• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did some testing on my ancient 1366 mobo with X5675. At stock CPU speed (3.06GHz) had really bad FPS drops with GPU usage going to about ~70% on a stock 970.

Overclocking the CPU to 4GHz removed the drops on Argonne Forest but could only reduce them on Ballroom Blitz and Kaiserslacht. Was very playable though and mostly stayed at 55+ fps (1080p Ultra).

Windows CPU usage during Ballroom Blitz:
Yda9UnH.jpg


Not bad for an old platform :p
 
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

well there is also tons of people on battlefield 1 forums saying why am i dropping to 30 fps. also as said benchmarked on same server with players with older i5s. that was proper benchmarks timed 1 minute runs min max and avg. people can spout the recommended is bs but tbh its pretty close to being right.

also as we already seen most people are not benching minimum frame rates. only avg and max.
 
playing it now it does around 40%- 50% on a i7-5930 @ 3.9 ive lowered my oc to see if it would make a difference still getting around 70-90 on ultra @ 3440x1440
 
Really? What do you blame then Windows? Because it was upgraded to Win 10 64 bit Pro with a new installation and is still slow.

In terms of wear, my desktop is in use 12-18 hours per day 365 days per year. My laptop can go a week without even being turned on and then it gets 1 hour usage.

Even when new, the i5 didn't even come close to the i7 in performance. I know others with i5's, and their desktop pale in comparison to the speed I have on mine. You get what you pay for.

You couldn't give me an i5 or i3.

As for gaming, the biggest bottleneck is nearly always graphics not CPU if you have anything 1/2 decent fitted. Personally I wouldn't expect to game on an i3.

One thing you forget to mention is that mobile i5s before the 6xxx series were all dual cores and some could be pretty low in frequency.

Also a 5 year old 3770k at 4Ghz would perform identically to a brand new 3770k at 4GHz. In terms of processing throughput there would be 0 measurable difference.
 
well there is also tons of people on battlefield 1 forums saying why am i dropping to 30 fps. also as said benchmarked on same server with players with older i5s. that was proper benchmarks timed 1 minute runs min max and avg. people can spout the recommended is bs but tbh its pretty close to being right.

also as we already seen most people are not benching minimum frame rates. only avg and max.

That's stupid logic. There are also people all over the Battlefield forums with GTX970s, GTX1070s and all kinds of performance cards that are getting terrible FPS.

But we don't leap to the conclusion that it's the raw power of the card at fault, do we? Of course not, it's a system issue.

Same with people getting bad FPS drops on i5's, it's not an inherent problem with i5 hardware, it's a system issue of some description, be it software, or a game issue with their specific hardware setup.

Remember when BF4 came out? Some people's game was crashing every round, other people (myself included) very rarely had the game crash at all. I also had an FX-6300 based system at the time and I was getting drops to 20fps all the time. But I didn't blame the CPU, I blamed the game.

Obviously if you're using a very old i5 - be it an i5-760 1st gen, or 2nd gen 'S' or 'T' model i5's, you will get some dips and drops.

But fully fledged i5-2500, i5-3470, types models are perfectly capable of maintaining a solid, reliable framerate.....

Did some testing on my ancient 1366 mobo with X5675. At stock CPU speed (3.06GHz) had really bad FPS drops with GPU usage going to about ~70% on a stock 970.

Overclocking the CPU to 4GHz removed the drops on Argonne Forest but could only reduce them on Ballroom Blitz and Kaiserslacht. Was very playable though and mostly stayed at 55+ fps (1080p Ultra).

Thanks for those figures, that's really interesting, haven't played BF1 on the 1st gen, but did play Fallout 4 on an overclocked i7-920.

It was technically badly bottlenecked with a GTX1070 but managed to maintain a pretty solid 55-60fps, remarkable for 7 year old hardware.

I'm backing my posts up with visual proof, you are just posting nonsense, show me how **** an i3 is for gaming.

Don't bother engaging with them, from my short time here there are a few tinfoil hat wearing types around here who feel their own opinion outweighs professional benchmarks, reviews, etc despite flying in the face of all logic and proof.

One guy here a few posts back essentially said he doesn't have to ever use an i3 to know it's crap - tells you all you need to know.

You post links to reliable benchmarks, reviews, from all manner of pro websites - they accuse them of being skewed, shills, and start spouting off personal anecdotes, linking to random forum posts, and sometimes random youtube videos to support their flawed arguments.
 
Terrorfirmer as said go read battlefield 1 forums.

its not made up.the issues with low fps is on everything under i7.

if its a bug.its a bug.if its using the extra horsepower its there.


the recommended say use a i5 min.how is a i3 good enough ? we all know it isnt for mp gaming.blah blah.it isnt.its that simple.unless you like drops all the time in big battle.

this isnt gpu system related.its all to do with the cpu.

i7s dont get the drops.read that again.i7s dont drop fps like the i5s or below do in bf1.doesnt matter what anyone says.its on the forums.the benchmarks show it.
 
Could it not be that some people have programs running in the background hogging CPU power, virus software etc. Maybe because an i7 is utilising its cores more efficiently it can handle the extra tasks without slowing the game down. Might be a reason why some people get the drops on i5s and some people dont.
 
