i3 2100 for BF3 enough?

[skipsneeky2]

Running currently a 3.2ghzs e8200 alongside a gtx560 non ti .

Online my fps at 1600x1200 medium high low whatever my fps would jump wildly between 19fps-72fps with most servers maxing out with 60 fps or so looking up at the sky .

Ran msi afterburner with the gpu usage numbers showing in the left corner as i game when the fps wildly jump my gpu usage would go down sometimes as low as 49% and would average about 80% unless i'm looking up at the sky then it would be 99%.

Dropping the settings to medium dropped gpu usage but performance was still the same which tells me i need a new cpu .

Story goes a i3 2100 is more then capable of holding up to x4 955 and even a 2500k in this game alone is that true?

Don't trust the review sites with their single player performance numbers with i3 2100 hoping someone who did this sorta upgrade could chime in .

 

[iXombie]

Short answer, yes.

http://************/627dyp9

 

[gmaster456]

While your performance would be respectable with a 2100, I'd highly recommend a Quad Core for that game. It doesn't have to be fancy, something like a 2400 would do.

 

[HeXen]

i got a phenom 2 965, along with a 580gtx and it runs super smooth on Ultra settings.

 

[llee]

The game doesn't suffer in performance if you drop from a quad down to a dual core unless it's an AMD processor. Toms Hardware concluded that the game is very GPU limited.

I actually play the game on a rig that has a Ci3-2100 and an HD 5870 1GB at 1600x900, High settings. I get very nice frame rates and I think you would too.

edit:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

 

[toyota]

i have a phenom 2 965, along with a gtx580 and it runs super smooth on Ultra settings.

fixed

 

[skipsneeky2]

If the difference performance wise between a i3 2100 and a 2500k is about 3fps apart i would prob go for the i3 2100 cause i will be on a budget .

Machine is gonna be strictly for playing games mostly BF3 and if a $130 x4 965 is gonna outperform a i3 2100 i would get that.

But if the difference between a i5 2400 and a i3 2100 is worlds apart like 5fps or more i would opt for it.

Just don't wanna overspend if i don't need to and Leolee what kinda cpu usage you getting?

I get a couple explosions my fps dips my gpu usage dips cause of the cpu bottleneck cpu goes to 100% and the audio might stutter if i'm lucky .

 

[lehtv]

Fixed.

Fixed.

On-topic - i3-2100 should be fine... But given the fact that your GPU usage is as low as 50% is seems to me possible that in a CPU-heavy online scenario, the GPU might still be slightly bottlenecked..

 

[skipsneeky2]

Fixed.

On-topic - i3-2100 should be fine... But given the fact that your GPU usage is as low as 50% is seems to me possible that in a CPU-heavy online scenario, the GPU might still be slightly bottlenecked..

I dropped the settings to medium on 1600x1200 gpu usage basically settled in the 40-55% or so range never went above that but fps wise it was identical even when i dropped down to 1280x1024...

 

[toyota]

lol, stop using 1280x1024. I told you before when you lower the res to use 1280x960. the only people that should ever use 1280x1024 are those with the native 5:4 screens.

 

[skipsneeky2]

lol, stop using 1280x1024. I told you before when you lower the res to use 1280x960. the only people that should ever use 1280x1024 are those with the native 5:4 screens.

LOL i was using it to test out performance i use 1600x1200 for now perhaps if the next generation cards offer a good boost i will use 1920x1080 on ultra.

 

[TheUnk]

How many cores can BF3 use anyways?

 

[Termie]

OP - you already have a nice new $180 graphics card in the GTX560. Sorry to be blunt, but don't be cheap - the 2400 is a much better investment than the 2100, for BF3 and for everything else you'll ever do. Your GPU is loafing around at 50 percent load. Half of it is going to waste. It should be pegged at 99 percent; today and everyday for the rest of your life as long as you're playing BF3.

Yeah a 2100 is better than what you have, and yeah the 2100 will play BF3, but you've already seen what BF3 does to dual-cores in multiplayer. Until an owner of a 2100 can post an Afterburner graph showing consistent 99 percent GPU usage in BF3, I am never going to recommend a 2100 as an upgrade to an owner of a dual-core.

The 2400 is $190 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074
The 2100 is $125 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078

That $65 is money well spent.

BTW, a 2500k is a better "deal", but if you're on a budget and not a huge overclocker, the 2400 will give you almost the exact same performance - and yes it's enough at stock to drive a 560 to 99 percent forever until eternity in BF3.

As an example, my OC'd 860, which is equivalent to a 2400, pegged one of my HD5850s (equivalent to your 560) to the wall (delivering a solid 43fps consistently at 1920x1200/high).

 

[Vdubchaos]

Assuming you don't have a microcenter near you with 2500k for $180

:biggrin:

 

[Termie]

Assuming you don't have a microcenter near you with 2500k for $180

:biggrin:

If you don't, you can get a 2400 for the same price at SuperBiiz - actually cheaper than Newegg:

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=I5-2400BOX
Coupon code on front page (currently RUN4LIFE)

If you're really pressed for cash and have already have a compatible CPU cooler, they even have an i5-2300 OEM for $159 after code: http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=I5-2300.

It's faster than a 2100 even in two-thread operations due to its turbo.

 

[skipsneeky2]

OP - you already have a nice new $180 graphics card in the GTX560. Sorry to be blunt, but don't be cheap - the 2400 is a much better investment than the 2100, for BF3 and for everything else you'll ever do. Your GPU is loafing around at 50 percent load. Half of it is going to waste. It should be pegged at 99 percent; today and everyday for the rest of your life as long as you're playing BF3.

