Would Battlefield 4 benefit from an AMD FX8350?

Avatar image for Chris_53
#1 Edited by Chris_53 (5436 posts) -

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

Avatar image for Old_Gooseberry
#2 Edited by Old_Gooseberry (3957 posts) -

get a high end intel cpu and a new video card. don't settle for amd cpu or you'll continue to be frustrated with low performance.

I have a similar amd cpu on a security monitoring pc i have, and even with it overclocked to almost 4 ghz, my intel 4770k is at least 20-30% faster sometimes 50% faster in bencharks i've compared with.

you shouldnt cheap out on a cpu, spend a few dollars more and get high end performance. Also upgrade video card to 770gtx at least, more if you can afford it.

But if you were only going to upgrade to the fx 8350 it would still benefit you a lot over your current card probably. Just saying that if you want even more benefit upgrade to an intel cpu

Avatar image for PredatorRules
#3 Posted by PredatorRules (11946 posts) -

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

Avatar image for tabris91
#4 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

Get a 290 and use Mantle.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#5 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (22285 posts) -

Here's a CPU Performance graph for BF4 from Techspot. If it's strictly BF4, I'd say your current CPU is fine. The AMD FX-8350 is fine if you favor non-gaming performance over gaming performance.I chose it because it does great with non-gaming tasks and adequate enough game performance.

It is true the FX-8350 trails i7s and i5s (in some instances, even i3s) in game performance. But, from a practical point of view, the real question is if the FX-8350 runs those games well enough. The answer is: yes, it does. I know mine runs Watch Dogs okay at 1080p Ultra (temporal SMAA). Same goes for Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3.

This is probably my last AMD PC since AMD has withdrawn from the high-end CPU race. But, it will last a few years still.

Avatar image for tabris91
#6 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

^SP benchmarks are a waste of time in BF4. Multiplayer is much, much more demanding. My 2500k struggled to keep 60fps on some maps.

Avatar image for Arthas045
#7 Posted by Arthas045 (5762 posts) -

I run the 8350 and it works great for BF4, but your CPU is fine. Look at the GPU instead.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#8 Edited by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

Get a 290 and use Mantle.

^SP benchmarks are a waste of time in BF4. Multiplayer is much, much more demanding. My 2500k struggled to keep 60fps on some maps.

Mantle only does anything worth while if you have an AMD cpu. And using mantle can decrease your performance and cause issues with BF4.

You might want to try turning something down or switch back with Direct x. Ive seen someone with 4ghz i5 with 16gb and Crossfire 280x's still dip into the 20's and see stutter with mantle.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#9 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

Avatar image for tabris91
#10 Edited by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

@04dcarraher: I get a big performance boost with mantle, especially on maps that chug on the CPU

TDM and Domination on Shanghai for example, Mantle almost doubled my fps

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#11 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22285 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

^SP benchmarks are a waste of time in BF4. Multiplayer is much, much more demanding. My 2500k struggled to keep 60fps on some maps.

There is no hard benchmark comparison with BF4 MP, of course. But, googling around, it seems like the AMD FX-8xxx are in a better position now with BF4 in MP than with BF3.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#12 Edited by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 60-70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080 with BF4.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#13 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080.

I had gtx 460's in SLI back then, and I used the gtx 460's in SLI on the 2600k for a long time.

The performance difference was insane in games, no more stutters, much higher avg fps, etc. The qx6700 was at 3.6ghz(max it could reliably do)

BF3/BF4 are extremely cpu demanding in mp.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#14 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080.

I had gtx 460's in SLI back then, and I used the gtx 460's in SLI on the 2600k for a long time.

The performance difference was insane in games, no more stutters, much higher avg fps, etc. The qx6700 was at 3.6ghz(max it could reliably do)

BF3/BF4 are extremely cpu demanding in mp.

The QX6700 overclocked to 3.6 ghz wow because good grief that was a awful cpu bottleneck then. Because a Phenom 2 X4 955 with a single GTX 560 performed as well if not better then those SLI 460's with BF3.