So I see there is some arguing here about cpu limiting on bf1. I've got all the proof you want including graphs of fps, gpu utilisation, cpu utilisation. Only problem is I'm out right now and the screenshots are on my computer at home. I'm running an intel 2500k i5 at 4.4 Ghz with a 1070 graphics card. In essence the cpu utilastion is pegged at 100% and gpu utilisation is not going above 80%. You can clearly see the frame rate dipping. Because there is no spare cpu cycles when extra effects are needed such as during an explosion, the frame rate has to reduce. If it's a non busy part of the map everything is fine. It's only during heaven combat when the dips occur and only in 64 player maps.
 
its not made up.the issues with low fps is on everything under i7.

What you mean to say is SOME people are experiencing drops. Not everyone.

Some posts on Battlefield forum is not some magical irrefutable proof that every single i5 user in the game is experiencing low fps and drops.

Obviously by its very nature, people post on the BF forums with tech problems. When BF4 came out, there was about a million and one threads about crap performance on all kinds of systems too.

I think some people need to go learn what hyper threading does before pretending it's just as good as a physical core.

Where did anyone say that?

the recommended say use a i5 min.how is a i3 good enough ?

Because it is? A Skylake or Haswell i3 can run the game quite decently. Obviously the FPS isn't as good as an i5 but it's reliable and not everyone needs a rock solid minimum of 60fps gameplay.

Anyone who thinks a skylake i5 is genuinely the 'minimum' is deluded. The other minimum is an FX-6350 which is slower than any i5.... including sandy bridge from 2011.
 
So I see there is some arguing here about cpu limiting on bf1. I've got all the proof you want including graphs of fps, gpu utilisation, cpu utilisation. Only problem is I'm out right now and the screenshots are on my computer at home. I'm running an intel 2500k i5 at 4.4 Ghz with a 1070 graphics card. In essence the cpu utilastion is pegged at 100% and gpu utilisation is not going above 80%. You can clearly see the frame rate dipping. Because there is no spare cpu cycles when extra effects are needed such as during an explosion, the frame rate has to reduce. If it's a non busy part of the map everything is fine. It's only during heaven combat when the dips occur and only in 64 player maps.

No-one doubts that some people have issues. I've seen it myself and know people who have issues. I have a friend who has the exact same setup as you and he's ripping his hair out because he's got brutal stuttering in-game with his 2500K at 4.4Ghz as well.

But there are people here claiming that every single i5 is having dips and drops, which isn't the case. I know plenty other people with i5's who are having no issues. My second machine is an i5-6500 with an rX480 and I don't have any issues.
 
2500k can't compete with skylake quads when the CPU is pushed, so I can see people on sandybrige quads more CPU limited than those on skylake and so varying degrees of performance in BF1. In the highly threaded crysis 3 bench the 6500 is on par with the 3770k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4

That much is obvious, but the 2500K is not anymore bottlenecked than we already know compared with a Skylake i5, unless you have slow Ram on the 2500K, thats what they are saying. :)

The 2500K with 1333Mhz Ram is bottlenecked vs the i3 with 2666Mhz Ram

With 2133Mhz Ram the 2500K performance is much higher, in fact it is about 15 to 20% slower than a Skylake i5 6500 with 2666Mhz / 3200Mhz Ram.

The exception being Crysis 3 which needs the extra threads of the 3770K,

Although difficult to tell the 3770K at times actually seems to go a little above the performance of the Skylake i5.

So to sum up.

1333Mhz Ram bottlenecks the 2500K vs the Skylake i3 with 2666Mhz Ram
with 2133Mhz Ram the performance is much higher, the stock Skylake i5 with faster Ram is about <20% faster than a stock 2500K.

Crysis 3 likes CPU threads.

So if you have a 2500K and only 1600Mhz Ram, you can boost your performance by quite a chunk just by getting much faster Ram.



 
Last edited:
2500k can't compete with skylake quads when the CPU is pushed, so I can see people on sandybrige quads more CPU limited than those on skylake and so varying degrees of performance in BF1. In the highly threaded crysis 3 bench the 6500 is on par with the 3770k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4

I've got a 2500K system that beats everything in that test. Some say destroys everything in that :p
 
Ok here is an i5 2500k running at 4.4Ghz with a 1070 at 1440p with everything on Ultra except lighting and terrain. You can see classic CPU limiting. The GPU has loads of power left and the FPS is not too bad but is struggling to maintain a constant FPS. Its not unplayable even when it dips to 50 fps, and most people won't mind, but it does feel stuttery to me.

cpu%20limited_zpsomprbajq.jpg


Now with exactly the same instal now with an i7 2600k @ 4.4 Ghz. Its smooth as silk and holding 60 fps constantly.

cpu%20limited%20i7_zpsyqbos2nq.jpg


There is a small chance the i5 could have been running at 3.3Ghz on the first picture but the message is the same. BF1 is very CPU limiting on 64 player maps (other maps are fine). Fitting an i7 (even an old one) works wonders if you really want to lock that framerate down. Never mind an i3 CPU limiting, an i5 is cpu limiting, and here is the proof. That said it won't be an issue for most people.
 
yes you do get the occasional dip in frames but its more than playable on a modern i3,aimens is the only map that I get actual visible stutter on but it only happens every now and then,like I say my average frames are in the 70s,i get occasional drops into the 50s and on aimens map into the high 40s.

the stuttering only happens on that one map for me and its not like its constant, on every other map I notice no stutter etc and the game plays great :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom