ive mentioned this a few times but with my i3 and gtx 970 I get around 70fps average on bf1 in full 64 player online maps,i used to get the rare stutter and big drops but I havnt for ages now,it plays as smooth as butter for me 
-
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.
Relatively poor performance from my 970
- Thread starter fastwunz
- Start date
ive mentioned this a few times but with my i3 and gtx 970 I get around 70fps average on bf1 in full 64 player online maps,i used to get the rare stutter and big drops but I havnt for ages now,it plays as smooth as butter for me
take fraps select to benchmark min max and avg fps and do a 60 second run. do this 3 times during your game in heavy action on a 64 player mp game.
then post results.look at your minimums especially . that is the main one which when all the bombs fire and hell is breaking loose is probably going to get you killed due to low fps.
many bench avg or max fps.see above 60 thats fine.when its not.its the minimum and thats often when you dont get that kill or are killed.
For 95% of games it's great but the two games you mentioned hammer it hard.
I went from a 4690k to a 5820k and notcied a huge improvement in FPS stability and smoothness with BF1.
With BF1 especially, if you want minimal frame drop and a smooth gaming experience your going to want an i7 of some sort.
I find that locking it to 60fps with a 2500k 4.4 + 980 gets rid of all the frame drops.
If you leave the framerate uncapped its going to stutter because the 2500k (or any i5 tbh) cant handle it until they patch the game.
Next year will be good to upgrade from a 2500k though with Zen coming.
If you leave the framerate uncapped its going to stutter because the 2500k (or any i5 tbh) cant handle it until they patch the game.
Next year will be good to upgrade from a 2500k though with Zen coming.
how is capping going to stop it dropping to 30 fpsit wont it will help with evenish frames but not the drops below 60.
Idk, but its worked for me and tons of people on the battlefield forums. My framerate never goes below 58-59 and is almost always at 61 and thats using an ancient 2500k on operations and conquest 64.
Interested in your results
told you your cpu is fine =]
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
You were the voice of reason, I'm actually taken back by the idiotic comments that plague these forums. You'd swear from around here that anything less than a Skylake 6600K is a waste of time.
Everyday I'm seeing people come out with stuff like "Skylake i3's aren't suitable for gaming", "that i5-2500 is way too slow for modern games", etc - and people straight away leap to "it's your CPU, upgrade" rather than actually try and assist with proper diagnosis.
Not for second saying a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU is comparable to Haswell or Skylake, but for the latest modern games and for the average person, they're still perfectly capable when paired with a good GPU for a solid, stable 60fps experience.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
Quite a few people even on these forums still run older setups. Upgrade is not always the path to better performance. I've been waiting for 3 years for something worth upgrading to and the difference is so small that it makes no difference and definitely not paying £500 or so just for the privilege of getting 6% extra performance.
Actually I find that a great GPU is the secret to unlocking decent performance so that's my path. Really old CPU, Motherboard and memory, but very good GPU
if it wasn't for my desire to run VR and 4k pretty soon, I would have still kept my 970. That card still packs a heavy punch regardless of what many say
Actually I find that a great GPU is the secret to unlocking decent performance so that's my path. Really old CPU, Motherboard and memory, but very good GPU
if it wasn't for my desire to run VR and 4k pretty soon, I would have still kept my 970. That card still packs a heavy punch regardless of what many say
Last edited:
they are fine cpus but saying they are fine for a game with less than a minimum spec is silly.
also as i have said countless times how many bench minimum fps.which is the most important fps benchmark to be done.most do avg or max.minimums show in bf1 that even i5s on 64 player maps drop well below 60 fps.some older i5s are dropping to 30 fps.this isnt bs its all over the battlefield forums.
new i5s are better than older ones but the time is looming in to get rid of the older sandybridge i5s that are so perfect for gaming .
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
That's a very vague comment, An i3 will run the majority of games fine but if you are building a PC that is predominantly for gaming you'd be better served by getting a quad core cpu as some games won't run smoothly on a dual core even though it has 4 threads.