Whom is still rocking an Athlon / Phenom II (even X6), or a Core2Duo/Quad? X58 users too.

[ozzy702]

Those BFV results are only single player. FX chips and Intel i5 quad cores get destroyed in multiplayer.

 

[mopardude87]

Those BFV results are only single player. FX chips and Intel i5 quad cores get destroyed in multiplayer.

Check out post 236, that video shows some pretty reasonable performance in BF5. Its not the amazing 60+ minimum experience that i get on my 8700 non k but it works in a pinch. I wouldn't recommend it but it does go to show if you manage expectations its fairly respectable for its age.

 

[SPBHM]

also keep in mind you can reduce CPU bound settings in BFV, like terrain detail I think,
so if you use low or medium profile the CPU limited performance will increase.

 

[ozzy702]

Check out post 236, that video shows some pretty reasonable performance in BF5. Its not the amazing 60+ minimum experience that i get on my 8700 non k but it works in a pinch. I wouldn't recommend it but it does go to show if you manage expectations its fairly respectable for its age.

Ok, I may be admittedly a bit of a snob when it comes to FPS, but for me, dropping below 60fps makes a setup simply not playable, especially considering how few people run adaptive sync. For an old CPU, the FX does quite well, but so do older i7 CPUs. Older i5s are 100% unplayable.

With adaptive sync an 8530 could potentially be acceptable for low end budget gaming watching that video. Thanks for sharing.

 

[mopardude87]

Ok, I may be admittedly a bit of a snob when it comes to FPS, but for me, dropping below 60fps makes a setup simply not playable, especially considering how few people run adaptive sync. For an old CPU, the FX does quite well, but so do older i7 CPUs. Older i5s are 100% unplayable.

With adaptive sync an 8530 could potentially be acceptable for low end budget gaming watching that video. Thanks for sharing.

Yup my i5 4460 did choke, 100% usage. I do aim for a 60+ minimum experience in any shooter and upgrade the cpu as needed. Last time i really had to upgrade a cpu though for a BF game was when i went from a P4 to a C2D for BF2. The i5 quads held through my fun with BC2/BF3 and BF4. Getting 8 years of smooth game play out of a i5 quad core is dang impressive.

My friend still has my i5 2500k from 2012. More then content with it. If she decides to jump into a new BF or COD game she simply needs to grab a 3770 and another 8gb of ram and shes ready to go.

 

[Captante]

Older i5s are 100% unplayable

Last benchmarks I can recall seeing of I-5 vs I-7 at approx the same clock-speed and in otherwise identical systems didn't show much of a difference at all .... link?

 

[mopardude87]

Last benchmarks I can recall seeing of I-5 vs I-7 at approx the same clock-speed and in otherwise identical systems didn't show much of a difference at all .... link?

Not so much about the framerate its also when the cpu is pinged, it would cause quite a bit of stutter. I would get 60fps on some maps yet it felt more like it was 40. Amiens 64p was perfect for this case. Even the i5 8400 gave me some slight stutter on Amiens and other maps and eventually replacing it with the i7 8700 non k eliminated all that.

 

[Captante]

Not so much about the framerate its also when the cpu is pinged, it would cause quite a bit of stutter. I would get 60fps on some maps yet it felt more like it was 40. Amiens 64p was perfect for this case. Even the i5 8400 gave me some slight stutter on Amiens and other maps and eventually replacing it with the i7 8700 non k eliminated all that.

Just looked at a bunch of online benchmarks ... difference between the I-5 and I-7 with all else being roughly equal is less then 10% in gaming pretty much across the board.

Hyper-threading only makes a small performance difference in games... I suspect the bottleneck was elsewhere.

 

[swilli89]

I have two gaming rigs set up at home for when a friend comes over and we want to game together. That second system has my old i5-2500K @ 4.0 GHZ and a Geforce 1060. Locks Apex Legends on Medium settings at 60FPS no problem! Most insane value ever from that platform. I believe it is 7 or 8 years old now!

 

[SPBHM]

yes sandy bridge being released 8 and half years ago, and still running most software OK is pretty amazing

 

[Captante]

yes sandy bridge being released 8 and half years ago, and still running most software OK is pretty amazing

Even my ancient FX8350 @ 4.2 is still doing okay ... buddy gifted me his old GTX-980 awhile back to upgrade my GTX-770 and the performance/FPS bump was very noticeable.

