BF1 is out ! WTF is my i5 doing

[smokefest]

Hi all,

I got an i5 4690K @ 4.6 ghz, gtx 1070 @ 2100 mhz

BF1 @ 1080p ultra 


When I play team deathmatch 10vs10 it's fine, i get very nice results,

But in Conquest, My fps are going up and down, with a lot of drops...

My cpu is almost always 100% usage and the Gpu usage will pop from 30% to 99%.

I can notice easily the CPU bottleneck, as the gpu seems to not have too much struggle to deliver the performance the CPU is struggeling to hard it creates stuttering during all the gameplay.

From here and there its fine, but then you will get some 40ish 50ish fps and then boom back to 80, it goes up and down all the time because the CPU is at 100% usage and can't push all the power needed...


Any thoughts guys ? In the beta I was having 0 issues with the i5, but in the real game, some maps its fine, but mostly all the maps I'm having big issues trying to have smooth gameplay.

It surely isnt BAD but its not GREAT, you know, from someone who is always playing steady smooth experience, I find this a pain in a the neck, 

I feel like I need to upgrade to the next i7 kaby lake this winter...

What you guys think ?

Any other people with same specs experiencing the same ?

I have tryed latest nvidia drivers and still the same. I even use the last version before that because I felt it was doing better than the acual latest version..

[Jumper118]

3 minutes ago, smokefest said:

Hi all,

I got an i5 4690K @ 4.6 ghz, gtx 1070 @ 2100 mhz

BF1 @ 1080p ultra 


When I play team deathmatch 10vs10 it's fine, i get very nice results,

But in Conquest, My fps are going up and down, with a lot of drops...

My cpu is almost always 100% usage and the Gpu usage will pop from 30% to 99%.

I can notice easily the CPU bottleneck, as the gpu seems to not have too much struggle to deliver the performance the CPU is struggeling to hard it creates stuttering during all the gameplay.

From here and there its fine, but then you will get some 40ish 50ish fps and then boom back to 80, it goes up and down all the time because the CPU is at 100% usage and can't push all the power needed...


Any thoughts guys ? In the beta I was having 0 issues with the i5, but in the real game, some maps its fine, but mostly all the maps I'm having big issues trying to have smooth gameplay.

It surely isnt BAD but its not GREAT, you know, from someone who is always playing steady smooth experience, I find this a pain in a the neck, 

I feel like I need to upgrade to the next i7 kaby lake this winter...

What you guys think ?

Any other people with same specs experiencing the same ?

I have tryed latest nvidia drivers and still the same. I even use the last version before that because I felt it was doing better than the acual latest version..

I think Intel are giving game devs monies for making games that see you have an i5 perform like pentiums because they have been selling 4c8t i7 on entustiast platform for 6000 years and nobody was upgrading because there wasn't any point. 

[Morgan MLGman]

It's been known that any i5 will bottleneck the 1070 at 1080p in CPU heavy titles, it's just not fast enough.

 

I suggest you get an i7-4790K if you want to solve this issue or uprade to Skylake. Kaby Lake most likely won't bring any performance improvements over Skylake

[PlayStation 2]

The game at ultra is just really taxing on the CPU. Not much to it.

[Jumper118]

If it worked fine in the beta.  Why would performance drop in the real game?  It should get better if anything. 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Jumper118 said:

If it worked fine in the beta.  Why would performance drop in the real game?  It should get better if anything. 

DICE has a history of getting some work done in between the beta and final release. However, considering that the game isn't in an exactly great condition at the moment, it's best to let time do its thing and wait for the game to start receiving patches.

[ARikozuM]

I'm noticing dynamic resolution peaking usage of my GTX 1080 and i7-4790K. Whenever dynamic resolution decides to dip down the scale the GPU magically kicks into high gear.

 

I'm hoping this isn't another botched DICE release.

[smokefest]

1 minute ago, Jumper118 said:

If it worked fine in the beta.  Why would performance drop in the real game?  It should get better if anything. 

Other maps are bigger, and theres a lot more details,

Same map as beta works fine tho

[AresKrieger]

dx12 is more demanding for a quad core fyi so try dx11 if you were using dx12 (since your using nvidia)

 

But yes I would recommend a 4790k for the future in gaming due to increased multi core support additional cache etc

[smokefest]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

dx12 is more demanding for a quad core fyi so try dx11 if you were using dx12

 

But yes I would recommend a 4790k for the future in gaming due to increased multi core support additional cache etc

I have DX11

[smokefest]

5 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It's been known that any i5 will bottleneck the 1070 at 1080p in CPU heavy titles, it's just not fast enough.