Yeah a 2100 is better than what you have, and yeah the 2100 will play BF3, but you've already seen what BF3 does to dual-cores in multiplayer. Until an owner of a 2100 can post an Afterburner graph showing consistent 99 percent GPU usage in BF3, I am never going to recommend a 2100 as an upgrade to an owner of a dual-core.

The 2400 is $190 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074
The 2100 is $125 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078

That $65 is money well spent.

BTW, a 2500k is a better "deal", but if you're on a budget and not a huge overclocker, the 2400 will give you almost the exact same performance - and yes it's enough at stock to drive a 560 to 99 percent forever until eternity in BF3.

As an example, my OC'd 860, which is equivalent to a 2400, pegged one of my HD5850s (equivalent to your 560) to the wall (delivering a solid 43fps consistently at 1920x1200/high).

Not so much about being cheap its a matter of affording it the possibility based off toms hardware of a i3 2105 holding up to even a 2600k and yeah unless someone did screenshot cpu-z and afterburner its up in the air...

$260 before taxs for a cpu/mobo and 8gb ram allows room for a x4 955 and a good quality asus mobo or a i3 2100 with a cheap h61 motherboard....

If a x4 955 at stock can hold up to a gtx560 and peg gpu usage to 100% and not be a bottleneck in any form then my decision is a bit easier.

BUT if BF3 requires a i5 2400 to not be a bottleneck i wouldn't be able to upgrade till the end of December and at this point return the gtx560 sit on a 6770 save the difference for the cpu upgrade since a 6770 and a gtx560 will perform the same with this cpu anyways i'm sure .

 

[skipsneeky2]

If you don't, you can get a 2400 for the same price at SuperBiiz - actually cheaper than Newegg:

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=I5-2400BOX
Coupon code on front page (currently RUN4LIFE)

If you're really pressed for cash and have already have a compatible CPU cooler, they even have an i5-2300 OEM for $159 after code: http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=I5-2300.

It's faster than a 2100 even in two-thread operations due to its turbo.

$130 is all i got for a processor if i go with a $90 mobo then i will still need some memory .

x4 965 and i3 2100 are the two i'm looking at .

 

[Fefster]

Look,even in a lot of multi threaded games the i3 2100 mops the floor with hexa-core phenom IIs and it stands toe to toe with the i5 760 while completely destroying it in less optimized games.I don't think it is going to be a bottleneck.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Look,even in a lot of multi threaded games the i3 2100 mops the floor with hexa-core phenom IIs and it stands toe to toe with the i5 760 while completely destroying it in less optimized games.I don't think it is going to be a bottleneck.

Toms Hardware review showed a i3 holding up right with a 2600k but those charts are based off single player cause at first my e8200@3.2ghzs played smooth but online with some explosions it is uttercrap.

Only time it is smooth online is if i was looking up at the sky like a idiot or running around in the base so these review sites need to drop single player performance with first person shooter games and start focusing on multiplayer.

 

[Fefster]

Toms Hardware review showed a i3 holding up right with a 2600k but those charts are based off single player cause at first my e8200@3.2ghzs played smooth but online with some explosions it is uttercrap.

Only time it is smooth online is if i was looking up at the sky like a idiot or running around in the base so these review sites need to drop single player performance with first person shooter games and start focusing on multiplayer.

You can't trust SP benchmarks for BF3.I just ordered new components for BF3 and because of money issues i had to settle for an i3 instead of an i5.I asked around and it seems that people with i3 2100s are not having any problems with this game especially at high resolutions.I picked the i3 over the 955 for 3 reasonsower consumption,gaming performance and the possibility of an upgrade later.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You can't trust SP benchmarks for BF3.I just ordered new components for BF3 and because of money issues i had to settle for an i3 instead of an i5.I asked around and it seems that people with i3 2100s are not having any problems with this game especially at high resolutions.I picked the i3 over the 955 for 3 reasonsower consumption,gaming performance and the possibility of an upgrade later.

Yeah why i'm aiming more for a i3 2100 over a x4 955 myself but perhaps you could post some screenshots of afterburner and cpu-z with the game open to show if the cpu is bottlenecking your gpu and also how much of the cpu is being tasked.

It could be even put into a thread to help those other folks who had a budget just like you to build something.

 

[Fefster]

Yeah why i'm aiming more for a i3 2100 over a x4 955 myself but perhaps you could post some screenshots of afterburner and cpu-z with the game open to show if the cpu is bottlenecking your gpu and also how much of the cpu is being tasked.

It could be even put into a thread to help those other folks who had a budget just like you to build something.

as soon as the parts arrive....just ordered today,they'll be here next week.As soon as i get it running i'll help you.But it might be too late for you.

 

[skipsneeky2]

as soon as the parts arrive....just ordered today,they'll be here next week.As soon as i get it running i'll help you.But it might be too late for you.

Heck just gonna pony up the dough for a i5...it still would be a help to solve this riddle for others in the same boat

 

[GoStumpy]

Posting this as a reminder for me to download/install Afterburner on my computer and see what's maxing, CPU or GPU.

i3-2100
HD6850 @825/1150

 

[GoStumpy]

So, running things at 1680x1050 on an i3-2100 3.1ghz and HD6850 @ 825/1150, my framerates are:


Medium Settings:
Min: 48
Max: 62
Avg: 58


High Settings:
Min: 41
Max: 60
Avg: 47


GPU usage: 99% the entire time. Methinks I am GPU limited