Had to part out and sell my 6600k system awhile back and was expecting the worst when I had to revert to the old FX box but frankly I barely noticed seat-of-the-pants.

WILL be building a Ryzen system around the holidays though...

 

[mopardude87]

Just looked at a bunch of online benchmarks ... difference between the I-5 and I-7 with all else being roughly equal is less then 10% in gaming pretty much across the board.

Hyper-threading only makes a small performance difference in games... I suspect the bottleneck was elsewhere.

Not caring what any benchmarks show, most of them are single player and of course run better over multiplayer. Like i said before also its also how the system felt overall as well. I am sure there is some titles where a i5 quad core is still good enough but BF1/BF5 isn't one of them.

The i5 8400 would have been fine if i jumped to 1440p but at 1080p it was holding back the 1070ti ever so slightly. Those 6 cores can push pass 90% on Amiens 64p at 1080p with enough frames pumping. Sure with a lower end card the usage would drop but BF1/BF5 are titles that push the cores the more you ask of them. I have seen 8700k users upgrading to 9900k chips in hopes of pulling just a few more frames with a smoother experience.

 

[ozzy702]

Just looked at a bunch of online benchmarks ... difference between the I-5 and I-7 with all else being roughly equal is less then 10% in gaming pretty much across the board.

Hyper-threading only makes a small performance difference in games... I suspect the bottleneck was elsewhere.

Nope, in this title you're completely wrong. I've compared an i5-6600 @3.9ghz and i7-7700 @ 4.2ghz and found a massive difference in BFV. Lows on the i5 would often dip into the 40s, on the i7 I never saw lows dip below high 70s.

Hardware unboxed did a nice video on BFV and it's clear that clock speed differences between i5s and i7s don't come close to making up the difference in performance. Cache doesn't appear to play a role comparing the i5-7600 and i3-8350k results. Frostbite loves threads even if they're hyperthreaded. The i7-7700k only has four cores and it performance better than the six core i5-8400. Yes the i7-7700k has a 12% higher clock speed but if hyperthreaded didn't make a difference that shouldn't have more than made up for having two less cores.

 

[Captante]

Still pretty much looks like performance at lower resolution and reduced detail level is effected far more by the CPU regardless of single player or multi-player while at maxed-out levels differences are much smaller.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but this video contradicts most of what I've seen from credible sources.

 

[ozzy702]

Still pretty much looks like performance at lower resolution and reduced detail level is effected far more by the CPU regardless of single player or multi-player while at maxed-out levels differences are much smaller.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but this video contradicts most of what I've seen from credible sources.

Almost nobody runs multiplayer benchmarks. 99% of what you'll see is single player and that's worthless. Hardware Unboxed is plenty credible and their findings are easy to replicate for anyone willing to.

Of course it's easier to bottleneck the GPU with high resolution and settings, that's always been the case. The fact of the matter is BFV multiplayer has a very real CPU bottleneck when trying to hit high fps. If you're targeting high fps, a straight quad core doesn't cut it.

Anyone that has played BFV will tell you the same. Again, I've used an i5-6600, i7-7700 and i9-9900k and it's pretty evident what happens with less than six threads.

 

[ozzy702]

Anthem also uses the frostbite engine and again, really thrives at 8 threads and up. Wish he had the .1% lows, that's where you really see it with stuttering, etc.

https://imgur.com/a/UgWmeZb

 

[Captante]

That chart looks like anything above an I-3 8350k or Ryzen 2400g provides decent performance although of course faster IS obviously better!

Not caring what any benchmarks show, most of them are single player and of course run better over multiplayer. Like i said before also its also how the system felt overall as well. I am sure there is some titles where a i5 quad core is still good enough but BF1/BF5 isn't one of them.

The i5 8400 would have been fine if i jumped to 1440p but at 1080p it was holding back the 1070ti ever so slightly. Those 6 cores can push pass 90% on Amiens 64p at 1080p with enough frames pumping. Sure with a lower end card the usage would drop but BF1/BF5 are titles that push the cores the more you ask of them. I have seen 8700k users upgrading to 9900k chips in hopes of pulling just a few more frames with a smoother experience.

As I said at lower resolution and/or reduced-detail the CPU becomes the limiting factor while for the reverse its more the GPU...... all that's changed is the resolution where they swap has gotten higher.


