How could you need that much? The game even has this stupid resolution like The Order, it's stupid. It must be a bad port, you're using 2/3 of the screen.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
Not sure why it asks for i7 specifically. The performance difference between i5 and i7 are already minimal when it comes to gaming, and newer i5s are vastly superior than older i7s.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
Ya, all I'm hearing is a repeat of the "you'll only need a pittance of memory" arguments people were saying at the beginning of this gen.
Look how badly i7 anything spanks most i5 processors in 3d mark.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
Ya, all I'm hearing is a repeat of the "you'll only need a pittance of memory" arguments people were saying at the beginning of this gen.
Look how badly i7 anything spanks most i5 processors in 3d mark.
Synthetic benchmarks will always use the extra cores.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
Ya, all I'm hearing is a repeat of the "you'll only need a pittance of memory" arguments people were saying at the beginning of this gen.
Look how badly i7 anything spanks most i5 processors in 3d mark.
If the game uses a lot of threads then first gen i7's will probably run it better than newer i5's.
Actually no, In a heavily threaded cpu hungry game like BF4 64MP an i7 930 2.8 ghz only inches out an i5 2500k 3.3 ghz by 3 fps, and a FX 8350 beats the i7 930 by 1-2 fps while 3rd gen i5's onward beat both of them . Now the 1st gen i5's nearly matched the FX 8150 which is only 8-9 fps slower then i7 930. Single player tend not to stress cpu's the same way, BF4 SP any 4+ core cpu beyond 3 ghz ran the game the same.
Ya, all I'm hearing is a repeat of the "you'll only need a pittance of memory" arguments people were saying at the beginning of this gen.
Look how badly i7 anything spanks most i5 processors in 3d mark.
The i7 930 gets like 5800 score in physics in 3dmark11 while i5 2500 gets 6200 while a i5 3570 gets more then 6400. 3dmark shouldn't be the sole cpu benchmark to gauge cpu performance, but on average i7's are 20-30% faster then their i5 counterparts of the same gen.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Who here actually takes any notice of the recommended specs the publishers release? They're almost always bullshit, and I have no doubt this game will runs fine on a core i5 (or less) provided you have a decent enough GPU.
Loooool forgot about the requirments ... its all bunch of crap , the only thing should bother you is 4 gb vram for who does not have it , no compressed texture = more vram usage and that's what id5 do the best ...
cpu an i 3 will kill the game and i bet it work in i3 as if its i7 ......
Yeah, and Wolfenstein also recommended it, even though it could run on toasters. An i7 doesn't necessarily mean a 4770k or something; it could very well be the first gen i7s.
Exactly. Probably they mean i7 920 ( considering the gpu recommendation is also a rather modest gtx460 ) a freaking 5year old cpu and everyone on the internet went mad
That 5 year old CPU still rips a lot of the newer AMD cpus.
And the console CPUs are many times weaker.
I'd say even an old Phenom II x4 or Athlon II x4 would be fine for this game.
As long as they are 3ghz or better those Phenom 2's and Athlon 2's should do just fine with this port.
yeh im guessing my phenon II 955 3.2ghz stock with 8 gig ddr 3 and a 270x 2 gig gddr5 should be able to run it, damn i got my mainboard and cpu in august 2009 and its still running every thing at 1920x1200 :)
bf4 runs great at 1200p with aa etc maxxed out, got bf4 for free with my graphics card just before christmas last year :)
gonna just need a new mainboard and a i5 at some point every other thing will plug in new board and ill run memory at 1666 instead of been gimped at 1333, mem sticks have xmp intel xtreme memory profiles for 1666, my amd cpu doesnt like them though, so im running my mem sticks at 1333mhz which my amd cpu likes :)
yeh im guessing my phenon II 955 3.2ghz stock with 8 gig ddr 3 and a 270x 2 gig gddr5 should be able to run it, damn i got my mainboard and cpu in august 2009 and its still running every thing at 1920x1200 :)
bf4 runs great at 1200p with aa etc maxxed out, got bf4 for free with my graphics card just before christmas last year :)
gonna just need a new mainboard and a i5 at some point every other thing will plug in new board and ill run memory at 1666 instead of been gimped at 1333, mem sticks have xmp intel xtreme memory profiles for 1666, my amd cpu doesnt like them though, so im running my mem sticks at 1333mhz which my amd cpu likes :)
You should be fine, I was in a similar setup(had my 955 overclocked) more then a week ago, upgraded to an i5 4690k and let me tell you in cpu bound games I seen nearly 2x the fps. 1333mhz vs 1600mhz does not make a difference. But if you have DDR3 with heat spreaders you can set your memory at 1600 from 1333 pretty easily.
