Games that recommend 6 core CPUs

[TheELF]

Whatever suits your personal agenda. I will be happy that you use a 4 core for bf. Please suit yourself.

For others that is less lazy can go and check out computerbase results of real world bf1 mp64 testing. And we are 2 months away from bf5. Buying a 4c cpu for bf now is just straight out stupid.

Well this is the only BF1 mp bench from computerbase that I could find.
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-10...mes-auf-dem-fx-8370-radeon-rx-480-mehrspieler

Unabhängig vom Prozessor, unabhängig von der Grafikkarte und unabhängig vom Spielmodus lässt sich sagen, dass sich Battlefield 1 unter DirectX 11 sehr gut spielen lässt. Das Spielgefühl ist ab rund 50 FPS bereits gut und bei 60 FPS und mehr fühlt sich der First-Person-Shooter sehr rund an. Fühlbare Schwierigkeiten mit den Frametimes gibt es unter DirectX 11 nicht.

 

[krumme]

Trololo

 

[TheELF]

Trololo

How about giving a link to the elusive benchmark?
Otherwise you are the troll.

 

[UsandThem]

Keep the discussion on the topic without the name calling.

AT Mod Usandthem

 

[frozentundra123456]

Whatever suits your personal agenda. I will be happy that you use a 4 core for bf. Please suit yourself.

For others that is less lazy can go and check out computerbase results of real world bf1 mp64 testing. And we are 2 months away from bf5. Buying a 4c cpu for bf now is just straight out stupid.

"Burden of proof rests with the affirmative". In other words, you are making the claim, up to you to provide the source.

 

[cfenton]

There are several recent games that will benefit from extra cores of 8600K or 2600x but think F1 2018 is the first (released) game to recommend them unless I've missed something.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/737800/F1_2018/

Far Cry 5 recommends a Ryzen 5 1600. That's all I could find though.

 

[SPBHM]

it's also a 6c/6t CPU, which means 4c/8t, specially the 7700K should be more than fine;

but given F1 2018 looks very much like just an evolution of 2017, and still targets 60FPS on consoles, I feel like recommending 6c is unnecessary, but we will have to wait for benchmarks,

2017 was certainly not all that CPU hungry and didn't scale all that well with more threads
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7613/8/f1-2017-review-tested-with-21-graphics-cards-cpu-influence

 

[TheELF]

it's also a 6c/6t CPU, which means 4c/8t, specially the 7700K should be more than fine;

but given F1 2018 looks very much like just an evolution of 2017, and still targets 60FPS on consoles, I feel like recommending 6c is unnecessary, but we will have to wait for benchmarks,

2017 was certainly not all that CPU hungry and didn't scale all that well with more threads
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7613/8/f1-2017-review-tested-with-21-graphics-cards-cpu-influence

There already was a link about F1 2018 on the last page gamegpu tested it,even the haswell i3 got minimums of over 100 FPS.

 

[Spjut]

Well this is the only BF1 mp bench from computerbase that I could find.
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-10...mes-auf-dem-fx-8370-radeon-rx-480-mehrspieler

There are some CPU tests here, BF1 mp included. One can compare the i5 2500k and 7600k to their i7 2600k and 7700k brethren.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps


Official CPU requirements are one thing, but it's clear newer games love more threads. The difference is easiest seen when comparing older CPUs with weaker IPC.

 

[TheELF]

There are some CPU tests here, BF1 mp included. One can compare the i5 2500k and 7600k to their i7 2600k and 7700k brethren.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps


Official CPU requirements are one thing, but it's clear newer games love more threads. The difference is easiest seen when comparing older CPUs with weaker IPC.

Nobody ever said that newer games don't love more threads,that's very different from you absolutely need more threads to run a game.
Do you have any idea if those are minimum or avg FPS?
Because computerbase says that 50 upwards is already ok for multiplayer and even the (I presume stock) i5-2500 get's you there...

(Damn, 38% difference between the 4770k and the 7700k)

 

[krumme]

How about giving a link to the elusive benchmark?
Otherwise you are the troll.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-7700k

This is from the computerbase bm and i guess answers all your question. What you want is the frametime to stay so you get eg. at least 60 fps. 20 millisecons is 50 fps. A 7700k just cant do that.
There is tons of these graphs also from computerbase with different maps showing the same pattern; you do want cores in this game. A 8700k is the cpu to get for bf1 for that reason (as it also have high ipc/freq). The 1800x results mirrors the 6800 bwe results.

And as explained there is a technical reason for it. BF1 issues 10 threads. You have to remember this game is made to make the most of 6 jaguar cores. They just tax those cores to the max - and playing on the console they frequently dips well below 30 fps because its such weak cpu.

Notice when looking for fps that average fps in single player is meaningless. What matter is minimum framerates or the 1-5% lowest fps in MP battles. The frametimes gives us those numbers. They are the ones that defines playability.