Edit: The last MP Frostbyte-engine game I personally played was that steaming turd ME Andromeda which uses much smaller maps so its not apples-to-apples but it played amazingly well on both my 6600k and my FX-8350. I have a 60hz monitor/GTX-980 and it pegged at 60fps most of the time.

 

[ozzy702]

I wish that Hardware Unboxed had also included .1% lows. That's where the game play experience really makes a difference in BFV with high core counts, it's just significantly smoother. Really, nothing under around an i7-6700 or a 1600X are going to have suitable lows and for smooth gameplay you basically want an 8 core CPU. I expect Ryzen 2 to do very well on this title assuming the cache and memory latencies are solid.

 

[mopardude87]

That video has some of the best if not the best benchmarking for cpu+ gpu i ever seen. The results pretty much fall exactly in line with my i5 8400 experience. I find the 2700X bottlenecking pretty interesting too.

 

[prtskg]

Even my ancient FX8350 @ 4.2 is still doing okay ... buddy gifted me his old GTX-980 awhile back to upgrade my GTX-770 and the performance/FPS bump was very noticeable.

Had to part out and sell my 6600k system awhile back and was expecting the worst when I had to revert to the old FX box but frankly I barely noticed seat-of-the-pants.

WILL be building a Ryzen system around the holidays though...

I intent to win the battle of ancients with my Atlon X2 270. Pretty unusable for most modern workloads now.
Hopefully will build a new AM4 system soon.

 

[Captante]

I intent to win the battle of ancients with my Atlon X2 270. Pretty unusable for most modern workloads now.
Hopefully will build a new AM4 system soon.

My backup desktop right now is an Athlon X2 6400+ (sorry) on an Nvidia 590 SLI Asus Crosshair 8gb DDR2 800, 4x 2TB Seagate HD's, Samsung 830 128gb SSD (OS) Creative Audigy II PCI sound. Oh and a Pioneer 16x Blu-Ray burner which I've used like twice in the last year lol.

Shockingly it actually IS quite usable with Win 10 Pro for media/web browsing and even light gaming. I got an EVGA GTX-950 as a warranty replacement for my 550ti that was a warranty replacement for my original 8800 GTX! Threw it right in!

While I'm certain its being held back by the CPU I was able to run games like the old Tell-Tale stuff, Alan Wake, Skyrim and the first two Mass Effect games on this identical system only with a GTX-280 so my guess is its faster now at least for games.

 

[mopardude87]

A friend of mine came to me a few months back saying that a lap top of his was running very slow.He wanted me to fix it so he can run some steam games on it. It had a Pentium M in it. I think it was a 1.6ghz one. It had half a gig of ram and well just the background services were pegging the cpu. Did what i could but it was still painfully unusable.

I suggested the only real good thing he could do with it was have a oversized portable dvd player . I had nothing else to say or suggest.

Edit: forgot to mention it had W7 on it

 

[Captante]

A friend of mine came to me a few months back saying that a lap top of his was running very slow.He wanted me to fix it so he can run some steam games on it. It had a Pentium M in it. I think it was a 1.6ghz one. It had half a gig of ram and well just the background services were pegging the cpu. Did what i could but it was still painfully unusable.

I suggested the only real good thing he could do with it was have a oversized portable dvd player . I had nothing else to say or suggest.

Should have installed XP for him!

 

[mopardude87]

Should have installed XP for him!

If only i had a copy of it. My roommate has a copy of 98 in the shed though and i seriously thought about it but then again given my friend here wanted Steam it was a good waste of time given you have to have W7 as a requirement now. Plus my earliest experience with a os was a neighbors Hp with ME. My first own computer had 2000 Pro and a P3 1.1ghz. I wouldn't know what to do with the 98 Disc.

Not sure even if i could get XP on it that if i found some old Steam.exe that was from a version that ran on Xp if the dang thing wouldn't force a update then not work at all? Plus if and when we got Steam working, there is very little in the way of games that will run on those Intel graphics either.

 

[Captante]

Not sure even if i could get XP on it that if i found some old Steam.exe that was from a version that ran on Xp if the dang thing wouldn't force a update then not work at all? Plus if and when we got Steam working, there is very little in the way of games that will run on those Intel graphics either.

Apparently not as of 1/1/2019 ...

Oh well... no Vista either btw