Does BF4 use 8 cores?

[ManOfDisguise]

I dont know of any game other than Crysis 3 that actually utilizes all 8 cores of the fx 8350(my cpu). Does BF4 utilize all 8 of em?(and yes my cores are unparked)

[Oshino Shinobu]

Yes, I believe it does. It's one of the few games that uses more than 4 cores. 

[lachyman]

It should, it's an AMD title.

[ShadowCaptain]

 

 

Yes. 

 

Congratulations on winning the round

[ManOfDisguise]

 

Yes. 

thanks for taking the time to show that! appreciate it!

[totjup5]

Yes

[D3MON]

I dont know of any game other than Crysis 3 that actually utilizes all 8 cores of the fx 8350(my cpu). Does BF4 utilize all 8 of em?(and yes my cores are unparked)

yep, minecraft does, gta4 does, skyrim does (bout time), simcity does i think (will have to check) arma 3 does, world of tanks now NEEDS 3 cores from what ive seen this morning (might be a glitch but it does evenly distribute)

by using all 8 cores you mean it evenly distributes between all 8 thread then ALLOT of games now do this, its getting rare to find a game where 2 (or 4) threads are used and the other 4 are idle.

does it NEED 8 cores? no, im not maxing out a phenom or my friends athlon x4.

its just more overhead....which is nice, gives you extra threads for fraps recording or streaming etc.

arma 3 4ghz

bf4 2ghz

[Faa]

Every game can use 8 cores. BF4 doesnt take any advantage of more than 6 cores anyways.

[Faa]

Here we go again.

Are you going to spread misinformation again?

[Faa]

 

+ my screenshot earlier.

Yeah you said Arma 3 was singlethreaded and you provided a screenshot with loads on every core, that's how genious you really are >.<

Borderlands engine is based on 2-3 threads with a bunch of minor threads and uses all of my 12 cores: http://i.imgur.com/eEUQCiS.png

Like I've said earlier you need atleast 8 threads to utilize 8 cores. To give an idea:

1. Prime95 not started the test yet: the UI alone takes 2 threads that aren't intensive obviously -> http://i.imgur.com/DXXM9PV.png

2. Now if we want to stress 6 cores atleast, we're going to need atleast 6 more threads so we come down to 8 threads in total incl the UI's -> http://i.imgur.com/q3ESXtV.png

Take the BL2 screenshot above, seeing 1 core being a good amount taxed, and 2 others that are still fairly taxed are the engine's threads and all others were the small ones that are usually doing basic stuff like chat/menu/network/sound we. Now if you move the small threads to one of the 3 main thread's core there shouldn't be any performance loss and thats why you don't always see a game using all of your cores.

How big or small threads are doesnt matter in order to utilize a core, aslong as you have 12 or more threads all of your 3930K's threads can be used. You're more interested in of how many cores the game can take performance advantages of, not how many are being used. You won't see a game with less than 20 threads, even 10 year old games. 

 

 

Yes, misinformation.

Which is typical for an AMD fanboy these days to justify their purchase?

Tell me where you've seen it going above 50%. 

@ 2:42 noticing that the gpu loads dropped to 80/80% meaning we're having for that moment a cpu limitation and tell me what the cpu load was like? BF4 doesnt take advantage of more than 6 cores and this should be tested in a cpu bound scenario when you clearly notice your gpu loads dropping below 99%.

 

The only game thats taking performance advantages of 8 cores is Crysis 3 which starts to be very obvious when you use more cards: youtube.com/watch?v=_hcuYiqib9I (fast forward after he uses a fix)

 

Go back to the CPU subforum and masturbate over Intel instead.

Atleast we don't do it multithreaded.

[Faa]

I never implied it was single threaded. I said it's poorly optimised and barely uses anything beyond the first core. I have stated this in so many posts around the forum.

You did. You said it doesnt have multicore support so what else would it be? Singlethreaded.

 

If a game engine isn't built to take advantage of more cores, it will not do so. It's as simple as that. I've seen games being ported from one engine to another that actually takes advantage of more cores. CPU usage has gone up drastically and so has performance. 

So you're just admiting that you were wrong by agreeing a game can use plenty of cores.

 

Both sides exceed in different areas. I picked AMD because it does all I ask of it for a fair price + no need to upgrade my motherboard as I already had an AM3 board when getting the FX 8350. Bashing someone's choice when there's a good reason behind it is just dumb on so many levels.

If you done your research properly you would have gotten an i5 4430+h81m (45$) instead of wasting more money like 300$ for a 8350+board. AMD is nowhere in the league as Intel in terms of gaming even when overclocked at 5GHz.