yeh im guessing my phenon II 955 3.2ghz stock with 8 gig ddr 3 and a 270x 2 gig gddr5 should be able to run it, damn i got my mainboard and cpu in august 2009 and its still running every thing at 1920x1200 :)
bf4 runs great at 1200p with aa etc maxxed out, got bf4 for free with my graphics card just before christmas last year :)
gonna just need a new mainboard and a i5 at some point every other thing will plug in new board and ill run memory at 1666 instead of been gimped at 1333, mem sticks have xmp intel xtreme memory profiles for 1666, my amd cpu doesnt like them though, so im running my mem sticks at 1333mhz which my amd cpu likes :)
You should be fine, I was in a similar setup(had my 955 overclocked) more then a week ago, upgraded to an i5 4690k and let me tell you in cpu bound games I seen nearly 2x the fps. 1333mhz vs 1600mhz does not make a difference. But if you have DDR3 with heat spreaders you can set your memory at 1600 from 1333 pretty easily.
yeh man thats why i only need a main board and cpu, my mem is 1666 mem just my amd chip wont like me putting it on that speed, hehe thought ahead when i got it :)
think ill get a new psu as well this ones getting too old :)
cant wait to upgrade but lacking moneys as usual although most games are still maxed out :p
I was going to say its a bethesda game and optimization hasn't been their strong suit.
But it's being published by them, I'm not sure if that effects the outcome. Regardless, I'm buying this for the PS4 to stream it and because I like the controller (mostly because I need to update my PC too).
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
Well that's because AMD processors are terrible comparatively.
Right now it's something like ~11% difference (which in itself isn't anything to sneeze at) as @04dcarraher pointed out in newer multi-threaded games between running an i5 and an i7, but just like memory requirements, it's only going to get worse.
Although with dx12 and mantle, the bottom wrung of "worse" will still be more than fine.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
Well that's because AMD processors are terrible comparatively.
Right now it's something like ~11% difference (which in itself isn't anything to sneeze at) as @04dcarraher pointed out in newer multi-threaded games between running an i5 and an i7, but just like memory requirements, it's only going to get worse.
Although with dx12 and mantle, the bottom wrung of "worse" will still be more than fine.
You can't put AMD down that hard though, Intel are running on their latest chipset while AMD are using a process from Q4 2012.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
Well that's because AMD processors are terrible comparatively.
Right now it's something like ~11% difference (which in itself isn't anything to sneeze at) as @04dcarraher pointed out in newer multi-threaded games between running an i5 and an i7, but just like memory requirements, it's only going to get worse.
Although with dx12 and mantle, the bottom wrung of "worse" will still be more than fine.
You can't put AMD down that hard though, Intel are running on their latest chipset while AMD are using a process from Q4 2012.
Well I did say comparatively.
I don't know current costs, but if the price\performance is there then there's nothing wrong with them for a budget build.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
Well that's because AMD processors are terrible comparatively.
Right now it's something like ~11% difference (which in itself isn't anything to sneeze at) as @04dcarraher pointed out in newer multi-threaded games between running an i5 and an i7, but just like memory requirements, it's only going to get worse.
Although with dx12 and mantle, the bottom wrung of "worse" will still be more than fine.
You can't put AMD down that hard though, Intel are running on their latest chipset while AMD are using a process from Q4 2012.
Well I did say comparatively.
I don't know current costs, but if the price\performance is there then there's nothing wrong with them for a budget build.
If you are on a budget then I always say go AMD and get a better video card.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
The i5 does not have hyperthreading only i7 CPUs have it.
yeh im guessing my phenon II 955 3.2ghz stock with 8 gig ddr 3 and a 270x 2 gig gddr5 should be able to run it, damn i got my mainboard and cpu in august 2009 and its still running every thing at 1920x1200 :)
bf4 runs great at 1200p with aa etc maxxed out, got bf4 for free with my graphics card just before christmas last year :)
gonna just need a new mainboard and a i5 at some point every other thing will plug in new board and ill run memory at 1666 instead of been gimped at 1333, mem sticks have xmp intel xtreme memory profiles for 1666, my amd cpu doesnt like them though, so im running my mem sticks at 1333mhz which my amd cpu likes :)
You should be fine, I was in a similar setup(had my 955 overclocked) more then a week ago, upgraded to an i5 4690k and let me tell you in cpu bound games I seen nearly 2x the fps. 1333mhz vs 1600mhz does not make a difference. But if you have DDR3 with heat spreaders you can set your memory at 1600 from 1333 pretty easily.
exact same situation here. I had an OC phenom II since 2010 and it was great but i went to an i5 4440 a couple of days ago and in BF3 my minimum fps went from 35 to 45 ( and that is only with a 7850 ) and in Skyrim in whiterun my fps would drop to 35 now i never see it dop below 60. Phenon II still a good cpu but in cpu intensive games it started showing its age
If it needs older i7 why doesn't it say the code name of the CPU instead of just generic i7? That's pretty vague. There is a pretty big differnece between a 6 year old i7 and a new i7 yet they just say i7
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
The i5 does not have hyperthreading only i7 CPUs have it.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
The i5 does not have hyperthreading only i7 CPUs have it.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Well I assume you didn't know that by the way you worded your sentence.
You say that hyperthreading doesn't do much and then compare the 8 core AMD to an i5.
Hyperthreading can help a bit if used correctly.