 

[TheELF]

Notice when looking for fps that average fps in single player is meaningless. What matter is minimum framerates or the 1-5% lowest fps in MP battles. The frametimes gives us those numbers. They are the ones that defines playability.

Ausreißer bei den FPS im Zeitverlauf gibt es in keinem Spiel. Alle im Test verwendeten CPUs zeigen über die 25 Sekunden der jeweiligen Testsequenz vergleichbare Verläufe.
...
...
Die langsamsten 5 Prozent Frametimes im Vergleich

So the graph above the one you show is the normal usage were there are no spikes.
The one you show is the worst 5% they found were it happened to have a large spike on the 7700k.
Since they show no CPU usage, no disk usage,no mem usage, no mention of the scene, no nothing,you'r natural instinct is to blame cores?
You get friggin 120FPS avg on the 7700k ,you want it to be smooth?Use a FPS limit,the game itself has frametime smoothing builtin as a command...
GameTime.MaxVariableFPS
lock it below your avg FPS to avoid all the crappy coding.

Just look at those spikes(for both CPUs) and tell me again how this is because of cores and not because of crappy coding.

What you want is the frametime to stay so you get eg. at least 60 fps. 20 millisecons is 50 fps.

Oh yeah?! What is 36ms?!
It's crappy coding,that's what it is.

 

[Hitman928]

So the graph above the one you show is the normal usage were there are no spikes.
The one you show is the worst 5% they found were it happened to have a large spike on the 7700k.
Since they show no CPU usage, no disk usage,no mem usage, no mention of the scene, no nothing,you'r natural instinct is to blame cores?
You get friggin 120FPS avg on the 7700k ,you want it to be smooth?Use a FPS limit,the game itself has frametime smoothing builtin as a command...
GameTime.MaxVariableFPS
lock it below your avg FPS to avoid all the crappy coding.

Just look at those spikes(for both CPUs) and tell me again how this is because of cores and not because of crappy coding.

Oh yeah?! What is 36ms?!
It's crappy coding,that's what it is.

DX12 on BF1 is known to be broken. It stutters and has broken lighting / textures at times.

DX11 works much better.

 

[Spjut]

Nobody ever said that newer games don't love more threads,that's very different from you absolutely need more threads to run a game.
Do you have any idea if those are minimum or avg FPS?
Because computerbase says that 50 upwards is already ok for multiplayer and even the (I presume stock) i5-2500 get's you there...

(Damn, 38% difference between the 4770k and the 7700k)

Ah ye, it's just average (durchschnitt) FPS they're showing.

You're right that there's no game right now that requires six threads to run.
Sandy Bridge quads are still fast enough to easily push 30+ FPS in modern games, though if we were to compare a Phenom II X4 to an X6, there might be cases where the X4 is considered unplayable compared to the X6.

 

[krumme]

Sandy bridge 2500k stock is perfect for pushing 12fps+ consistently in bf1.
I have played a lot on a 3570k at 4.2GHz and it pushed 18fps+ in even the most demanding maps and situations no probs.

 

[kritisharma]

Most of the games today starting using 6 core C.P.U. For example, Battlefield 1, GTA V, Assassin's creed etc.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So the graph above the one you show is the normal usage were there are no spikes.
The one you show is the worst 5% they found were it happened to have a large spike on the 7700k.
Since they show no CPU usage, no disk usage,no mem usage, no mention of the scene, no nothing,you'r natural instinct is to blame cores?
You get friggin 120FPS avg on the 7700k ,you want it to be smooth?Use a FPS limit,the game itself has frametime smoothing builtin as a command...
GameTime.MaxVariableFPS
lock it below your avg FPS to avoid all the crappy coding.

Just look at those spikes(for both CPUs) and tell me again how this is because of cores and not because of crappy coding.

Oh yeah?! What is 36ms?!
It's crappy coding,that's what it is.

Just look at the "Frametimes in Percentile" graph below the one in question. Sixty FPS is about a 17 msec frame time. If you pull up BF1, Dx11 that is about the 99th percentile for the 7700k. No question the more core cpus are smoother, but with a 99th percentile frametime equivalent to 60 FPS, I have a hard time believing it is this unbearable hitchfest that one poster loves to claim. BF 1 is also a very popular game, and I wonder how many players have six or 8 core cpus, and if everyone else is having this terrible experience.

 

[french toast]

In future more cores and threads are going to be needed, ray tracing requires 8 fast threads minimum in battlefield 5 with a RTX 2080ti, they actually recommend 12 threads, the same they used for that RTX demo.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pcgamesn.com/amd-battlefield-5-hardware?amp

I think by 2020 with the two new consoles, which will probably have 16 threads, ray tracing and complex AI, you will benefit from 8+ SMT enabled cores.

