Battlefield 1 Benchmarks (Gamegpu & the rest)

[Despoiler]

BF4 using Mantle had these same sort of teething issues. I think it took a good 4 patches for everything to come together. Consider that that was AMD only and only a subset of AMD cards supported the API, DICE has a lot more work to do. I am surprised they are having as many issues as they are. Johan @ DICE was the one that wants DX12/Vulkan to be required after this year. It appears they did the same thing everyone else has done. Optimize the DX11 path and just get DX12 to a technically usable level. I guess it's not surprising. When Nvidia rules the roost you kind of have to cater to their base. I expect we are going to see the tables turn as the patches keep rolling out.

I'm not having any issues with DX12 personally. It's fast and smooth. I only play 64p multi. The load screens are choppy, but gameplay is so good.

 

[pj-]

I wish there were some Mega Ultra settings or something.

I have the game capped at 144fps/1440p and it's hitting that limit 95% of the time

 

[happy medium]

In single player yes for MP its not, especially if you want more than 60fps (120-144Hz)

I have not seen MP benchmarks with a i3 6100 @4.5?
if you have them ,let me see.

 

[AtenRa]

4GHz Core i7 6900K with 2.5MB L3 Cache per Core (6100 only has 1.5MB) at 2C 4T, 4C 4T, 4C 8T and 8C 16T.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...attlefield-1-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1210394/

What the above slide doesnt show is the stuttering, we really need timeframe analysis to see the differences between 2C 4T and higher Core/Threads count and not only FPS.

Have a look what happening with Core i3 6300 (3.8GHz with 2MB L3 Cache per Core) in BF3 MP and with Mantle to help further.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-energy-consumption-in-gaming-atenra.2459963/

By only looking at the FPS alone of the Core i3 6300 you will believe that the game runs fine at 102fps on average. But if you look at the frametime analysis you will start to understand how awful gameplay will be because of the high stuttering.

 

[TheELF]

That's why you should use fast DDR4 ram with skylake and not slow DDR3...
Asrock even has cheap mobos that support the further overclocking of DDR4.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, what happens with the i3 Skylake and faster ram?

What happens with the 6300 or 6320 and it's extra cache?

More testing is needed.

 

[AtenRa]

That's why you should use fast DDR4 ram with skylake and not slow DDR3...
Asrock even has cheap mobos that support the further overclocking of DDR4.

If you believe the problem is the ram bandwidth, the Core i5 2500K was running with only DDR-3 1600MHz 9-9-9 RAM when Core i3 6300 had DDR-3 1866MHz at 9-9-9. And it really shows that its better to have a Quad Core with lower RAM than a High clocked Dual Core with faster Ram.
Core i3 SkyLake with DDR-3 1866MHz with 9-9-9 timings its faster than having DDR-4 2133MHz at 15-15-15.

If you need 3000MHz DDR-4 ram or faster with the Core i3, then you better spend that extra money for a core i5.

 

[LTC8K6]

The first line of your post seems to indicate a belief that cache is a factor with the i3. The 6300 has more cache than the 6100. Do you think that would help?

I think we have seen that Skylake seems to benefit from fast ddr4 ram.

So it seems logical to test these things if you want to know, rather than just supposing?

 

[AtenRa]

The first line of your post seems to indicate a belief that cache is a factor with the i3. The 6300 has more cache than the 6100. Do you think that would help?

I think we have seen that Skylake seems to benefit from fast ddr4 ram.

So it seems logical to test these things if you want to know, rather than just supposing?

There is no advantage to Skylake going for DDR-3 1866MHz 9-9-9 vs DDR-4 2133MHz 15-15-15 in gaming

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/8

But cache in Core i3 should have a bigger impact.

 

[TheELF]

It's not about the speed of the ram itself it's about cpu:ram ratio (or fsb:ram) if your ram runs at halve the speed of your cpu(or mem controller or whatever) then your cpu has to run twice the cycles to do any ram work.
You need fast DDR4 to get the most out of skylake.

 

[AtenRa]

It's not about the speed of the ram itself it's about cpu:ram ratio (or fsb:ram) if your ram runs at halve the speed of your cpu(or mem controller or whatever) then your cpu has to run twice the cycles to do any ram work.
You need fast DDR4 to get the most out of skylake.

Again, if you are going to spend more money for higher DDR-4 RAM for the Core i3 then better buy a Core i5 with lower speed ram, much better for gaming frametimes as shown from the Core i5 2500K in my graphs above. A Core i5 6400/6500 + DDR-4 2133MHz will be much better in frametimes than a Core i3 6300 + DDR-4 at 3000MHz.

