Can an i3 play BF3 @ medium without stutter?

[LxMxFxD4]

I recently built a portable gaming right with the following specs:

Pentium g630 2.7ghz sandybridge
H61 uATX mobo
8GB ram
MSI 7770 1ghz edition
2TB HD

Unfortunately in BF3 it is stutter city. I recently determined that its likely because the CPU is only 2 threads. In my tests when I disabled 2 cores on my i5-2500k (making bf3 2 threads) I also got the stutter. So it seems BF3 requires more than 2 threads / cores to run effectively.

Since an i3 has hyperthreading, i'm wondering if it will be okay and can save me $80 or so over an i5 ivybridge.

Anyone have an i3 paired with a midrange gfx card that does not get cpu stutter?

 

[eternalone]

I have a Intel Pentium G850 Sandy Bridge 2.9GHz and a Ati 4830 and I can play on Low settings to medium settings (sometimes) usally in 15 player servers.Once you jump to 32 and 64 player servers your gonna need a Quad. Also you have to understand if your serious about playing BF3 you need a card with at least 2GB because BF3 takes up to 1.5GB of Video Memory. BF3 is not a budget gamer friendly game, its requires a good Video Card. It taxes my G850 to a 100% so it just one of those things you cant get around.

The 7770 is a very good card and I was thinking of buying one since the Gigabyte is running at $109.00 and $89 after rebate, but if your saying its struggling with BF3 its making me think twice.

 

[Arkaign]

I've seen an i3 build with a GTS450 1GB, as well as an Athlon X3 (!!!) with a 5770 both running BF3 respectably. I wouldn't call it awesome, but it wasn't stuttering or freezing.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

I have a Intel Pentium G850 Sandy Bridge 2.9GHz and a Ati 4830 and I can play on Low settings to medium settings (sometimes) usally in 15 player servers.Once you jump to 32 and 64 player servers your gonna need a Quad. Also you have to understand if your serious about playing BF3 you need a card with at least 2GB because BF3 takes up to 1.5GB of Video Memory. BF3 is not a budget gamer friendly game, its requires a good Video Card. It taxes my G850 to a 100% so it just one of those things you cant get around.

The 7770 is a very good card and I was thinking of buying one since the Gigabyte is running at $109.00 and $89 after rebate, but if your saying its struggling with BF3 its making me think twice.

You don't get any stutter? Run this command next time you load up bf3 and either take a screenshot during some medium to heavy action, or just let me know if you see big spikes:

render.perfoverlayvisible 1

On my rig above I see huge spikes of yellow meaning my cpu is completely lagged. Your g850 is only 200mhz faster so if you don't see spikes i'd be very surprised.

 

[Remobz]

I recently built a portable gaming right with the following specs:

Pentium g630 2.7ghz sandybridge
H61 uATX mobo
8GB ram
MSI 7770 1ghz edition
2TB HD

Unfortunately in BF3 it is stutter city. I recently determined that its likely because the CPU is only 2 threads. In my tests when I disabled 2 cores on my i5-2500k (making bf3 2 threads) I also got the stutter. So it seems BF3 requires more than 2 threads / cores to run effectively.

Since an i3 has hyperthreading, i'm wondering if it will be okay and can save me $80 or so over an i5 ivybridge.

Anyone have an i3 paired with a midrange gfx card that does not get cpu stutter?

An i3 with a Radeon 7850 2GB and 8 gb of ram should get you over 50fps oh high settings. Might have to play at 1680 x 1050 or lower resolutions.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

I've seen an i3 build with a GTS450 1GB, as well as an Athlon X3 (!!!) with a 5770 both running BF3 respectably. I wouldn't call it awesome, but it wasn't stuttering or freezing.

Yep, just tried bf3 on my laptop - horribly ugly, but smooth. My laptop is an i5-460m which means it has hyperthreading. BF3 it seems, really needs 3 to 4 cores or threads it looks like.

 

[Durvelle27]

your i3 should be fine and hyper-threading really wouldn't help ? but if you want you could get an i5-3450 ?

 

[moonbogg]

I did thread testing and on a decently full server, 3 threads skipps and laggs like the game is broken. 4 threads fixes it. I never tested an i3, but i would expect it to handle medium settings and 24 player servers on larger maps and 32 player servers on smaller, indoor maps. Thats my best guess. BF3 is a dirty CPU whore, really. All the review sites that say "BF3 doesn't care what CPU you use" make me want to vomit.
Oh, I can't believe that Linus tech tips guy who recently did a CPU performance comparison with BF3 specifically and he DECLARED, "all you really need is a dual core CPU. Quad cores are for the future". I herrrped, then decided it was ok to derrrp, then shat myself.

 

[bononos]

It would be better to clarify if the poor or good performance in bf3 you are talking about is in SP or multiplayer. BF3 does run better with 4 cores or more in multiplayer environments. From what I can tell an i3 (has hyperthreading) is better than a dual core without hyperthreading for MP.

