Cpu for gaming

[A Damn Crab!]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Here's the thing about that, the person who starts the disagreement with everyone else holds the burden of proof. It's their job to tell us why we're wrong and provide evidence for that. Until then, they are wrong.

So if the person who is factually wrong is argued vs? they are not wrong?

 

What i mean is, the argument was argued vs with some tangible evidence, even if it's not 100% solid, there was a person who posted some stuff that shows CPU bottlenecking because it is an i5, and others chimed in, and he did post stuff that people and users have protested with BF1.But neither side can show actual evidence.

 

Benchmarks are also reliant on scripted events and repeatable evidence so when a benchmark shows this FPS, later or another part will tell you a different story, reminds me of GTA IV's benchmark.

 

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, A Damn Crab! said:

So if the person who is factually wrong is argued vs? they are not wrong?

No...

 

The burden of proof lies on the one who is making a different claim than what another claim is - that's usually how it works. That means no one has been proven wrong or right.

[A Damn Crab!]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

No...

 

The burden of proof lies on the one who is making a different claim than what another claim is - that's usually how it works. That means no one has been proven wrong or right.

What i mean is, the argument was argued vs with some tangible evidence, even if it's not 100% solid, there was a person who posted some stuff that shows CPU bottlenecking because it is an i5, and others chimed in, and he did post stuff that people and users have protested with BF1.But neither side can show actual evidence.

 

Benchmarks are also reliant on scripted events and repeatable evidence so when a benchmark shows this FPS, later or another part will tell you a different story, reminds me of GTA IV's benchmark.

[Guest Kloaked]

7 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

What i mean is, the argument was argued vs with some tangible evidence, even if it's not 100% solid, there was a person who posted some stuff that shows CPU bottlenecking because it is an i5, and others chimed in, and he did post stuff that people and users have protested with BF1.But neither side can show actual evidence.

Then how come everyone that I know who has BF1 aren't having issues with the game even on mobile i5 CPUs? What about the people on Reddit who are saying the contrary to what you guys are claiming in this thread? Do their experiences not count either?

 

3 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

Benchmarks are also reliant on scripted events and repeatable evidence so when a benchmark shows this FPS, later or another part will tell you a different story, reminds me of GTA IV's benchmark.

Not those kinds of benchmarks. I'm more wanting to see the min/max frame rate of an overclocked i5 and i7 CPU (with the same GPU of course) in a multiplayer match in BF1 under the circumstances that people are saying "you have to have an i7" for.

 

A whole video would be great too. Digital Foundry usually does those but they haven't done an i5 and i7 comparison for BF1.

[A Damn Crab!]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

Then how come everyone that I know who has BF1 aren't having issues with the game even on mobile i5 CPUs? What about the people on Reddit who are saying the contrary to what you guys are claiming in this thread? Do their experiences not count either?

 

Not those kinds of benchmarks. I'm more wanting to see the min/max frame rate of an overclocked i5 and i7 CPU (with the same GPU of course) in a multiplayer match in BF1 under the circumstances that people are saying "you have to have an i7" for.

No point asking me i am not arguing the argument you guys are, i am an outsider showing you that both sides are equal... until further evidence can come forth.

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

No point asking me i am not arguing the argument you guys are

Well you came in trolling with a handful of posts, then you say that? lol.

 

3 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

i am an outsider showing you that both sides are equal... until further evidence can come forth.

Didn't realize we needed a judge and jury here.

 

I think we all realize nobody has proven either side. The only thing I can bring up is data to show how little of a difference an i7 makes; these other guys are saying the i7 relieves stuttering and random fps drops, common CPU bottleneck symptoms that are supposedly extremely common on Battlefield 1. I've seen people have these issues in other games before and often times it's either the lack of updating their drivers, they have shitty memory, or something else is wrong.

[A Damn Crab!]

1 hour ago, A Damn Crab! said:

I hear the FX 9590 is a good choice.

And what is wrong with this? or is it your own biased judgement that calls everything you dislike a troll?

There is so much defensiveness in here.

[Godlygamer23]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:03 PM, A Damn Crab! said:

FX 8350 won't bottleneck a TITAN XP.

 

Until we get evidence i am right.

Just so we're clear, nearly any CPU(especially mainstream) can bottleneck a card depending on the scenario.

 

You cannot really prove a negative. We can only look at the lack of evidence for something, and go by that. It does not make you right.