 

All benchmarks show that Battlefield 4 can use all of the 8 core line-ups' cores. This is what this thread is about. I don't know why you're trying to hard to deny that fact. 

It's a 3930K and BF3/BF4 doesnt dislike Hyperthreading, if it did we wouldnt see a 10-15% performance gain from an i7 over an i5.

 

All benchmarks show that Battlefield 4 can use all of the 8 core line-ups' cores. This is what this thread is about. I don't know why you're trying to hard to deny that fact. 

See, it seems to be a miracle to you that a game can use all 8 cores. There wouldn't be a point to use more cores if there's no performance gain and obviously no point to even ask. Think its clear the OP asks this question, just like many others, to know if there's a performance gain. For what else would the extra cores be useful for?

 

Also, in the video, he's in an empty server. There's nothing to process apart from running about. CPU load is bound to increase on a 64 player server.

Doesn't matter, GPU loads below 90% is always a cpu bottleneck. Thats why you're seeing in cpu bound games (eg Arma) your gpu loads being much lower than in a gpu bound game like BF4 because the CPU can't keep up.

[LogicalDrm]

Yes, if you run it on x64 mode. 1st core is under most load still while others are at 1/3 of full etc (tested on 4770K).

 

 

Every game can use 8 cores. BF4 doesnt take any advantage of more than 6 cores anyways.

 

If they run in x64 mode. x86 programs run only on first core.

[LOST TALE]

ManOfDisguise

Yes, if you run it on x64 mode. 1st core is under most load still while others are at 1/3 of full etc (tested on 4770K).

 

 

 

If they run in x64 mode. x86 programs run only on first core.

Yes, and only extremely rare indie games dont use all cores.

Most game suse all cores but dont take advantage of all of them.

BF4 does proportinal full parrallel processing or some shit across multiple cores. This also leads to fragile stability, one failure and the thing crashes

( source: overlock and crash statistics correlation)

[Jobobee]

You did. You said it doesnt have multicore support so what else would it be? Singlethreaded.

 

 

So you're just admiting that you were wrong by agreeing a game can use plenty of cores.

 

 

If you done your research properly you would have gotten an i5 4430+h81m (45$) instead of wasting more money like 300$ for a 8350+board. AMD is nowhere in the league as Intel in terms of gaming even when overclocked at 5GHz.

 

 

It's a 3930K and BF3/BF4 doesnt dislike Hyperthreading, if it did we wouldnt see a 10-15% performance gain from an i7 over an i5.

 

 

See, it seems to be a miracle to you that a game can use all 8 cores. There wouldn't be a point to use more cores if there's no performance gain and obviously no point to even ask. Think its clear the OP asks this question, just like many others, to know if there's a performance gain. For what else would the extra cores be useful for?

 

 

Doesn't matter, GPU loads below 90% is always a cpu bottleneck. Thats why you're seeing in cpu bound games (eg Arma) your gpu loads being much lower than in a gpu bound game like BF4 because the CPU can't keep up.

@Fooshi is right.... he never said anything was single threaded, and not ALL games support 6/8 cores. cores, BF4 will use more than 6.

[Faa]

@Fooshi is right.... he never said anything was single threaded, and not ALL games support 6/8 cores. cores, BF4 will use more than 6.

He said "it needs to support multicore" in an earlier thread. If it doesnt support multicore which starts from 2 cores, then it would be singlethreaded

[Jobobee]

He said "it needs to support multicore" in an earlier thread. If it doesnt support multicore which starts from 2 cores, then it would be singlethreaded

An application needs to be designed to work on multiple cores to well, work on multiple cores. BF4 does support multiple cores, as do most games nowadays.

[Faceman]

To sum this up:  Battlefield 4 is heavily CPU dependent.  So more cores will be utilized, and will improve performance.

 

I have an i5-4670k Overclocked to 4.7Ghz(1.275v) and my CPU usage is constantly 60%+ sometimes as high as 70-80% usage.  Much, much higher than any other game I play.

 

BF4 is a game that will benefit greatly from a better CPU.  Not all games are like this, but I do anticipate that most games in the future are going to be utilizing more cores, as well as hyper threading.

[Faa]

An application needs to be designed to work on multiple cores to well, work on multiple cores. BF4 does support multiple cores, as do most games nowadays.

Splitting the engine to multiple threads is a total different thing than "multicore support". Like I've proved, every game is multithreaded. Saying they don't support multicores; is wrong.