Do a search for multiplayer cpu threads in bf3 for more info.
http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2203170.html
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1685532

 

[jacktesterson]

I ran BF3 on a G530 + 5870 at medium settings without issue before selling it off. (1366x768 though)

Surprised how well that system could handle modern games. (for most part, no MP tested either)

 

[Hatisherrif]

Wow, two cores away from the universally acknowledged best gaming CPU is a CPU that can barely handle medium settings in BF3.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

I did thread testing and on a decently full server, 3 threads skipps and laggs like the game is broken. 4 threads fixes it. I never tested an i3, but i would expect it to handle medium settings and 24 player servers on larger maps and 32 player servers on smaller, indoor maps. Thats my best guess. BF3 is a dirty CPU whore, really. All the review sites that say "BF3 doesn't care what CPU you use" make me want to vomit.
Oh, I can't believe that Linus tech tips guy who recently did a CPU performance comparison with BF3 specifically and he DECLARED, "all you really need is a dual core CPU. Quad cores are for the future". I herrrped, then decided it was ok to derrrp, then shat myself.

Upon further testing of my g630 I can fully concur. I built this system entirely because review sites and reviewers (like linus) espouse the unnecessary need for quad core for gaming. Well, seeing as I planned to only game at 1680x1050 on this machine (something a 7770 can handle nicely) I set out to build it with just a g630. Lo and behold I am choked.

Even SP chokes so I really do not know where everyone is getting this stuff from. I CAN run around on an empty kharg island and not get sick due to the low frames but thats about the limit. I always assumed that running the higher resolutions makes a difference on the cpu but in BF3 it really doesn't. Turning the bastard down to 1280x800 on my 24" dell made no difference at all. Same CPU load, though obviously much lower gpu.

Sigh. It looks like if I want to play BF3 even at 1680x1050 on 64 man maps, quad core it shall be. I was hoping I could get away with a $55 cpu but no such luck!

Thanks for confirming what I had kinda tested and skewing me more toward a quad core than the i3.

Looks like i'll probably put my 2500k in the mobile gaming rig and buy a 3570k for my main gaming machine.

 

[moonbogg]

Upon further testing of my g630 I can fully concur. I built this system entirely because review sites and reviewers (like linus) espouse the unnecessary need for quad core for gaming. Well, seeing as I planned to only game at 1680x1050 on this machine (something a 7770 can handle nicely) I set out to build it with just a g630. Lo and behold I am choked.

Even SP chokes so I really do not know where everyone is getting this stuff from. I CAN run around on an empty kharg island and not get sick due to the low frames but thats about the limit. I always assumed that running the higher resolutions makes a difference on the cpu but in BF3 it really doesn't. Turning the bastard down to 1280x800 on my 24" dell made no difference at all. Same CPU load, though obviously much lower gpu.

Sigh. It looks like if I want to play BF3 even at 1680x1050 on 64 man maps, quad core it shall be. I was hoping I could get away with a $55 cpu but no such luck!

Thanks for confirming what I had kinda tested and skewing me more toward a quad core than the i3.

Looks like i'll probably put my 2500k in the mobile gaming rig and buy a 3570k for my main gaming machine.

Glad you know what your bottle neck is now. Not knowing can be frustrating. Also, during my testing I was informed that reducing resolution does not affect CPU loading, and I tested it and sure enough, CPU load is the same regardless of resolution. Reducing visual settings will lower CPU loading since less information is being sent from CPU to GPU. Quad core or bust. Linus failed.

 

[Red Hawk]

The clock speed could also play a part in the bottleneck. The 2500k runs at a stock clock speed of 3.3 GHZ, 18% higher than the 2.7 GHz G630, and will automatically turbo all four cores up to 3.4 GHz for a 20.5% advantage. And who actually plays games on a 2500k at stock clocks when overclock speeds of 4 GHz and above are easily reached? So while the limited threads available could be causing the stuttering, it isn't the only factor.

 

[ahmaden]

100% you'll be in bottleneck with this mixing , it depends on game you're running , sometime do not happen .
changing resolution affect on cpu performance but it depend on how big you increase/decrease resolution , in some case even there's no difference between 720 and 1080
but if you do compare 1360*768 with 2560*1600 and run a game like BF3 - which is very cpu demanding game - definitely you'll see difference in terms of cpu needing.

 

[Dkcode]

What totally and utter irresponsible advice recommending a dual core CPU as a gaming chip in 2012.

 

[Dkcode]

The clock speed could also play a part in the bottleneck. The 2500k runs at a stock clock speed of 3.3 GHZ, 18% higher than the 2.7 GHz G630, and will automatically turbo all four cores up to 3.4 GHz for a 20.5% advantage. And who actually plays games on a 2500k at stock clocks when overclock speeds of 4 GHz and above are easily reached? So while the limited threads available could be causing the stuttering, it isn't the only factor.

I run my 920 at stock 2.66Ghz and BF3 does not stutter.

If it boiled down to raw clock speed then surely i'd be in the shit.

 

[moonbogg]

4 cores or poop on your chest.

