I have a 7700K/GTX1080/16gb memory, and I am getting up to 100fps swings between the high’s and low’s on newer maps. It’s specifically the newer maps. I actually have to change my graphics settings when I play on the new maps to keep my frame rate higher. I’m not going to name the specific maps, because it’s basically every new map. If the map has come out in the last 4 months, I get significantly worse performance. There are specific sections of these maps where I’m only getting 40 to 50fps, and I can’ move a few strides in any direction and my frame rate shoots back up to 100fps. That’s not normal. I don’t know if it’s memory leak or bad optimization. Frankly there’s not enough time in the day for me to test all of this stuff. I thought that’s what developers did?
7700k is a bottle neck in t his game even 8 cores with out ht can hit 100 % usage and bottle neck in 1440p even … 6 cores 12 threads is the new quad core these days quad cores are the new dual core of 2019
even my 8700k @ defaults 4.3 ghz and ram @ 3000 mhz on the ddr4 bottle necked my 1080ti @ 1440p … gpu drops way below 90 % usage and fps tanks 12 threads @ 90 % usage + . …
over clock to 5.1 ghz 12 threads , 4000 mhz ddr 4 ( stable in prime 95 asus real bench ect ) no more bottle neck gpu @ 100 % no drops no spikes
even the 9900 ks i tried was seeing up to 80 % usage on 16 threads …
the new 10 core amd 3900 x or w/e it is i was seeing up to 82 % usage
sorry to say bro 4 cors / 8 threads may be only good for 50 - 70 fps lock your fps to lower and see if that helps
Performance IS unacceptable, the officialy recommended setup should deliver steady 120 fps or more. They completely messed up performance for a majority of PC players with last patch and don’t seem to care..
This is completely inaccurate. Every vanilla map runs fine. It’s an optimization issue. Just because the game is poorly optimized doesn’t mean we should all go out and buy 9900K’s and 2080ti’s. How about the developers just optimize the damn game? If your game mandates 12 cores you’re off the rails. 90% of consumers do not have 12 core processors.
Indeed.
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, the average PC user games on a quad core CPU on a GTX 1060 and 8GB of RAM. In fact, 93.61% of users game on either a dual core (24.75%), quadcore (51.31%) or hexacore (17.55%) CPUs.
Octacores and above account for less than 5% of users (who are likely PC building enthusiasts). If a game requires above a 7700K, 1080 and 16GB DDR4 for optimal performance then it is either a completely garbage console port or an unoptimised piece of garbage software.
Shut the front door if you think a 9900KS/R9 3900X and 2080 Ti is required for desired performance because not only is that ridiculously expensive but also outright false since BFV runs on both on the base and enhanced consoles both of which are inferior (hardware-wise) to a 7700K, 1080, 16GB RAM PC combo.
Sorry but you sound like the typical toxic uniformed gamer that rants about “your I7 sucks”. This game is poorly optimized and as someone said above, this game should run super mooth with the recommended settings. Many people who has rigs above settings are having issues and people like you mislead people to think it is their rig’s fault. It isn’t. This game looks like a beta and the problem is so huge (and they know it) that they are not even talking about it officially. What really happened? nobody knows. So far you can see:
-Empty servers and unbalanced so it is super boring and unfair
-Hackers almost every day (as we don’t have public dedicated servers community can’t take care of those annoying people)
-Very decent rigs having horrible performance but YouTubers aren´t talking about it at all, they focus mainly on other also very abd issues of this game.
-The game is rated 2.9 at Metacritic by the public but people are misleading to see only “gaming press ratings”
-The main problem of performance could be server sided so maybe that is why they don’t talk much about it. Otherwise, explain why some days a map runs at 144fps super smooth to me, and after some patches, the same map runs 120 fps if I’m lucky but with terrible fps drops and stuttering???
Please inform your self about how cores and multithreading work when it comes to the calculations the GPUs and CPUs have to do to make a game run smoothly and how a SUPER BAD OPTIMIZED GAME LOOKS LIKE, which is, in this case. sadly for us: BATTLEFIELD V. You can’t even have a proper and fun stream without encountering some issues and bad gameplay balance, strange weapon mechanics, weird texture flickering, you name it dude!
i am sorry but quad cores dont cut it for battlefield .
to feed a 1080ti or 280 , 2080ti @ 130 - 150 fps 12 core 8700k @ 5 ghz is a bottle neck … iots been tested you need 16 threads and bf5 @ 144 fps can use 70 % + of 16 threads the game is not unoptomized its 2019 quad cores are good for lower end rigs .
i have played bf 1942 , bfv , bf2 ,bf3,bf4,bf1,bf5 from dual cores and gtx 8800 to 9900 ks and 2080tis
the game loves threads and quad cores are geting to be the new dual core sorry to say it
Excuse me?? my [email protected] plays this game just fine,with a 1080ti,32gb 3400mhz domminator ram.Please have a clue before you make yourself look like a fool.
