BF3 CPU bottleneck? Really?

[moonbogg]

For you 3930k owners,how is the cpu scaling as far as usage across cores and threads?

Got my 3930k@4ghz and i noticed only 6 threads in task manager are active,the other 6 are completely idle,running all high no msaa@1920x1200 with a single gtx670.

Is the game smart enough to know which threads are cores and which are hyperthreading?

All I know is that from my testing the game continues to benefit up to 8 threads. After 4 threads, the benefit of each additional thread is small (2 or 3fps) but it does add up once you get 8 threads. After 8 threads the benefit is precisely zero. My testing was not perfect but it did show a small benefit. Regarding the game knowing what is a core vs a thread, I don't know.

I did notice it when it dropped, it was buggy as hell. Anyways, normally, fps drops to 40~50's for 1 sec and then goes back to 60+ (Depending on the maps). I was wondering if this is normal because the gtx 680 should be able to handle everything you throw at it.

It is normal. Try to unsderstand that people with less powerful cards are actually not able to play the game on the settings you are. If you had a GTX580, your mins would be like in the 20's or something like that, maybe lower 30's if you were lucky. My friend just got a 7970ghz edition card and his fps was floating around 38 or so on a large, full map at 1920x1200. That was closer to the min, but still it should tell you that mins in the 40's is normal for your card.
I have two 670's (OCd editions) and when I play with one card active, the FPS mins are lower 40's, sometimes in the upper 30's if I recall. Granted your card is faster, but its not so much faster as to change the equation that much. Nothing wrong with your FPS from what I am hearing, but I understand why you are puzzled. It is because BF3 is a beast of a game with a next gen game engine and when you got 64 players going insane trying to kill eachother, it will strain both CPU and GPU, even the latest and greatest.

EDIT: Also, your 680 IS handling what you are throwing at it. 40-50 MINIMUM fps is by all accounts GOOD, especially for a game like this.

 

[1b0b1]

Thanks moobbogg, from now on, i'll keep fraps benchmarks and msi afterburner hardware monitor on while I am playing to get more accurate results.

 

[skipsneeky2]

All I know is that from my testing the game continues to benefit up to 8 threads. After 4 threads, the benefit of each additional thread is small (2 or 3fps) but it does add up once you get 8 threads. After 8 threads the benefit is precisely zero. My testing was not perfect but it did show a small benefit. Regarding the game knowing what is a core vs a thread, I don't know.

Wonder what would benefit the game more,4 cores with ht or 6 cores without ht?

 

[moonbogg]

Wonder what would benefit the game more,4 cores with ht or 6 cores without ht?

From my testing I would gather that 4c with HT would provide a very slight benefit of about 3fps or so over a 6 core no HT chip. This is assuming that they are both the same kind of CPU, same frequency, same cache etc such as a sandy bridge or ivy bridge. In that case, any 6 core chip you get will have HT capability anyways.

 

[Fx1]

There is no bottleneck. My i7 950 4ghz can play 60 FPS constant on ultra on every map i played so far

 

[1b0b1]

There is no bottleneck. My i7 950 4ghz can play 60 FPS constant on ultra on every map i played so far

VGA ? are you sure that you are not having fps drops or whatsoever ?

 

[Fx1]

VGA ? are you sure that you are not having fps drops or whatsoever ?

Yes im sure. my 7970 is at 1050mhz like a GHZ edition. Ultra Preset with 4.0 i7 950 6gb ram 1600mhz and SSD's

 

[moonbogg]

Yes im sure. my 7970 is at 1050mhz like a GHZ edition. Ultra Preset with 4.0 i7 950 6gb ram 1600mhz and SSD's

I can't wait to hear why you won't provide us some actual fraps runs.

 

[DDR4]

Get some more RAM 8 gigs is good, but your memory is probably bottlenecking your cpu

 

[Fx1]

I can't wait to hear why you won't provide us some actual fraps runs.

because im not getting paid advertising money to do so.

The yellow 60 in the corner of my screen never changes. Especially on Close quarters

 

[1b0b1]

wait what ?

 

[moonbogg]

because im not getting paid advertising money to do so.

The yellow 60 in the corner of my screen never changes. Especially on Close quarters

:thumbsup:

 

[2is]

There is no bottleneck. My i7 950 4ghz can play 60 FPS constant on ultra on every map i played so far

I believe it if you haven't played many maps... There's no way an i7 950 @ 4GHz is going to maintain a 60fps minimum on every map, particularly with 64 players. Maybe you just looked away from the ticker. :\

 

[skipsneeky2]

because im not getting paid advertising money to do so.

The yellow 60 in the corner of my screen never changes. Especially on Close quarters

LOL,my Evga gtx670 FTW at stock handles the game maxed out as well,only on Metro can it sustain 60fps with a 4ghz 3930k....Caspian Border or any other big outdoor map and fps can tank easily into the 40s at times and i bet that would be the case for you as well.

I end up running high settings no msaa simply cause ultra even without msaa sorta feels choppy outside of Metro at times like i am at 45fps,despite fraps displaying a sustained 60fps.

 

[1b0b1]

Agree with both, unless he provides us with a sample video or a benchmark test, his claim is irrelevant.

 

[Makaveli]

Agree with both, unless he provides us with a sample video or a benchmark test, his claim is irrelevant.

lol that guy must think this is the tomshardware forum!

60 fps on all maps believe that when I see it.

 

[1b0b1]

lol that guy must think this is the tomshardware forum!

and your point is ?

 

[Makaveli]

My point is Fx1 is just trolling.

And his response when asked to do some frap runs is quite comical.

 

[1b0b1]

Why did you create this thread?

Its pretty obvious you don't want help.

First of all, I didn't create this threat. Second, if I didn't need any help, I wouldn't have mentioned my problem here, right ?

On the other hand, what the guy said is theoretically true but in the real world, we all know that it is not. That's why I asked for an evidence, which is the most logical thing to ask for in this particular situation.

Also, it is pointless to throw a claim that contradicts with almost all the opinions stated in this thread without even bothering to back it up with a real evidence.

After all, we are all here to help each others, aren't we ?

 

[Makaveli]

First of all, I didn't create this threat. Second, if I didn't need any help, I wouldn't have mentioned my problem here, right ?

On the other hand, what the guy said is theoretically true but in the real world, we all know that it is not. That's why I asked for an evidence, which is the most logical thing to ask for in this particular situation.

Also, it is pointless to throw a claim that contradicts with almost all the opinions stated in this thread without even bothering to back it up with a real evidence.

After all, we are all here to help each others, aren't we ?

I know you didn't create the thread that is why I deleted the post and corrected it to what is shows above. i'm agreeing with you guys!

 

[1b0b1]

I know you didn't create the thread that is why I deleted the post and corrected it to what is shows above. i'm agreeing with you guys!

Thank you

 

[2is]

and your point is ?

He wasnt talking about you. Ease up on the attitude big guy.

 

[1b0b1]

He wasnt talking about you. Ease up on the attitude big guy.

He was and it was sorted out. Thanks for stepping by.

Have a nice day

 

[2is]

"That guy" was FX1. He was simply reiterating what you said.

 

[1b0b1]

"That guy" was FX1. He was simply reiterating what you said.

me or that guy, doesn't matter, we agreed on the fact that he should provide an evidence to back up his claim.

thanks for pointing it out anyways