BF3/4 MP isnt as demanding as you think with a single gpu setup, its about how well you cpu can supply the rest of the system with data it needs. Having two gpu's will put more workload on the cpu and if you dont have the free cpu cycles to process the other tasks you will run into alot of issues with performance. Which is why when you upgraded the cpu the extra cpu power was able to feed the gpu's what they needed and being able to handle the other tasks at hand too. You also run a crap load of stuff in the background too also eating resources.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#15 Edited by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -
@Postmortem123 said:

@04dcarraher: I get a big performance boost with mantle, especially on maps that chug on the CPU

TDM and Domination on Shanghai for example, Mantle almost doubled my fps

Very hard to believe to see almost double

many tests show with intel cpu's only getting around 20% gains with 290x even with Shanghai 64mp.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#16 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080.

I had gtx 460's in SLI back then, and I used the gtx 460's in SLI on the 2600k for a long time.

The performance difference was insane in games, no more stutters, much higher avg fps, etc. The qx6700 was at 3.6ghz(max it could reliably do)

BF3/BF4 are extremely cpu demanding in mp.

The QX6700 overclocked to 3.6 ghz wow because good grief that was a awful cpu bottleneck then. Because a Phenom 2 X4 955 with a single GTX 560 performed as well if not better then those SLI 460's with BF3.

BF3/4 MP isnt as demanding as you think with a single gpu setup, its about how well you cpu can supply the rest of the system with data it needs. Having two gpu's will put more workload on the cpu and if you dont have the free cpu cycles to process the other tasks you will run into alot of issues with performance. Which is why when you upgraded the cpu the extra cpu power was able to feed the gpu's what they needed and being able to handle the other tasks at hand too. You also run a crap load of stuff in the background too also eating resources.

It is demanding, here's a random video

Of course sli 460's causes more cpu load, but a phenom 2 x4 955 is around the range of a q9xxx series which isn't a huge performance difference.

Running applications in the background that just use memory doesn't hurt gaming performance much. I had 8 gigabytes of ddr2 ram back then, Windows scheduler is quite good.

If you want smooth gameplay, a phenom 2 x4 955 is nowhere near fast enough unless you enjoy playing around 45fps. With a 2600k you have the option to run at 100+fps at all times running a lower resolution if your gpu isn't very fast. You won't ever be able to do that on the x4 955 in heavy multiplayer.

Here's a better link than the video below, http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732

The performance difference is massive.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#17 Edited by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080.

I had gtx 460's in SLI back then, and I used the gtx 460's in SLI on the 2600k for a long time.

The performance difference was insane in games, no more stutters, much higher avg fps, etc. The qx6700 was at 3.6ghz(max it could reliably do)

BF3/BF4 are extremely cpu demanding in mp.

The QX6700 overclocked to 3.6 ghz wow because good grief that was a awful cpu bottleneck then. Because a Phenom 2 X4 955 with a single GTX 560 performed as well if not better then those SLI 460's with BF3.

BF3/4 MP isnt as demanding as you think with a single gpu setup, its about how well you cpu can supply the rest of the system with data it needs. Having two gpu's will put more workload on the cpu and if you dont have the free cpu cycles to process the other tasks you will run into alot of issues with performance. Which is why when you upgraded the cpu the extra cpu power was able to feed the gpu's what they needed and being able to handle the other tasks at hand too. You also run a crap load of stuff in the background too also eating resources.

It is demanding, here's a random video

Of course sli 460's causes more cpu load, but a phenom 2 x4 955 is around the range of a q9xxx series which isn't a huge performance difference.

Running applications in the background that just use memory doesn't hurt gaming performance much. I had 8 gigabytes of ddr2 ram back then, Windows scheduler is quite good.

If you want smooth gameplay, a phenom 2 x4 955 is nowhere near fast enough unless you enjoy playing around 45fps. With a 2600k you have the option to run at 100+fps at all times running a lower resolution if your gpu isn't very fast. You won't ever be able to do that on the x4 955 in heavy multiplayer.