Just look at how the core i3 is able to perform better than the 4 core Phenom II x4 965 even though the i3 is a dual core and the AMD cpu is a quad core.
The i3 can receive a huge boost in performance when hyperthreading is on in games that use 4 threads like Battlefield.
So the i7 could possibly get a good boost in performance in games that support (and need) more than 4 threads....but it will be quite a while before games start needing more than 4 threads.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
The i5 does not have hyperthreading only i7 CPUs have it.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Well I assume you didn't know that by the way you worded your sentence.
You say that hyperthreading doesn't do much and then compare the 8 core AMD to an i5.
Hyperthreading can help a bit if used correctly.
Just look at how the core i3 is able to perform better than the 4 core Phenom II x4 965 even though the i3 is a dual core and the AMD cpu is a quad core.
The i3 can receive a huge boost in performance when hyperthreading is on in games that use 4 threads like Battlefield.
So the i7 could possibly get a good boost in performance in games that support (and need) more than 4 threads....but it will be quite a while before games start needing more than 4 threads.
But you are comparing the latest Intel i3 vs a CPU from AMD that is a few years old. Intel's core performance is vastly superiour to AMD's that is why you are seeing 4 core i5's run neck and neck with an 8 core from AMD. However, if you check this review out, there is only about a 2-3FPS difference between an i7 and a i5 from the same processor family.
As you can see same gen i5 and i7 = 11% difference, now when you crank up the settings instead of using such a low resolution as above you see the real gap in cpu performance with AMD cpu's. core performance> threads
Looks like it's still in the same order.
That is Intel far superior core performance vs AMD's "MOAR CORS!" view of things.
Right, but AMD single core/thread performance is so far behind even first gen i7 processors when running at the same clock speed that it speaks to how important multi-threading is becoming by how well it's able to keep up.
Nah, hyperthreading really doesn't do much for gaming. Just look at that chart. The i5 runs the same as an 8 core AMD.
The i5 does not have hyperthreading only i7 CPUs have it.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Well I assume you didn't know that by the way you worded your sentence.
You say that hyperthreading doesn't do much and then compare the 8 core AMD to an i5.
Hyperthreading can help a bit if used correctly.
Just look at how the core i3 is able to perform better than the 4 core Phenom II x4 965 even though the i3 is a dual core and the AMD cpu is a quad core.
The i3 can receive a huge boost in performance when hyperthreading is on in games that use 4 threads like Battlefield.
So the i7 could possibly get a good boost in performance in games that support (and need) more than 4 threads....but it will be quite a while before games start needing more than 4 threads.
But you are comparing the latest Intel i3 vs a CPU from AMD that is a few years old. Intel's core performance is vastly superiour to AMD's that is why you are seeing 4 core i5's run neck and neck with an 8 core from AMD. However, if you check this review out, there is only about a 2-3FPS difference between an i7 and a i5 from the same processor family.
That is because the games don't use more than 4 threads. Even the few games that use more than 4 threads are usually not coded well for it.
The i3 with hyperthreading off vs on is quite a big difference and once games become demanding enough to require 8 thread/cores you could see the same improvement from an i7 CPU since they both use the same hyperthreaded design.
Yeah, and Wolfenstein also recommended it, even though it could run on toasters. An i7 doesn't necessarily mean a 4770k or something; it could very well be the first gen i7s.
This ^
They only wrote it because of the games engine. Why they are trying so hard to push this garbage engine is beyond me.
Well I assume you didn't know that by the way you worded your sentence.
You say that hyperthreading doesn't do much and then compare the 8 core AMD to an i5.
Hyperthreading can help a bit if used correctly.
Just look at how the core i3 is able to perform better than the 4 core Phenom II x4 965 even though the i3 is a dual core and the AMD cpu is a quad core.
The i3 can receive a huge boost in performance when hyperthreading is on in games that use 4 threads like Battlefield.
So the i7 could possibly get a good boost in performance in games that support (and need) more than 4 threads....but it will be quite a while before games start needing more than 4 threads.
But you are comparing the latest Intel i3 vs a CPU from AMD that is a few years old. Intel's core performance is vastly superiour to AMD's that is why you are seeing 4 core i5's run neck and neck with an 8 core from AMD. However, if you check this review out, there is only about a 2-3FPS difference between an i7 and a i5 from the same processor family.
That is because the games don't use more than 4 threads. Even the few games that use more than 4 threads are usually not coded well for it.
The i3 with hyperthreading off vs on is quite a big difference and once games become demanding enough to require 8 thread/cores you could see the same improvement from an i7 CPU since they both use the same hyperthreaded design.
Here is the problem, Intels i3's with HT didnt start out pacing AMD's Phenom 2 X4 's until the i3's from 2012 onward when their performance per clock was 2x faster, allowing those two cores to perform on equal or better terms then P2 X4's. Now with the i7's the quad cores total performance is virtually the same as i5 from same gen. HT will only allow small gains from being more efficient with the use of more threads but wont give large gains in gaming. Now the 6 or 8 cored i7's since they have more cores will allow hell of alot more gains with HT then i7 quads.
Log in to comment