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.
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.
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?
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.
yes sandy bridge being released 8 and half years ago, and still running most software OK is pretty amazing
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.
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.
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.
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.
I intent to win the battle of ancients with my Atlon X2 270. Pretty unusable for most modern workloads now.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.
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!
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.