Wrong its not as demanding as you think, and your examples and thinking a Phenom 2 will be playing 45 fps lol , my Phenom 2 955 with a single GTX 560 got 60 fps average in BF3 64 MP mix of Ultra and high settings.

Also to point out why your QX6700 also slacked was from the DDR2...... its another major bottleneck because of the bandwidth limitation. DDR2 800mhz in dual channel is only able to move 12800 MB/s, while DDR3 dual channel1333mhz can move more then 21,000 MB/s. Which would explain alot of the issues with your QX 6700 and SLI 460's. The cpu and memory bandwidth could not feed the data quickly and fluid enough. Your old system was riddled with moderate to major bottlenecks running those SLi 460's.

Avatar image for tabris91
#18 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:
@Postmortem123 said:

@04dcarraher: I get a big performance boost with mantle, especially on maps that chug on the CPU

TDM and Domination on Shanghai for example, Mantle almost doubled my fps

Very hard to believe to see almost double

many tests show with intel cpu's only getting around 20% gains with 290x even with Shanghai 64mp.

Well I have 290p crossfire. In DX I'm massively CPU bottlenecked.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#19 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

@04dcarraher said:
@Postmortem123 said:

@04dcarraher: I get a big performance boost with mantle, especially on maps that chug on the CPU

TDM and Domination on Shanghai for example, Mantle almost doubled my fps

Very hard to believe to see almost double

many tests show with intel cpu's only getting around 20% gains with 290x even with Shanghai 64mp.

Well I have 290p crossfire. In DX I'm massively CPU bottlenecked.

well that explains it you are cpu bottelencked with two 290's.

Avatar image for vfibsux
#20 Edited by vfibsux (4497 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

Ummm no, THIS just is not true and I type from a PC I know it to be not true on. I don't blame you, as you are just repeating what others say I am sure, but just please stop with the bottlenecking myth bullshit. I run a Phenom 965 with my 770 and there is ZERO evidence of any bottlenecking at 1080 res, so I doubt a 955 is going to be that bad. Maybe if you want to run at higher resolutions but for 1080 a high end gpu will work just fine with that cpu. I can drop money on a cpu upgrade any day, I have no need for it right now. I expect to later this year and it will be to intel, for the record.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#21 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

Ummm no, THIS just is not true and I type from a PC I know it to be not true on. I don't blame you, as you are just repeating what others say I am sure, but just please stop with the bottlenecking myth bullshit. I run a Phenom 965 with my 770 and there is ZERO evidence of any bottlenecking at 1080 res, so I doubt a 955 is going to be that bad. Maybe if you want to run at higher resolutions but for 1080 a high end gpu will work just fine with that cpu. I can drop money on a cpu upgrade any day, I have no need for it right now. I expect to later this year and it will be to intel, for the record.

Did you read any of the links I sent? I did an upgrade myself and the performance difference was massive. What you consider "fine" is not considered fine for others. Getting frame rate drops and stutters is going to happen.

If you want a 120+ frame rate experience or even a 60+fps experience you need a very fast cpu.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#22 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

your one of those that will sacrifice detail and resolution for fps and if its not 120 fps you will go further to achieve it.

Was that QX6700 before or after SLI? And was it overclocked?

Because a stock Phenom 2 X4 955 averages 70 fps with a single GTX 760/670 at 1080.

I had gtx 460's in SLI back then, and I used the gtx 460's in SLI on the 2600k for a long time.

The performance difference was insane in games, no more stutters, much higher avg fps, etc. The qx6700 was at 3.6ghz(max it could reliably do)

BF3/BF4 are extremely cpu demanding in mp.

The QX6700 overclocked to 3.6 ghz wow because good grief that was a awful cpu bottleneck then. Because a Phenom 2 X4 955 with a single GTX 560 performed as well if not better then those SLI 460's with BF3.

BF3/4 MP isnt as demanding as you think with a single gpu setup, its about how well you cpu can supply the rest of the system with data it needs. Having two gpu's will put more workload on the cpu and if you dont have the free cpu cycles to process the other tasks you will run into alot of issues with performance. Which is why when you upgraded the cpu the extra cpu power was able to feed the gpu's what they needed and being able to handle the other tasks at hand too. You also run a crap load of stuff in the background too also eating resources.

