Monarch

CPU bottleneck on a single core, that's why you see low total usage. Which is to be expected, since your CPU has pretty low single thread performance. Only 1800 points here: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

CPU bottleneck on a single core, that's why you see low total usage. Which is to be expected, since your CPU has pretty low single thread performance. Only 1800 points here: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Yes, I can see the stutter. The frame time spiked to 50 ms at that point, which is pretty bad, and it's no coincidence that it happened with only 1 module of RAM.
RE2 is a linear game, and open world games like GTA V are much more CPU intensive, and therefore RAM speed dependent as well as that's the memory the CPU uses. So you can see how slow RAM with half the bandwidth it should have can cause lower performance and frame time spikes.
 
Keep in mind that stuttering can also be caused by software bottlenecks in the game's code. I have a pretty good PC with some of the latest hardware and it's well balanced, and I still get some frame time spikes in games like AC Odyssey and The Witcher 3. They're not too bad, but I can see them.
 
All you can do is make sure you don't have any bottlenecks in your system to minimize microstuttering, and right now you have a major bottleneck that's reducing your performance by up to 30%.
Also there's no need to record gameplay, just monitor frame time with MSI Afterburner and check the spikes and how much ms they are.

You're losing a lot of performance due to single channel RAM. If you wanted 8 GB you should have went with 2x4. 
 
 
I don't know if this is what's causing the stuttering, but you should definitely upgrade to dual channel imo. 

It's definitely because of single channel.
 
 
Pretty much all latest AAA titles can utilize 16 threads, especially games like BF1 and 5, which are known to be CPU heavy. I get 100% usage on a 9700k, so 100% on a 8600k is completely normal and expected. It's only 6c/6t.

It's definitely because of single channel.
 
 
Pretty much all latest AAA titles can utilize 16 threads, especially games like BF1 and 5, which are known to be CPU heavy. I get 100% usage on a 9700k, so 100% on a 8600k is completely normal and expected. It's only 6c/6t.

4 core / 4 thread cpu will do that in current games...it's simply not enough for smooth gameplay in many games.

I picked BFV because it's CPU-bound the whole time. In most other games, only parts of maps/levels are CPU intensive, like Novigrad in TW3, the city in GTA V, welcome to the jungle level in Crysis 3, etc.
The benchmark you posted is yet again a bult in one that shows multiple empty sequences with no NPCs and nothing going on.
 
~30% is a minor upgrade? I think it's worth it, especially because a better CPu would not drop below 60. And keep in mind you can always reduce graphics settings to get more fps if you're GPU-bound, but there's very little or nothing you can do if you're CPU-bound in most games.

I picked BFV because it's CPU-bound the whole time. In most other games, only parts of maps/levels are CPU intensive, like Novigrad in TW3, the city in GTA V, welcome to the jungle level in Crysis 3, etc.
The benchmark you posted is yet again a bult in one that shows multiple empty sequences with no NPCs and nothing going on.
 
~30% is a minor upgrade? I think it's worth it, especially because a better CPu would not drop below 60. And keep in mind you can always reduce graphics settings to get more fps if you're GPU-bound, but there's very little or nothing you can do if you're CPU-bound in most games.

Yeah, absolute CPU bottleneck. Not much else to this story. The frametimes are pretty awful even outside the framedrops, but at the visible low points in the framerate plot, on all occasions the CPU is pegged at 100% on all threads.

You're going to have to lower settings related to the CPU. Looking at the settings panel from google images, that would mean lowering:
Enviromental Detail
Terrain
Clutter
Character
 
Those are pretty much all going to lower the level of world geometry / vertices, lowering CPU load. So drop those a setting or two. Again i5's proving not to be very future proof it seems, not to sour your purchase...

I know, I wasn't arguing with you, and OP already got an answer. It was just a comment on the topic of a bottleneck and yours and asand's point of view, just so people who don't quite get the meaning of a bottleneck get a better idea of what it actually is.