 

[epsilon84]

In future more cores and threads are going to be needed, ray tracing requires 8 fast threads minimum in battlefield 5 with a RTX 2080ti, they actually recommend 12 threads, the same they used for that RTX demo.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pcgamesn.com/amd-battlefield-5-hardware?amp

I think by 2020 with the two new consoles, which will probably have 16 threads, ray tracing and complex AI, you will benefit from 8+ SMT enabled cores.

Will be interesting to see how the 8700K fares against the 9700K in BF5 (and other highly threaded games) - more threads but less physical cores.

 

[french toast]

Will be interesting to see how the 8700K fares against the 9700K in BF5 (and other highly threaded games) - more threads but less physical cores.

Yea that is an interesting face off, lock them both at 4-4.5ghz or something.
My gut says 8 real cores will best 6 real + 6 HT cores.

 

[LTC8K6]

8700K 1mb cache per thread - 2mb cache per core -12mb total
9700K 1.5mb cache per thread - 1.5mb cache per core - 12mb total

 

[TheELF]

Sandy bridge 2500k stock is perfect for pushing 12fps+ consistently in bf1.
I have played a lot on a 3570k at 4.2GHz and it pushed 18fps+ in even the most demanding maps and situations no probs.

Lol you are really funny,you don't trust computerbase's results but you can't stop talking about them...

DX12 on BF1 is known to be broken. It stutters and has broken lighting / textures at times.

DX11 works much better.

Yes I know Dx11 works much better but does that mean that Dx11 ( 's coding) is perfect with zero flaws?
Stutters are always due to bad coding, just look at the results for deusEX:MD even for Dx11 it stutters even for the most multicore CPUs.
If we would follow the same train of thought than we would have to claim that 8c/16t are not enough to play singleplayer "closed-world" games.

 

[krumme]

Lol you are really funny,you don't trust computerbase's results but you can't stop talking about them...

Yes I know Dx11 works much better but does that mean that Dx11 ( 's coding) is perfect with zero flaws?
Stutters are always due to bad coding, just look at the results for deusEX:MD even for Dx11 it stutters even for the most multicore CPUs.
If we would follow the same train of thought than we would have to claim that 8c/16t are not enough to play singleplayer "closed-world" games.

If you know dx11 is better then why do you show dx12 results?

You clearly dont know anything about bf1 and aparently havnt played it. 10 mins of gaming would have shown you dx12 is borked. Yet you bring dx12 graphs.

Cb results clearly show the 7700k dipping below 40fps (25ms) while the cpu with more cores do not on the same map. Faced with these fact you ramble about hd access, sloppy coding what not.
The brutal fact is the 7700k dips below 40fps and its because it lacks cores.

The days of 4c cpu for high end gaming are long gone.

 

[IEC]

Anecdotally, you really do want a fast CPU with more than 4 cores at minimum for BF1 multiplayer. Playing any of those 64 player conquest maps where everyone funneled into one flag like Amiens was brutal on the minimum FPS on my i5-3570K (dropping into single digits and teens at times for FPS) and even into the 20s on my i7-6700K. Those unplayable frame dips were gone with the i7-8700K and with my Ryzen rigs.

Summary from memory:
4c/4t will have unacceptable dips even when there isn't a lot of action around you
4c/8t will have unacceptable dips when there is a lot of action around you
6c+ is smooth

It may or may not have gotten better with patches/updates since I quit playing, but from memory minimum FPS really struggled until I had >=12 threads at my disposal.

 

[krumme]

Anecdotally, you really do want a fast CPU with more than 4 cores at minimum for BF1 multiplayer. Playing any of those 64 player conquest maps where everyone funneled into one flag like Amiens was brutal on the minimum FPS on my i5-3570K (dropping into single digits and teens at times for FPS) and even into the 20s on my i7-6700K. Those unplayable frame dips were gone with the i7-8700K and with my Ryzen rigs.

Summary from memory:
4c/4t will have unacceptable dips even when there isn't a lot of action around you
4c/8t will have unacceptable dips when there is a lot of action around you
6c+ is smooth

It may or may not have gotten better with patches/updates since I quit playing, but from memory minimum FPS really struggled until I had >=12 threads at my disposal.

Yep. Excactly my experience as well with 3570 4.2 vs ryzen 8c 3.8 and 8700k stock. The 4c just doesnt cut it at all. The 8700k was the best. Played until about half a year ago.

The problem is as you say when all is going for the same place. Happens all the darn time on this new mode operation that i liked to play. Add 3 tanks and two planes and a zeppelin over a church that is braking down and tons of grenades and stuff while 40 guys tries to capture the sector on 100 m2 and the computer is just stressed to the max. Cores as well as ht helps greatly here. Raw throughput. Amiens was bad but the basic problem was on all maps.