• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

amd fx-4100 battlefield 3

K

kga943

Junior Member
just set up my new gaming pc and i have a couple questions
i have a amd fx-4100and in battlefied 3 its maxing out the cpu at about 98% im using my logitech g15 keyboard to watch the cpu and memory the 4gb of memory is using about 70% im getting 52 fps with my nvidia gtx-560 with some settings on ulta and some on high so my quistion is is that normal for the amd cpu to be working that hard or is their something i can do to help ease it a little ? everything works good battlefield plays good i have a asus sabertooth 990fx motherboard
 
You could try overclocking, though that CPU is just slow in general so it wont help as much as it would a 2500K.
 
BF3 MP uses more than 4 threads, thats why your CPU usage is at 98%. Even Core i5 2500K would be at 98%.
 
Yes you can bench a multiplayer, its not consistent as benchmarking the SP but it is more CPU depended especially in large open 64 player maps.
 
AtenRa said:
Yes you can bench a multiplayer, its not consistent as benchmarking the SP but it is more CPU depended especially in large open 64 player maps.
Click to expand...

that's a m00t point, if you put everything in the map in front of you, all the tanks, all players, and all planes, then YEA 100% on any cpu.

BUT that DOESN"T HAPPPEN EVAR.... 😱
 
borisvodofsky said:
well you can't bench multiplayer, so you can't make an argument for it. 😱
Click to expand...

What rock have you been under? It has been done already and discussed at length on about every major hardware and gaming site on the planet. Scroll down here:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1038301887

If you have an AMD system, then having a cpu with 6 threads really helps. A Thuban with it's 6 threads has about the same minimum fps as a 2500k, so if the OP had one of those it would really help. Or of course a FX-6100 would help too.

Here is another article: http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

It shows that overclocking doesn't really help much. You need more threads.
Get a cpu with more cores/threads if you want a boost.
 
ok i have it overclocked to 4.2 i just need to know if its ok like that using that much cpu and will a fx-6100 work better it runs diablo 3 great about 20 to 30% cpu
 
kga943 said:
ok i have it overclocked to 4.2 i just need to know if its ok like that using that much cpu and will a fx-6100 work better it runs diablo 3 great about 20 to 30% cpu
Click to expand...


Yes it is absolutly fine as long as you are ok with your FPS.
 
PG said:
What rock have you been under? It has been done already and discussed at length on about every major hardware and gaming site on the planet. Scroll down here:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1038301887

If you have an AMD system, then having a cpu with 6 threads really helps. A Thuban with it's 6 threads has about the same minimum fps as a 2500k, so if the OP had one of those it would really help. Or of course a FX-6100 would help too.

Here is another article: http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

It shows that overclocking doesn't really help much. You need more threads.
Get a cpu with more cores/threads if you want a boost.
Click to expand...

Inability to replay the exact games in BF3 is a confounding variable when benchmarking multi-player,

Anyone can throw up a graph to illustrate whatever they want to.

With or without a motive, the comparison is "unscientific"

[redacted]

Boris, profanity will not be tolerated here. For that matter your attitude isn't garnering you any friends either
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have an Q9650 w/8GB & a GTX260, I think my cpu use is around 60-75% with essentially everything on medium. I'll check for sure later tonight. What you have sounds pretty reasonable to me though.
 
borisvodofsky said:
Inability to replay the exact games in BF3 is a confounding variable when benchmarking multi-player,

Anyone can throw up a graph to illustrate whatever they want to.

With or without a motive, the comparison is "unscientific"

[redacted]
Click to expand...

How old are you?
Do you always resort to childish behavior and mouthing off to try to win an argument? How is that working out for you?

Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension are not my problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PG said:
How old are you?
Do you always resort to childish behavior and mouthing off to try to win an argument? How is that working out for you?

Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension are not my problems.
Click to expand...

I am childish and brash, deal with it. How's being a tightwad working out for you. :thumbsup: People may not like me, but they don't even know you. 😎

My reasons were justified, I supported with facts and adetailed explanation as to WHY you can't test the multiplayer accurately
 
Last edited:
borisvodofsky said:
well you can't bench multiplayer, so you can't make an argument for it. 😱
Click to expand...

You can't make an argument for CPU utilization using SP when MP is far more intensive but that didn't stop you. Benchmarking an inconsistent MP game is still far more accurate than using SP as a metric.
 
2is said:
You can't make an argument for CPU utilization using SP when MP is far more intensive but that didn't stop you. Benchmarking an inconsistent MP game is still far more accurate than using SP as a metric.
Click to expand...

You don't even know the meaning of "accurate", there's no true value to pin the result to. so How can any number be accurate on the bench, without an established baseline.

On the other hand, we CAN do this for SP. 😎
 
borisvodofsky said:
You don't even know the meaning of "accurate", there's no true value to pin the result to. so How can any number be accurate on the bench, without an established baseline.

On the other hand, we CAN do this for SP. 😎
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should ask the OP if he was talking about or MP or SP then. If SP, then I bow to you good sir. If not, then it's completely useless to use that as a metric. Comparing inconsistent MP benchmarks that you can easily take an average from is far better then using a completely worthless SP benchmark which has close to zero correlation if the OP is talking about MP.

In other words, if the OP is referring to MP games, you're link is completely worthless. You can continue to try and justify it any way you'd like. In the end, you're wasting your time and it's just as worthless.
 
borisvodofsky said:
You don't even know the meaning of "accurate", there's no true value to pin the result to. so How can any number be accurate on the bench, without an established baseline.

On the other hand, we CAN do this for SP. 😎
Click to expand...

Yeah but SP BF3 is like running Notepad to bench a CPU. AMD and Intel both run it just fine.

MP BF3 large maps are much more intensive, so while you can't possibly nail down all the variables, it's a much better test of CPU\GPU strengths (or weaknesses)...
 
Let's get back on topic, guys. The subject is kga943's BF3 performance, not best practices for benchmarking

-Thanks
ViRGE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top