at 1080 on low and getting 30-40 fps is okay well okay.to many others that isnt exceptable.
i have many people playing with me in teamspeak.we have been benching as we play together in mp.
i5 are struggling and dropping even on low settings at 1080 to 30 fps in most 64 man games. so how is a i3 going to do any better ?
30 fps isnt gaming to many.i understand if you on a budget then fair enough.just for battlefield the specs really are correct.
you should have a i5 minimum really if you want to enjoy the game fully.i3 just isnt good enough with the current build.
go on the battlefield forums read the threads.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
If you're dropping to 30fps with an i5, there's something else seriously wrong with your system, no i5 drops that badly unless you're talking about 1st generation i5's, or possibly some of the low clocked sandybridge T models.
I've never hit close to 30fps with an i5-2500.
I've never hit close to 30fps with an i5-2500.
Lol I don't believe you.
I already know the difference thank you as I don't go building my customers gaming PC's with dual core CPU's.
And I don't go thinking a i3 is a quad core because it has 2 cores and 4 threads. i3 is still a dual core CPU, not recommended if you want PS4/Xbox One quality experience in PC gaming with the latest titles.
You know nothing obviously, go watch them vids again until it sinks in.
@DG
Plenty of youtube vids showing quads running BF1 above 60 fps all the time on 64 man servers with full GPU utilization, so yeah show me proof and not porkies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQg5WhO8_vI
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
could it be that lower graphics also reduces cpu load not just on throughput. Combining 1080 with i3 does an obvious throttle situation but if they arent fussy and it is just one game then its probably fine at some combination of quality and res
I don't need to see benchmarks from a website, they can benchmark till the cows come home. I don't care and I don't need it as i have enough hardware here at work to experience it myself.
So you can continue sitting there on your backside throwing shoddy insults because everyone else is wrong and you are right.
It struggles in what? photoshop....
I don't need to see benchmarks from a website, they can benchmark till the cows come home. I don't care and I don't need it as i have enough hardware here at work to experience it myself.
So you can continue sitting there on your backside throwing shoddy insults because everyone else is wrong and you are right.
I'm backing my posts up with visual proof, you are just posting nonsense, show me how **** an i3 is for gaming.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Do a screenshot of afterburner's graphs while you have a quick game. It tracks all the threads, its pages long for me as I have 16 and most games wont use more then 2 or 3 but I think bf1 is part of the trend to use far more
- Status