It is demanding, here's a random video

Of course sli 460's causes more cpu load, but a phenom 2 x4 955 is around the range of a q9xxx series which isn't a huge performance difference.

Running applications in the background that just use memory doesn't hurt gaming performance much. I had 8 gigabytes of ddr2 ram back then, Windows scheduler is quite good.

If you want smooth gameplay, a phenom 2 x4 955 is nowhere near fast enough unless you enjoy playing around 45fps. With a 2600k you have the option to run at 100+fps at all times running a lower resolution if your gpu isn't very fast. You won't ever be able to do that on the x4 955 in heavy multiplayer.

Wrong its not as demanding as you think, and your examples and thinking a Phenom 2 will be playing 45 fps lol , my Phenom 2 955 with a single GTX 560 got 60 fps average in BF3 64 MP mix of Ultra and high settings.

Also to point out why your QX6700 also slacked was from the DDR2...... its another major bottleneck because of the bandwidth limitation. DDR2 800mhz in dual channel is only able to move 12800 MB/s, while DDR3 dual channel1333mhz can move more then 21,000 MB/s. Which would explain alot of the issues with your QX 6700 and SLI 460's. The cpu and memory bandwidth could not feed the data quickly and fluid enough. Your old system was riddled with moderate to major bottlenecks running those SLi 460's.

I even disabled one of the 460's and I had my ddr2 memory overclocked to 1066 iirc with good timings.

On my laptop with a 560m, and an i7 2920es. I can put bf3 on lowest at 1280x960 and get 120+fps

With the qx6700 at 3.6 ghz and a gtx 460(which is much faster than a 560m) I got half the framerate at that resolution.

For reference on my current build, I can get 120+fps all times on my 2600k at 4.4ghz, gtx 670 in sli, at 1920x1080 on medium/high.

With the cpu's you listed you are going to hover around 60fps and dip.

Avatar image for vfibsux
#23 Edited by vfibsux (4497 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@vfibsux said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

Ummm no, THIS just is not true and I type from a PC I know it to be not true on. I don't blame you, as you are just repeating what others say I am sure, but just please stop with the bottlenecking myth bullshit. I run a Phenom 965 with my 770 and there is ZERO evidence of any bottlenecking at 1080 res, so I doubt a 955 is going to be that bad. Maybe if you want to run at higher resolutions but for 1080 a high end gpu will work just fine with that cpu. I can drop money on a cpu upgrade any day, I have no need for it right now. I expect to later this year and it will be to intel, for the record.

Did you read any of the links I sent? I did an upgrade myself and the performance difference was massive. What you consider "fine" is not considered fine for others. Getting frame rate drops and stutters is going to happen.

If you want a 120+ frame rate experience or even a 60+fps experience you need a very fast cpu.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732

Ummmm, no, I don't need to look at a link to tell me what MY machine does. I do not get stutters or rate drops that are even noticeable unless you actually have an fps counter up, as they are not detectable with the naked eye. Don't tell me what happens on my machine, do you realize how ridiculously arrogant that is? Maybe you just have shit hardware or don't maintain your system well? Ever think of that?

120 fps lol, you don't even need that. Elitist bullshit is all this is. And I easily get 60fps with my system, which is absolutely playable to any human being on earth. If you cannot play at 60 fps you are being psyched out by watching a frame counter. This is all about a number to people like you, this is about playing games...not winning your epeen fps contest.

And I take back my "I don't blame you" comment....you are obviously part of the problem spreading this bs.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#24 Edited by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

I even disabled one of the 460's and I had my ddr2 memory overclocked to 1066 iirc with good timings.

On my laptop with a 560m, and an i7 2920es. I can put bf3 on lowest at 1280x960 and get 120+fps

With the qx6700 at 3.6 ghz and a gtx 460(which is much faster than a 560m) I got half the framerate at that resolution.


