Ok cheers
*** The Official Battlefield 2042 thread***
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
Ok cheers
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,143
- Location
- London
I can see spikes to 70-80% in this video with a 5600x in BFV.
Have a look at min 9:19 onwards.
So yea its definitely sitting around 80% cpu usage.
Have a look at min 9:19 onwards.
So yea its definitely sitting around 80% cpu usage.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 4,889
- Location
- Blackburn
Cheers. This is important information.
Edit - Very important information because it will put my mind at rest that the 5600x will still have some legs left for future titles especially BF 2042.
OK so just had a quick play. On Al Sudan with about 50 players my cpu usage was always mid 40s. On Panzerstorm with 64 players it was high 40s/low 50s and on a 64 player Metro it was mids 50s with a very brief jump to 66% once.
That's at 1440p and pretty much all settings at max bar a few like motion blur etc. FPS was 90-110.
That's with PBO on and curve optomized so all cores boost to 4850mhz btw.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,143
- Location
- London
Thanks
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,143
- Location
- London
@SpudMaster So the videos on YouTube showing spikey 80% cpu utilisation in BFV on a 5600x is not what you're seeing?
Can you see the problem here? Spiking to isn't the same as sitting around. Spikes for me, as long as it isn't hitting 100% or losing performance that effects gameplay then it's fine. If not then I upgrade.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 4,889
- Location
- Blackburn
No, I saw it spike to 66% once. What resolution do you play at? Those videos are at 1080p with a 6900xt and a RTX 3070. Hardly a realistic scenario unless you are purposely trying to up cpu utilisation.
5600X will be fine for a good while yet imo
some people will play with two cards that power at 1080. nevermind one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,143
- Location
- London
I'm at 1440p.
Those videos I posted show all resolutions apparently. (how much truth is debatable)
I am going to trust you lot that a 5600x will be just fine (BF2042) because I just bought it and was thinking to send it back for a 5800x, but the extra £100 doesn't seem worth it from benchmarks.
I've done a lot of research online and the top YouTubers all seem to say there isn't much in it between the 5600x, 5800x and 5900x in pure gaming.
Its just videos such as the ones I posted above that got me a bit worried when I say 80% cpu usage. And there are all resolutions in that video so its not just 1080p.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 4,889
- Location
- Blackburn
If you look at gaming benchmarks, the majority of games puts all the Zen 3 Ryzen cpus within a few fps of each other.
a lot of people are scaremongering saying you will need 8 cores because the new consoles are 8 core but in reality the number of cores is irrelevant and overall cpu performance is what matters. A 6 core Zen 3 cpu will be more powerful than a 8 core Zen 2 cpu at ~3500mhz like what is in the new consoles
I am not in anyway worried about whether my cpu will run bf2042. I think you are worrying over nothing. It doesn't look like they've done much to the engine since BFV apart from add some things to the scenery which may use more physics calculations. Large maps won't be a problem for you but for the server, the server will be calculating everything while you will only be calculating what is in view. At least that's how I understand it.
This article has cpu scaling in it https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/battlefield-v-pc-performance-benchmarks,4.html
This article has cpu scaling in it https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/battlefield-v-pc-performance-benchmarks,4.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,143
- Location
- London
Doubling of the player count 64 to 128.
They did add more particle effects and weather storms - though the storms are pre baked meaning the CPU won't need to do weather simulation which is good cause that would have ****** up most CPUs
player count as mentioned was doubled
September 22nd now being touted around twitter as the beta date. 
Very telling that activision is able to announce a beta date for cod and all dice can say is "september" which to me comes off like the game is behind schedule and theyre scrambling to slap something together. This is after all the company that excels at releasing half finished games so why not a half finished demo?
Very telling that activision is able to announce a beta date for cod and all dice can say is "september" which to me comes off like the game is behind schedule and theyre scrambling to slap something together. This is after all the company that excels at releasing half finished games so why not a half finished demo?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,139
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
It’s because many people are pressuring them to release it. Me tbh they should delay it until q1 next year if need be because the beta i played was basically a year away from being done IMO.September 22nd now being touted around twitter as the beta date.
Very telling that activision is able to announce a beta date for cod and all dice can say is "september" which to me comes off like the game is behind schedule and theyre scrambling to slap something together. This is after all the company that excels at releasing half finished games so why not a half finished demo?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
When was the last time a Battlefield game actually felt 'finished' on release? 
September 22nd now being touted around twitter as the beta date.
Very telling that activision is able to announce a beta date for cod and all dice can say is "september" which to me comes off like the game is behind schedule and theyre scrambling to slap something together. This is after all the company that excels at releasing half finished games so why not a half finished demo?
we all remmember battlenet
the player count on warzone is around 100 so shouldnt be any problems
no one with a 5600 should be worrying
When was the last time a Battlefield game actually felt 'finished' on release?
Probably the original, BFV took that to a whole new level, promised features cancelled long after release such as medics dragging players, they could get it to work in bf3 single player but not bfv multi for some reason. Customisation options for vehicles being mia well after the game had been out for a year, visibility issues being prevelant and weren't ever really fixed. The real joke is they allegedly delayed bfv by a month to "fix some issues", the game was released a minimum of 6 months early at least.
Thats par for the course with these games, EA want them out the door for Christmas season state of the game be damned, doesn't help when EA claimed that Dice were not just ahead of schedule, but WAY ahead of schedule yet somehow aren't even able to announce a date for a demo version.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...edule-supports-more-players-than-ever-before/