• 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.

Would an i3 stand up to BF3?

Rik1254

Rik1254

Rik1254

Associate
Joined
11 Jul 2011
Posts
1,632
Location
Abertillery - S.Wales
Well....would it?

1155 socket, either the 2100 or 2120 (3.1/3.3 GHz)

Forgot to say what GFX card :P

Ill probably be upgraded by then to the HD 6850, so would I be bottlenecked by the i3?
 
Last edited:
I read about the Alpha build using all 6 cores of the Phenom x6 so I don't see how even a quad core is going to fair that well if its coded like that.
 
Its not all about the processor though if your going to be playing BF3 I would suggest
you get the i5 and a big graphics card to go along with it so the card take 95% of the
weight of the game, I am getting another 460 so I can Sli them and then it will run BF3
sweet as.
 
Well I was going to get an x6 1100T to tide me over till Ivybridge comes out, or if BD is epic and pushes down i5/i7's enough to make them within current budget, but my motherboard was a dud.

Im now thinking of getting one of those Asus GTX 460's thats currently on offer as its only £100 and see if the company I got the mobo off can repair it so I dont have to buy another.
 
If i3 2100/2120 is not good enough for BF3, then neither is overclocked Core2Quad or Phenom II X4, since the i3 2100 deliver better/on par frame rate as them.

Realistically, a i3 2100 ain't gonna bottleneck a single GPU graphic card...only if you got high-end graphic setup like CF6950 or above that would be capable of delivering constant 50fps+, whereas the CPU might only deliver 40fps thus bottleneck happens. If a single GPU graphic card can't deliver more frame rate than than what the CPU can, then there would be no CPU bottleneck (i.e. CPU capable of delivering 40fps, but graphic card only capable of delivering 35fps).
 
Save yourself the monies of getting a different platform mate.

A 1090T or 1100t with a bit of overclocking will more than handle BF3 ;)

BF3 isn't just about graphics, theres physics processing etc which WILL use the cpu better.
 
Tea_Bag said:
I read about the Alpha build using all 6 cores of the Phenom x6 so I don't see how even a quad core is going to fair that well if its coded like that.
Click to expand...

The BFBC2 Frostbite engine had good threaded support, it will somewhat scale to however many cores you throw at it, or indeed threads. However, it's not a case that going from 4 to 6 cores will give 50% more compute power. It will allow the CPU to be better balanced, be less stressed and may lead to some performance benefits where individual cores are maxed out, so the load can be spread.

I'm 100% sure though that a 6-core AMD will be a great way to play the game, although I strongly suspect a modern 4-core Intel will likely perform a little better.

There is some evidence that hyperthreaded processors have performance benefits for the Frostbite engine, have a google around.
 
If bf3 is anything like bfbc2, you may find a dual core somewhat lacking, a few dual users in the main bc2 thread complained of low fps using c2d's, updating to c2q's gave them noticeable gains.
 
setter said:
If bf3 is anything like bfbc2, you may find a dual core somewhat lacking, a few dual users in the main bc2 thread complained of low fps using c2d's, updating to c2q's gave them noticeable gains.
Click to expand...

BF2 ran fine on my sys and that was with a 3870 all maxed out too at 1280x1024. I haven't played it since getting my 6950 tho
 
BF2 is the older game in the series, the latest game, bad company 2 is a bit of a system hog, bf3 is based on an updated version of the engine on which bad company 2 runs on. It really benefits from quad core cpu's.
 
setter said:
BF2 is the older game in the series, the latest game, bad company 2 is a bit of a system hog, bf3 is based on an updated version of the engine on which bad company 2 runs on. It really benefits from quad core cpu's.
Click to expand...

Ah that it bad company, I couldnt remember what it was called, I only got to level 3 or 4 tho, as I kept getting killed. But It ran perfectly smooth, but Im guessing the later levels get more power hungry?
 
Havent played much of the single player, but in multiplayer it gives my quad a pretty serious workout.
 
setter said:
Havent played much of the single player, but in multiplayer it gives my quad a pretty serious workout.
Click to expand...

I would have thought multiplayer would be easier on the cpu then single player? Meny yrs ago the multiplayer always ran so much smoother then single player.
 
Last edited:
BFBC2 maxed out @ 1920x1080 only uses 50% or less of the total power of my 15 2500k @ 4.5ghz,its a beast of a processor & i wouldn't be surprised at all if it does outperform an 8 core bulldozer.
 
David164v8 said:
i3 has two cores which isn't great for bc2 but it wouldn't bottleneck any graphics cards.
Click to expand...
That's rubbish, the i3 2100 is on par with the Phenom II X4 980BE 3.7GHz in BFBC2.

People need to stop generalising dual-core CPU (i.e. lumping i3 2100 together with old slow core2dual/Athlon II x2/Phenom II X2), but actually look at the capability of the individual CPU for gaming.
 
Last edited:
setter said:
If bf3 is anything like bfbc2, you may find a dual core somewhat lacking, a few dual users in the main bc2 thread complained of low fps using c2d's, updating to c2q's gave them noticeable gains.
Click to expand...

that may be true but i went from a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz to a I3 2100(will be getting i5 this month but was to get system on buget at time) and i have seen a huge improvement in bc2 but my 5830 is poo going with 6850's in xfire so it can chew thru bf3 XD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom