Battlefield 1 is not GPU bound:
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/19282/battlefield-1-minimum-pc-requirements
If you believe, that a game that needs the best and latest (when BF1 launched) i5 and a 4.5 years old mid range GPU as a minimum requirements , is GPU bound you are just ignorant.
So, let me get this straight: your argument is based on minimum requirement lists (that almost never give a proper picture of the reality)? Not actual tests and benchmarks (that point towards it not being the case), that show numbers, CPU load and all other data? Bwhahahahhahahahha.
Battlefield 1 is not GPU bound:
There is a Frostbite Team that handles and upgrades the engine continuously. Not changing the major version number doesn't mean that the engine is the same. But of course I am a liar and the FB engine is the same exactly as it was 3 years ago.
It was
you who made the claim a different Frostbite engine was used. It was
you who alluded to this "new Frostbite engine" somehow being more CPU-dependent than the one on BF4,
despite BF4 using 8 threads and having the exact same amount of usage as BF1.
But, please, do tell about this "Frostbite Team ", that has made their new game soooooooo much more CPU bound. You clearly know a lot of inside info that we don't. I'm all ears!
Battlefield 1 is not GPU bound:
I don't really see where I made up stuff. If you want to see how a CPU performs in a game, you make certain that the GPU is not utilized at 100%. Like it obviously happens in the video shown. The game is GPU bound both in 1440p and 4K in ultra settings (what a surprise). The CPU usage in the particular video is useless, as it tells us nothing about how the CPU performs...
It's actually more useful than the DigitalFoundry test, as it tests setups that normal people actually use. What's useless it testing with hardware and at settings that are abnormal and that are hardly used. Then the numbers produced are artificial. They don't give an actual representation of how people use their systems. If DF or you want to find out how CPUs bottleneck, then go out and try it with a GTX 1060 or RX 480. Testing cards like GTX 1080 or overclocked Titan XP at 1080p is stupid; hardly anybody plays like that. I get the point is to stress the CPUs as much as possible; but why bother, when it gives no proper picture of reality? It's more than enough that they have picked out the most CPU intensive games out there...
Battlefield 1 is not GPU bound:
There are people that have 4k monitors and there are people that have 144Hz monitors (with the latter being more in my opinion). If you want all of the eye candy and 4K, yes, BF1 can be GPU bound. If you want more FPS, the game is certainly CPU bound.
Again wrong. BF1 is probably one of the most intensive FPS games (you know, the ones you actually get 144Hz monitors for). And for that game, you can reach your average 120 FPS target with your GTX 1080 at even 1440p. I can easily reach that same target with a GTX 1070 at 1080p. Then there's the factor og graphical settings: nnot everyone have everything on max at all times either -- especially not if achieving 144Hz is so important to you than graphics.
And ask the people in here who own GTX 1080s what kind of monitors they own. I have this odd feeling that the overwhelming majority of them have either 1440p displays or higher.....
I don't know if you are an Intel fan, which probably is the case as you are very persistent to convince everyone that in all games IPC and clocks matter. I am not fan of any particular microprocessor company, I just want the best for consumers (and/or gamers as myself).
After being called out for knowing nothing about the topic of which you speak of, you resort to calling me a fanboy of a specific company (despite me never even comparing Intel to AMD once, but rather Intel to Intel).
I never said all games. One thing is the fact that the only games that are usually tested by sites amount to maybe the 5-10% (that are the most CPU bound) of all games. Another is the fact that even in those games, it has been proven, as shown by TH's test and many other CPU benchmark testst that include the 1440p settings for said powerful GPUS, 4 threads are enough.
And what the hell has this to do with Intel; aren't AMD releasing 4 core Ryzen chips, also?