Even with 1066mhz DDR2 your still limiting the bandwidth needed for SLI 460's. If your laptop is getting better results then your QX 6700 3.6 ghz with a GTX 460 vs a 560m there is something seriously wrong on your end.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#25 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

I even disabled one of the 460's and I had my ddr2 memory overclocked to 1066 iirc with good timings.

On my laptop with a 560m, and an i7 2920es. I can put bf3 on lowest at 1280x960 and get 120+fps

With the qx6700 at 3.6 ghz and a gtx 460(which is much faster than a 560m) I got half the framerate at that resolution.


Even with 1066mhz DDR2 your still limiting the bandwidth needed for SLI 460's. If your laptop is getting better results then your QX 6700 3.6 ghz with a GTX 460 vs a 560m there is something seriously wrong on your end.

There is absolutely nothing wrong. A qx6700 has nowhere near the performance of an i7 2720es.

There was no gpu bottleneck, I was going for max framerate. Low res + lowest settings is all cpu bound.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#26 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@vfibsux said:

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Chris_53 said:

I currently run the game on a Phenom ii x4 955 with 8GB RAM and a GTX570. I run the game at a mix of medium and high settings at 1080p and no deferred AA. The game generally runs ok but sometimes I get the occational stutter and the fps generally runs in the 30s when I have around 64 players. Would the game perform much better if I opt for the above CPU?

No, BF4 works fine with the CPU you currently own, you should upgrade the GPU if you wish higher FPS.

You should upgrade you CPU if you wish to play future games.

That just isn't true.

The framerate difference from my old qx6700 to a 2600k at 4.4ghz in bf3 was around twice as many fps if not more. ~50-60fps to 120+

BF4 is even more cpu heavy, that cpu will bottleneck him big time.

Ummm no, THIS just is not true and I type from a PC I know it to be not true on. I don't blame you, as you are just repeating what others say I am sure, but just please stop with the bottlenecking myth bullshit. I run a Phenom 965 with my 770 and there is ZERO evidence of any bottlenecking at 1080 res, so I doubt a 955 is going to be that bad. Maybe if you want to run at higher resolutions but for 1080 a high end gpu will work just fine with that cpu. I can drop money on a cpu upgrade any day, I have no need for it right now. I expect to later this year and it will be to intel, for the record.

Did you read any of the links I sent? I did an upgrade myself and the performance difference was massive. What you consider "fine" is not considered fine for others. Getting frame rate drops and stutters is going to happen.

If you want a 120+ frame rate experience or even a 60+fps experience you need a very fast cpu.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732

Ummmm, no, I don't need to look at a link to tell me what MY machine does. I do not get stutters or rate drops that are even noticeable unless you actually have an fps counter up, as they are not detectable with the naked eye. Don't tell me what happens on my machine, do you realize how ridiculously arrogant that is? Maybe you just have shit hardware or don't maintain your system well? Ever think of that?

120 fps lol, you don't even need that. Elitist bullshit is all this is. And I easily get 60fps with my system, which is absolutely playable to any human being on earth. If you cannot play at 60 fps you are being psyched out by watching a frame counter. This is all about a number to people like you, this is about playing games...not winning your epeen fps contest.

And I take back my "I don't blame you" comment....you are obviously part of the problem spreading this bs.

So you refuse to look at any benchmarks and are making claims with anecdotal evidence.

The fact that you said 120fps is bullshit shows you are incapable of making any statements on stutter, or anything to do with fps.

I can tell with my eyes in a blindtest the difference between 120fps and 144fps when capped in quake live(vg248qe).

Anyone can tell the difference from 60fps to 120fps(unless actually blind). 120 and 144 is harder. I mean you can always try and prove that you are capable of any sort of reflex by doing this. http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

Anecdotal evidence for something like fps is only valuable if you yourself can see.

Avatar image for deactivated-58f830d098e0e
#27 Posted by deactivated-58f830d098e0e (90 posts) -

battlefield 4 50% off right now check you email from origin. I got a amd fx8350 and will try this deal.