But I've just literally explained to you, in detail, why that's irrelevant. You may not play at 720p, but you will run into a CPU intensive part of the game in which case your framerate depends on the CPU, just like when you create a CPU-bound situation to represent a real one by lowering res to 720p. Say a difference between an i5 and i7 in a real world CPU-bound situation is 30%, you should have about the same performance difference in a 720p CPU-bound scenario you created yourself to not have to look for a real one in the game.

2014 wants their argument back.
 

 
 

can't wait for the fucking day where i stop reading fucking non sense like ''if you're just gaming then i suggest a core i5''
 
This was true...3 years ago...anybody played BF1 or watch dogs 2 recently?!

Funny thing, Crysis 3 is 3,5 years old now. And the level "welcome to the jungle" still maims i5's today

Hm. Power delivery shouldn't really do that. That's curious.
Perhaps you should benchmark it on something like passmark where you can compare it to a similar GPU to see if it's functioning as it should. If your CPU and GPU read fine, then I'd be more inclined to believe that it's some software change that has caused this.
 
It's hard to take, "150 fps" in CSGO and attribute it to anything quantifiable. We don't really know the circumstances. FPS will vary between maps, the number of players, and possible even the network connection if the servers are particularly bad and the network card has to take up more processor time to maintain a connection.

Guys....

i5's are struggling in BF1.. 100% usage all the time creates stuttering, lag spikes. IT DOES.. A LOT..
 
you need an i7 for BF1, rise of the tomb raider also is very cpu intense...
 
Source : 

I had an i5 4690k @ 4.6 ghz ( wich performs better than a stock 6600k ) and i had no probleme getting over 80 fps, but even if I had 80 fps, I would get many lag spikes and stuttering lag due to the CPU 100% usage all the time. ( yes I would then limit my fps to 60 to avoid cpu lag, but still the cpu even was 100% usage all the time even with the config )

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY I HAVE 80 FPS WITH MY I5 I DONT LAG.

It does'nt work like that... you will not have FPS lag, but you will get CPU lag, wich can be even worse than fps lag....
 
Since I have my i7 6700k, all the spike lags have disappeard.... no more cpu stuttering lag...
 
the i7 stays near 40% cpu usage and goes up to 80% sometimes in some maps... Wich tells a lot about the cpu power you need to run bf1 smooth..


Now all the people saying i5 is enuff... that was true last year and since the start of the intel i series....
BUT NOW and in the futur, games will use more than 4 cores more and more often, and an i7 will do a big difference ( not in FPS keep in mind, its the cpu usage that creates that lag, not the fps )


So short story : i5 was enough in the past years, it's still very good right now for 90% of games, but we can see that the futur seems to be : i7
 
 
You want to buy a cpu that has 100% usage in a game the day you get your computer ? In my opinion, it will become worst and worst in the next years, as more and more games will start using the benefits of the i7 hyper threading 8 cores...


That said... if you play league of legend.... call of duty..... some low cpu demanding games... an i5 is way enough..

for the 10% of games that requires a high end cpu, an i5 will not do the job if you want a perfect smooth gameplay. Some people will find it smooth with an i5 in bf1... they simply dont know the difference between lag and no lag... fun story : I had a friend sayin his amd was rockin bf1 with a gtx 660... when I arrived at his home ( cuz i cudnt trust him, ) he said look theres no lag, all good, then i told him, dude you are lagging a lot... he wasnt believing me... I had to open a fps shower, show him that he was under 30 fps all the time... then he realised he was lagging lolll ( i know this waas FPS lag and CPU lag, but just to say that many people dont even realise when they are lagging )
 
The next day I went to his home, he had settings turned down to low to get over 45-50 fps  haha

You want to have both high single-thread performance and multi-thread performance. It is true that games mostly like high clock speed and rely on single core performance, but when there's a lot of action in a game you'll need more cores/threads as well in order to get good performance. Example: 
 
https://youtu.be/KzpYOHuSfaM?t=5m23s  
Better MT performance and no microstuttering makes i7s worth the money imo. But even if you disagree, the i7s are objectively better and that's why devs are recommending them for the latest titles.
 