 

I suggest you get an i7-4790K if you want to solve this issue or uprade to Skylake. Kaby Lake most likely won't bring any performance improvements over Skylake

Well, i understand but if i'll upgrade i'll wait couple months just to get the newest cpu, even tho its not big upgrade over skylake, its surely is at least a bit, and its not like if i have to wait 1 year , and im not in a hurry

[AresKrieger]

Just now, smokefest said:

I have DX11

Well then it's just optimization and bottlenecking unfortunately and I recommend an i7 in the future, they might release a patch or nvidia might release better drivers but that isn't a certainty.

[AresKrieger]

Oh and in the mean time a good setting to lower is often shadows as it strains the cpu due to calculations required in my experience

[smokefest]

9 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It's been known that any i5 will bottleneck the 1070 at 1080p in CPU heavy titles, it's just not fast enough.

 

I suggest you get an i7-4790K if you want to solve this issue or uprade to Skylake. Kaby Lake most likely won't bring any performance improvements over Skylake

I am wondering, I understand 1080 is more cpu demanding,

If I was playin on 1440p screen, Would it be fine then ? Or the cpu would still probably struggling ?

[Praesi]

I have noticed a Performance increase of ~15% compared to the beta. Weird you have the opposite.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, smokefest said:

I am wondering, I understand 1080 is more cpu demanding,

If I was playin on 1440p screen, Would it be fine then ? Or the cpu would still probably struggling ?

Up the resolution or use DSR and you'll be fine. I think the issue has to do with the "dynamic resolution" technology they implemented, but I haven't explored (and I might not) so I don't know for certain.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Up the resolution or use DSR and you'll be fine. I think the issue has to do with the "dynamic resolution" technology they implemented, but I haven't explored (and I might not) [the engines used by BF1] so I don't know for certain.

 

[AresKrieger]

4 minutes ago, smokefest said:

I am wondering, I understand 1080 is more cpu demanding,

If I was playin on 1440p screen, Would it be fine then ? Or the cpu would still probably struggling ?

At 1440p the cpu would take less strain and the gpu would take more strain, but the physics calculations would remain more or less the same so that would only be a viable way to remove the cpu as a bottleneck but it would not really boost fps (well unless the game is retarded which is a possibility)

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

At 1440p the cpu would take less strain and the gpu would take more strain, but the physics calculations would remain more or less the same so that would only be a viable way to remove the cpu as a bottleneck but it would not really boost fps (well unless the game is retarded which is a possibility)

The developer did grace (or curse) us with BF3...

[smokefest]

17 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

At 1440p the cpu would take less strain and the gpu would take more strain, but the physics calculations would remain more or less the same so that would only be a viable way to remove the cpu as a bottleneck but it would not really boost fps (well unless the game is retarded which is a possibility

My fps are good, I get like 80 fps @ 150% resolution scale,

It's juste that it bump from 80 to 50 or even 40 instantly comes up to 80,

I could stand in the "deploy" menu when you see over the area from up high, and my fps would vary from 40 to 80 randomly like every sec it changes from 40 to 80 but theres not much actino or anything special going on, but i can see my CPU @ 100% and gpu sleeping @ 60% or so

 

And even if i set the res. scale to 100% , the fps increase a bit, but the variation remain the same, the fps will move a lot like from 50 to 90 , 

So If i undetrstand corrctly, i guess the cpu is bottleneckin a lot more than I tho it would, because in the beta i had no issue i was always having 70 fps never a single drop, and I had a 970, not a 1070 so.... yea

[ARikozuM]

Just now, smokefest said:

And even if i set the res. scale to 100% , the fps increase a bit, but the variation remain the same, the fps will move a lot like from 50 to 90 , 

So If i undetrstand corrctly, i guess the cpu is bottleneckin a lot more than I tho it would, because in the beta i had no issue i was always having 70 fps never a single drop, and I had a 970, not a 1070 so.... yea

I don't think the "CPU bottleneck" is the whole story. We need more information to find the cause.

[smokefest]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

I don't think the "CPU bottleneck" is the whole story. We need more information to find the cause.

What information do you need

[ARikozuM]

Just now, smokefest said:

What information do you need

Not from you, but either through the game's code or the developer. There's very little reason for your frame-rate to vary by such a wide margin if all physics calls are being completed successfully.

[smokefest]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Not from you, but either through the game's code or the developer. There's very little reason for your frame-rate to vary by such a wide margin if all physics calls are being completed successfully.

Yes you're right. Maybe a patch soon or new drivers will help Anyway im not in a hurry to buy new things, but i will look toward it..

I might start tryin to sell my mobo cpu ram just to see if i get a good price hehe 

[smokefest]

32 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Not from you, but either through the game's code or the developer. There's very little reason for your frame-rate to vary by such a wide margin if all physics calls are being completed successfully.

Here are 3 pics i've just took, The gpu % is the gpu usage, and the cpu % is the cpu usage, See what I mean... When both are @ 99% or close, i dont have lag spikes, but in the ones you can see GPU @ 46% and cpu @ 100% , this is where I get lag spikes... 8.4 GB RAM usage is insane