benchmarks on numerous sites have shown BF3 runs just as well with 2 cores as it does with 4.
It's all about GPU when it comes to BF3.
-
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.
So I wnet and bought a Bulldoser
- Thread starter Cool Breeze
- Start date
benchmarks on numerous sites have shown BF3 runs just as well with 2 cores as it does with 4.
It's all about GPU when it comes to BF3.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 66
Well I've got 2 and I'm getting a laggy kind of feel from the game. The framerate is about 40-50 fps but input feels laggy.
If I drop the resolution it is fine.
Monitoring CPU usage during the game shows that if I run it in Eyefinity I'm maxing the CPU across all cores. If I run on a single monitor it is no where near busy.
Edit: I can post some screens later if need.
Edit 2: Sorry should say that I run in Eyefinity - none of the benchmarks covered this
Last edited:
Caporegime
More likely to be buggy Xfire drivers than lack of GPU grunt with 2x6950's....
Associate
watts when talking about this CPU actually refers to "watts tha ***$, you bought a bulldozer?"
Caporegime
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 66
Yeh - well slightly above with the bezel compensation.
The FPS looks good but it feels like playing in treacle. If I drop down to one screen it feels normal.
As I said, the CPU usage shoots up when using Eyefinity.
Soldato
Yeah it will do, As said Benchmarks dont cover proper multi GPUs. CPU usage goes through the roof transfering data back and forth to multiple GPUs. Even 8 and 6 cores get tested. Infact its where they come into their own.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 66
Exactly why I am interested in the day-to-day experience of someone with a Bulldozer chip.
I stupidly jumped the gun and bought a Crosshair V thinking BD was going to be on par with a 2500k.
I'm probably still going to get one - the 8150.
You'd be better off buying a 1090.....6 real cores, instead of this 8150's 4 cores + snake oil salesman 4 'cores'.
8 Cores, my arse....nothing but a souped version of hyperthreading.....
If you do go for a Bulldozer cpu do yourself a favour and get the FX8120. The 8150 is a waste of money in comparison.
Soldato
Indeed.
I have run BF 3 in SLi and I can confirm that it utilizes all 8 cores around 50% and I have been able to up my settings as I get no slowdown in intense fire fights anymore i.e Caspian Boarder 64 player servers, on my 2400 sandy I had to run all medium as any Higher and and my FPS would drop in high density areas with lots happening.
Overclocking is easy on this chip although she doe's get a little warm but I have to do some proper testing / benching over the weekend.
Strange that. I've never had any slow-down or fps problems on my i7 920, & I thought that the 2400 was meant to be a stronger chip. I was also under the impression that BF3 was far more GPU limited than CPU.
I cite the following paragraph from bit-tech's BF3 performance analysis.
"It didn't matter whether the CPU was running at 3.2GHz, 3GHz or even 2GHz; our benchmarks returned the same results. Even when we dropped the CPU down from four cores to only two, the in-game frame rates proved annoyingly stubborn. While BF3 will load itself across all four CPU cores when presented with a quad-core CPU, it seems to have little benefit when it comes to performance, running just as well with much lower clock speeds, or on a dual-core CPU."
Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7
I don't doubt that you've experienced some kind of improvement, it just surprises me a little. Like I almost fell off my chair in surprise, although I managed not to make a squealing noise at the same time. That would have been embarrassing, especially at work.
I cite the following paragraph from bit-tech's BF3 performance analysis.
"It didn't matter whether the CPU was running at 3.2GHz, 3GHz or even 2GHz; our benchmarks returned the same results. Even when we dropped the CPU down from four cores to only two, the in-game frame rates proved annoyingly stubborn. While BF3 will load itself across all four CPU cores when presented with a quad-core CPU, it seems to have little benefit when it comes to performance, running just as well with much lower clock speeds, or on a dual-core CPU."
Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7
I don't doubt that you've experienced some kind of improvement, it just surprises me a little. Like I almost fell off my chair in surprise, although I managed not to make a squealing noise at the same time. That would have been embarrassing, especially at work.
I had read the same thing as you so Imagine my surprise when it was utilising all 8.
Soldato
You're running SLI though, So those benchmarks dont apply to you. I'm guessing you're probably aware though by now 
Soldato
Well if you're going to get one, the 8120 is probably the best choice. What are the temps like then? The one Gareth had didn't run anywhere near as hot as the review ones.
Associate