Went from 4 to 6 cores…huge difference. Google cpu BFV benchmarks. It is as plain as day. 6 or more cores. Read the benchmarks and then buy a clue yourself.
My 8700K’s cores @ 5Ghz run at around 88-90% utilization while my 1080ti’s core utilization is at 98% - mixed graphics settings on DX12 at 1440p with 16Gb of DDR4 at 3200Mhz, frames capped at 162, both cpu and gpu under watercooling and thermals changed to liquid metal.
I haven’t noticed any significant differences between the older and newer maps in performance.
Certainly the overall optimization could be better…
Its best to not get to hung up on performance, either the game is ahead of its time or it needs optimization and patches I guess can change that, I have 6700k @4.4ghz 16gb ram @3000mhz and 980ti running at 1440p in maps with lots of building i can get 70-80 fps with 64 players with open maps it 80 - 90+ hereare my graphics settings: https://prnt.sc/pzns9t
https://prnt.sc/pznssr
https://prnt.sc/pznt0b
Erm, nope. Game wants 6 threads yes.
Now I’m confident you saw a big boost, and in that sense you are ofcourse correct. But that’s in your specific case. If one upgraded from a 4c/4t cpu, then the performance boost would be significant.
I went from 4c/8t to 8c/16t and performance boost isn’t that big at all. Then again the game already danced around 100fps with the 4c/8t cpu.
So the person that’s actually quoted is the one spreading some miss information, because 16 threads is total overkill and sees my cpu run about 35% most of the time.
Anyway, here’s some info from techspot https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/
In real life a 4c/8t has (in most cases) nearly the same performance as 6c. Normally SMT/HT cores gives around 35% more performance, compared to real CPU-cores and in some very specific situations it can scale better than that (this has been tested many times just use google). That is why a 9700K is not much slower than a 9900K in most benchmarks and also why a 9700K is faster than previous I7s.
BFV doesn’t use 6 threads at 100% utilization and therefore a 4c/8t CPU should be enough to run the game without issues. When Dice gives recommended specs they have to consider not loading all CPU-cores 100% (otherwise they would be stupid).
The few times I have checked my CPU usage (2700X - 8c/16t) it also uses around 35-40 %, which sounds like something a 4c/8t CPU should be able to run fine.
I run this game on 5960x @ stock and a Titan Xp GFX card on 1440p @144 hz. CPU utilization is not a problem on my rig , it is quite low actually ,about 45 % .
And i have set the graphics up so that i have some overhead on the Gfx card too, but the frame drop is still present on specific locations on all the maps.
Maybe DICE should consider to do a overhaul on maps to fix this issue. And for the love of (insert preferred divine entity here) fix the darn TTK/TTD sync.
could it be related to this:
forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/196814/is-poor-performance-due-to-extra-lighting#latest
Just upgraded my 8700k delided 5.1 ghz chip to the new 9900 ks 5 ghz chip
I passed prime 95 small ffts test over night @ 1.25 v ! Super good chip
I still see up to 100% load on all 16 threads when loading maps and spawning in.
My 8700k @5.1 ghz and 4000 mhz ddr 4 did not bottle neck me in the new maps what so ever always gpu is 100% fps never went below 123 on new maps ever.
The 9900ks just runs cooler then my 8700k and runs average 30 - 65% load vs 50 - 90% load on my 6/12 thread 8700k @ 5.1 ghz
This game does not like 4/8 threads unless 60 - 80 fps cap
Lol i dont understand your problems, running 144 fps constantly with i5 9600k ( 6 cores ),geforce 2070 S 16 bg ram ( raytracing off, direcx12 on ) And btw if you stole windows ur ;d
My i5 doesnt even have hyperthreading like the i7 and 9’s
115 fps on a i7 [email protected],5Ghz. I’ll leave it at that since you’re not interested in the solid information given by others.
My 9900k certainly does not use all cores/threads. If that would be the case a real problem is in play. A scan by malwarebytes and reputable virus scanner is prime in that scenario.