He's actually right, but evidence is almost impossible to find because everyone benchmarks singleplayer (which usually isn't that CPU intensive) because it's easily repeatable with different hardware and the fact that what happens doesn't vary as much as it would in a multiplayer game. But I managed to find some evidence:
 
Crysis 3:
That's a big improvement with HT on, which proves that an i7 achieves much better MT performance.
 
Fallout 4:
 
1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU Low/Avg FPS Core i3 4130 [?] (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads) 25.0 / 48.1 Core i5 4690K [?] (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads) 30.0 / 64.5 Core i7 4790K [?] (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads) 51.0 / 80.7 FX-6300 [?] (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads) 23.0 / 48.4 FX-8350 [?] (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads) 30.0 / 55.5  
Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023
 
Also, people usually look at average fps, rather than frametime or minimum fps. CPU bottleneck often times causes microstuttering. I get it in pretty much all the latest titles and it makes games unplayable for me. Frametime spikes up to 35 ms or higher, which translates to a framerate of less than 30 fps. There's a good reason devs recommend i7's for latest games.
 
 
 
 

Ive been saying for a year now that people should be looking at i7's for gaming builds as newer games are going to start wanting more threads and cores

A CPU bottleneck occurs when the CPU is maxed out and can't push any more frames, while the GPU is capable of rendering more frames, but can't due to the CPU being unable to feed it. So the GPU has the ability to perform better, but is being limited by the CPU, and so whenever the CPU doesn't feed it it's idle.
The reason why CPU bottlenecks usually occur at lower resolutions is the GPU isn't being stressed too much with pushing too many pixels, so it has the potential to render more frames. And that's what we all want: frames. When you increase the resolution, you create a GPU bottleneck so that it doesn't have the ability to render more frames anymore. But this doesn't solve the issue. Most people want more fps. And it's the CPU that is stopping you from getting more fps.

That's actually incorrect, i7 is already getting maxed out by a few games, and its a trend that's going to grow, I would say i5 is the minimum for gaming now and moving forwards.

He's actually right, but evidence is almost impossible to find because everyone benchmarks singleplayer (which usually isn't that CPU intensive) because it's easily repeatable with different hardware and the fact that what happens doesn't vary as much as it would in a multiplayer game. But I managed to find some evidence:
 
Crysis 3:
That's a big improvement with HT on, which proves that an i7 achieves much better MT performance.
 
Fallout 4:
 
1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU Low/Avg FPS Core i3 4130 [?] (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads) 25.0 / 48.1 Core i5 4690K [?] (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads) 30.0 / 64.5 Core i7 4790K [?] (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads) 51.0 / 80.7 FX-6300 [?] (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads) 23.0 / 48.4 FX-8350 [?] (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads) 30.0 / 55.5  
Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023
 
Also, people usually look at average fps, rather than frametime or minimum fps. CPU bottleneck often times causes microstuttering. I get it in pretty much all the latest titles and it makes games unplayable for me. Frametime spikes up to 35 ms or higher, which translates to a framerate of less than 30 fps. There's a good reason devs recommend i7's for latest games.
 
 
 
 

Games still don't make use of hyperthreading, so an i7 won't be that much better. 

 
 
as seen above, there is no issue playing battlefield one with a 6600k, performance drops by 2 fps. 

Always makes me shake my head when a new game is released and people complain that it requires a substantial GPU to run it well. Games are only going to get more demanding over time, even at 1080p. They're cramming more and more detail into these virtual worlds. It's a crazy amount of data and detail to render. 
 
It doesn't matter if 1080p is not considered that high of resolution these days. If there are substantially more objects and details to calculate and render in any given scene, it's going to be more demanding, period. 
 
Got a copy of this game free with the 1070 I just ordered. Once it comes in, I'll be curious to test it out. 
 
I can understand, some games really are crap, like the whole Arkham Knight and AC Unity situations, but some games just are simply demanding.