 

[2is]

I did thread testing and on a decently full server, 3 threads skipps and laggs like the game is broken. 4 threads fixes it. I never tested an i3, but i would expect it to handle medium settings and 24 player servers on larger maps and 32 player servers on smaller, indoor maps. Thats my best guess. BF3 is a dirty CPU whore, really. All the review sites that say "BF3 doesn't care what CPU you use" make me want to vomit.
Oh, I can't believe that Linus tech tips guy who recently did a CPU performance comparison with BF3 specifically and he DECLARED, "all you really need is a dual core CPU. Quad cores are for the future". I herrrped, then decided it was ok to derrrp, then shat myself.

Yeah all those reviews are commenting on SP performance which is a completely worthless for the most part since BF3 is a MP centric game. MP is a totally different animal when it comes to CPU requirements.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

The clock speed could also play a part in the bottleneck. The 2500k runs at a stock clock speed of 3.3 GHZ, 18% higher than the 2.7 GHz G630, and will automatically turbo all four cores up to 3.4 GHz for a 20.5% advantage. And who actually plays games on a 2500k at stock clocks when overclock speeds of 4 GHz and above are easily reached? So while the limited threads available could be causing the stuttering, it isn't the only factor.

As far as I can tell, it very much isn't. Even the review sites say that much, tom's for example downclocked an i7 to 2ghz with no change.

I really think bf3 is just coded for 4 threads or more. Thats why an i3 is okay but a g630 isn't. This is also why when I take my i5-2500k, load bf3 and then set windows affinity to only 2 cores, it stutters just like on the g630. This is an i5-2500k at 3.7ghz. Even running it at 1280x800 makes no different. It still chokes. 3 cores was better, 4 core ideal. I'm actually curious as to whether an i7 with 8 threads runs even smoother but I could really notice no stutter on my i5 with 4 cores enabled in bf3.

 

[2is]

As far as I can tell, it very much isn't. Even the review sites say that much, tom's for example downclocked an i7 to 2ghz with no change.

I really think bf3 is just coded for 4 threads or more. Thats why an i3 is okay but a g630 isn't. This is also why when I take my i5-2500k, load bf3 and then set windows affinity to only 2 cores, it stutters just like on the g630. This is an i5-2500k at 3.7ghz. Even running it at 1280x800 makes no different. It still chokes. 3 cores was better, 4 core ideal. I'm actually curious as to whether an i7 with 8 threads runs even smoother but I could really notice no stutter on my i5 with 4 cores enabled in bf3.

Again, these "reviews" are for SP which is not anywhere near as CPU hungry. If what you're saying is accurate, you can have 10 500mhz cores and it would outperform an i7. This is not the case. Clock speed always helps. Especially in MP.

 

[Skurge]

I got between 40 and 60FPS depending on the map on Ultra at 1280x1024 when I was stuck with a tiny monitor.

My Old E6600 would stutter like crazy.

 

[moonbogg]

As far as I can tell, it very much isn't. Even the review sites say that much, tom's for example downclocked an i7 to 2ghz with no change.

I really think bf3 is just coded for 4 threads or more. Thats why an i3 is okay but a g630 isn't. This is also why when I take my i5-2500k, load bf3 and then set windows affinity to only 2 cores, it stutters just like on the g630. This is an i5-2500k at 3.7ghz. Even running it at 1280x800 makes no different. It still chokes. 3 cores was better, 4 core ideal. I'm actually curious as to whether an i7 with 8 threads runs even smoother but I could really notice no stutter on my i5 with 4 cores enabled in bf3.

I tested 1 through 12 threads. performance increases a lot up to 4 cores. Between 4 to 8 threads, performance increases up to 8 threads a little bit each time, but falls off after 8. Difference between 4 and 8 is like 55 fps becoming 65 fps or something like that.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

I tested 1 through 12 threads. performance increases a lot up to 4 cores. Between 4 to 8 threads, performance increases up to 8 threads a little bit each time, but falls off after 8. Difference between 4 and 8 is like 55 fps becoming 65 fps or something like that.

Now that is interesting. Makes me wish I had bought an i7-3770k now instead of a 3570k that I ordered last night 10FPS is pretty significant, especially since as time goes on and games get more and more cpu & gpu intensive, it'll only become worse. Thanks for doing some testing for me!

 

[LxMxFxD4]

Again, these "reviews" are for SP which is not anywhere near as CPU hungry. If what you're saying is accurate, you can have 10 500mhz cores and it would outperform an i7. This is not the case. Clock speed always helps. Especially in MP.

Firstly I never said that at all. I only said its obvious that BF3 wants at least 4 cores. I never mentioned anything about 10 500mhz cores being superior.

Secondly SP is just as bad as multiplayer on my g630. These review sites are completely full of it ORRRR Dice has changed the code so much in the last 9 months that the results from october 2011 are simply no longer valid. Considering that Hyperthreading was a liability 9 months ago and people were shutting it off to now it being a requirement on a dual core, there have been some serious changes to the code. I haven't followed bf3 releases close enough to say though.