 

[TheELF]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review
The i7 might not benefit a lot but the i3 sure does.

 

[Bacon1]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review
The i7 might not benefit a lot but the i3 sure does.

Very much game dependent though.

Witcher 3 for instance goes 72 -> 85 for i3 -> i5 while shadow of mordor only gains 2 fps from 134 -> 136 while both gain more from higher RAM.

I'd definitely tell someone to buy a i5 over i3 vs faster ram if they were similarly priced as it would be better overall, but if the ram was like $5 vs $50 for processor the faster ram would be definitely worth it.

 

[Spjut]

Sandy Bridge i5, Ivy Bridge i7 and Skylake i5 are also shown to get noticeable gains with faster RAM in some modern games
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k

 

[LTC8K6]

There is no advantage to Skylake going for DDR-3 1866MHz 9-9-9 vs DDR-4 2133MHz 15-15-15 in gaming

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/8

But cache in Core i3 should have a bigger impact.

Well, 2133 is not what I call fast DDR4.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, 2133 is not what I call fast DDR4.

yes i was mainly responding for the 1866MHz in my tests.

As i have said before, it is better to go for a Core i5 6400/6500K + cheaper DDR-4 2133MHz than go for Core i3 + faster more expensive DDR-4 3000MHz+. For BF MP the Quad Core Core i5 Skylake will be significantly better in frametimes than the Dual Core + HT Core i3 no matter what ram speed used.

 

[TheELF]

Get cheap mobo
http://www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?id=3043
get cheap 2133 ddr4 mem
o/c as much as possible
=
profit

If someone has money to build a decent rig around a i5 then that's a whole other story.

 

[LTC8K6]

yes i was mainly responding for the 1866MHz in my tests.

As i have said before, it is better to go for a Core i5 6400/6500K + cheaper DDR-4 2133MHz than go for Core i3 + faster more expensive DDR-4 3000MHz+. For BF MP the Quad Core Core i5 Skylake will be significantly better in frametimes than the Dual Core + HT Core i3 no matter what ram speed used.

I agree with that, except for the "6400" you accidentally typed. i5-6400 gets no love from me.

If I'm gaming, I'm not going with an i3 in the first place, so the ram question fades into the background.

 

[crisium]

I wish there were some Mega Ultra settings or something.

I have the game capped at 144fps/1440p and it's hitting that limit 95% of the time

There is it is called resolution scaling. Turf off post process AA and use this instead. 150% at 1440p is 4K. 200% is 5K (2880P).

 

[Capt Caveman]

Got my small upgrade today! I originally ordered one from Jet.com but this weekend, Newegg had it on sale for $270(free shipping) and a $25 off promotion for using Masterpass by Mastercard), so I got it for $245(but will need to return the one I get from Jet.com which I get tomorrow. My R9 290 even at 1440p medium settings would get laggy at certain points, so I'm hoping I can push it to high or ultra settings with decent framerates and no lag.

 

[happy medium]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review
The i7 might not benefit a lot but the i3 sure does.

I have first hand experience and you are correct .

 

[pcslookout]

Finally someone did a test of Multiplayer 64 slot Conquest online with a i5 vs a i7! The difference is huge!

 

[moonbogg]

Finally someone did a test of Multiplayer 64 slot Conquest online with a i5 vs a i7! The difference is huge!

And they actually did it right by lowering the res way down to get the GPU bottleneck out of the damn way. I can't believe they actually had the balls to do the test correctly. Every other site is all like, "Oh no we can't do that. It would be far too useful. We'll stick to single player with our stupid GPU bottlenecks".
I am seriously shocked that someone tested the CPU right. And what do you know? It scaled. Holy crap did it scale. If they tested it like every other site does, you'd see a straight line going down that graph with all the FPS numbers being the same.
Most sites do it like this because the test is repeatable. Never mind that the data is useless garbage, but at least its repeatable garbage?

 

[pj-]

There is it is called resolution scaling. Turf off post process AA and use this instead. 150% at 1440p is 4K. 200% is 5K (2880P).

I think the IQ is fine, I meant something along the lines of more effects or effects/models maintaining quality at further distances. Things that are far away can start to look a little blocky.

 

[Termie]

I'm working on an article comparing a number of video cards in BF1 multi-player, but started with CPUs to determine which would be the best platform to test on.

You all might be interested in checking out the CPU results pitting a 6600K@4.4, 6700K@4.4, and 6900K@4.3 against each other in both single-player and multi-player modes.