• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

64-Player BF3 & CPU usage

cannondale06 said:
so you are just a stubborn old fart? :p

you need to get through your head that comparing cpus needs to be done on high settings and low res. for example there are places in GTA 4 that are 100% cpu limited on highest settings even with my 2500k at 4.4. if I were silly enough to only look at cpu comparisons on low settings then I would think I could stay at 60 fps the whole time. low settings gives NO indication of how well your cpu can actually handle games.
Click to expand...
Fine beleive what you want Im done with you.

IdiotInCharge said:
Also, please, PLEASE, quote someone from DICE when you claim that the game uses more than four threads, and how it uses them. I appreciate an analysis of the running game but without developer input you/we could still be way off base.
Click to expand...

Any hardcore battlefield player knows the game uses 8 cores, no need to quote DICE.
But if you need more proof my CPU gets maxed out in this game constantly and its only an X6
 
Stayfr0sty said:
Fine beleive what you want Im done with you.
Click to expand...
what I believe is the FACT that many settings impact the cpu. I am not stuck in some old ignorant belief system that all low settings should be used to test cpus. if you do that then you will have no idea how your cpu can actually handle the game unless you are really going to play it using all low settings.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
Battlefield uses 4 principal threads with a few minor threads. Here is the proof:

SINGLE-PLAYER ANALYSIS:

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7986&pageid=8150

The scaling from 2 to 4 cores is almost %70 in the single player tests (pretty impressive). There's SOME scaling above 4 cores from lower-priority threads, but it's relatively small. For everyone except SLI/CFX users (those require more CPU overhead) there's no point in more than 4 cores for single player.

MULTI-PLAYER ANALYSIS:

The FX-8150 AND the x6 gets outperformed by the i5 2500K on 64-player maps/CFX when you crank the graphics to medium (not GPU-limited). The FX-8150 has twice as many cores (and the x6 has %50 more), but Battlefield 3 can't make use of them.

Something to note from this multi-player test: scaling on the Phenom II from 2 and 4 cores is %100! You do see some improvement with 6 cores versus 4, but again nowhere near the %50 performance increase you'd expect if the game had 8 principal threads. And this is a very special case: a maxed-out 64-player game running CFX. For most players running single GPUs, a 2500k will be plenty.
Click to expand...

in the graph with medium settings look at the i5 2500K and the i7 2600K.
BF3 does not use HT at all
so why is the 2600K perform that much faster?
I will tell you because the benchmark is flawed
 
ok I found other threads saying BF3 "does" use HT.

so if that is correct then that pic with medium settings would be correct.

so does BF3 give a higher FPS with HT enabled then compared to disabled?
 
tdbone1 said:
ok I found other threads saying BF3 "does" use HT.

so if that is correct then that pic with medium settings would be correct.

so does BF3 give a higher FPS with HT enabled then compared to disabled?
Click to expand...

It probably does, in heavy MP, but you'd have to sacrifice your settings for it to be measurable. It's still just academic though, as modern CPUs still outpace the game when used in conjunction with a GPU solution capable of giving good frame rates at good settings. If you can get a 2500k or better, you can get 4.6GHz+ out of it with a $30 aftermarket cooler, and you have no need for Hyper-threading for games.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It probably does, in heavy MP, but you'd have to sacrifice your settings for it to be measurable. It's still just academic though, as modern CPUs still outpace the game when used in conjunction with a GPU solution capable of giving good frame rates at good settings. If you can get a 2500k or better, you can get 4.6GHz+ out of it with a $30 aftermarket cooler, and you have no need for Hyper-threading for games.
Click to expand...

and where can I look at this data?
 
I assume "nobody's" remarks will work for anyone.

that is why there are review sites that do benchmarks
 
IdiotInCharge said:
So yes, the AMD CPUs are limiting BF3 at stock speeds, and yes, overclocking them helps alleviate that bottleneck. So what, they're still slow, even maxed out on good water-cooling.

The Thuban X6 cores are markedly very similar to the original Athlons, and four of Bulldozer's modules are slower than six of Thuban's cores.

And no, for ****'s sake, Bulldozer/the 8150 don't have eight independent cores. They have eight integer cores, divided amongst four modules, and each of these modules has one floating-point core. This is great for many things not related to gaming; it's essentially a full hardware implementation of Hyper-threading. And Hyper-threading does not help games, as well it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Hyperthreading does help some games.

What hyperthreading effectively does is lower the pipeline length of the CPU because it can start processing more instructions while previous instructions are still in the pipeline.

The down side is that if the game needs a lot of cache on the CPU, then hyperthreading can slow it down since hyperthreading will effectively lower the amount of cache available to each thread.

I have done quite a bit of testing and verifying that this is the case when it comes to hyperthreading.

this is also true if you are thinking about real cores and the L2 and L3 cache as well.

It is true of any program, not just games.

If you can adjust the size of the data being worked on to correspond to the number of cores as well as hyperthreading, you can get pretty sizeable speed gains in your program.

Having your program detect excatly what CPU it is using and adjusting constantly used data size to fit in the cache can give you a huge gain verses not taking this programming approach.
 
cyclone3d said:
Hyperthreading does help some games.

What hyperthreading effectively does is lower the pipeline length of the CPU because it can start processing more instructions while previous instructions are still in the pipeline.

The down side is that if the game needs a lot of cache on the CPU, then hyperthreading can slow it down since hyperthreading will effectively lower the amount of cache available to each thread.

I have done quite a bit of testing and verifying that this is the case when it comes to hyperthreading.

this is also true if you are thinking about real cores and the L2 and L3 cache as well.

It is true of any program, not just games.

If you can adjust the size of the data being worked on to correspond to the number of cores as well as hyperthreading, you can get pretty sizeable speed gains in your program.

Having your program detect excatly what CPU it is using and adjusting constantly used data size to fit in the cache can give you a huge gain verses not taking this programming approach.
Click to expand...

Batman AC is worse with HT enabled. Most all users experience a smoother frame rate with it off. I have a 2600k and have to turn it off.
 
Mostly, Hyper-threading doesn't provide a real boost for games with CPUs clocked to 4.6GHz+, while occasionally being detrimental by stalling cores.

It can be useful, yes. But for gaming, it's been shown that you're best leaving it off (or not paying for it in the first place) and just going for a higher overclock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top