Bf1 build config

[Thelillypad123]

Currently I have a i5 4690k and 8 gb of ram. This Christmas I plan on making the jump to skylake with 16 gb of ddr4 and an i7 6700k. I have a gtx 1070 with a 144hz 1080p monitor. Honestly, I could care less whether I get 144 fps as long as I don't get ridiculous frame dips or stuttery gameplay. Does anyone have/know someone who may play the game with this config? I just want to know if the experience is smooth and solid. I realize I can look up videos of people playing and benchmarking it. However, once the CPU usage goes above 70%, from my experience with other games, the stuttering and frame drops are something you can really only truly feel, not see in a YouTube video.

[GDRRiley]

just grab a 4790k and 16gb of ram. I have a 6600k and a 970 and it runs fine 

[Thelillypad123]

4 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

just grab a 4790k and 6b of ram. I have a 6600k and a 970 and it runs fine 

I'd rather buy the new architecture now since the 4790k is the older generation, however from first impressions of Kaby lake, it doesn't look like anything significant. Also, I'm sort of under the impression that your system is a bit more balanced. As I am right now, I'm getting some terrible frametime fluctuations due to my house being significantly faster than what my CPU can handle in a lot of games. Witcher 3 and bf4 have become unplayable for me unfortunately, no matter how much DSR.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Thelillypad123 said:

I'd rather buy the new architecture now since the 4790k is the older generation, however from first impressions of Kaby lake, it doesn't look like anything significant. Also, I'm sort of under the impression that your system is a bit more balanced. As I am right now, I'm getting some terrible frametime fluctuations due to my house being significantly faster than what my CPU can handle in a lot of games. Witcher 3 and bf4 have become unplayable for me unfortunately, no matter how much DSR.

the difference between haswell refresh and kabylake is about 10% so much much. 

[MANIDY inc]

I'm going to 4790k from the same rig you have just I have 390 and just got 16gb ram

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

the difference between haswell refresh and kabylake is about 10% so much much. 

But Z97 is already out of date architecture wise, it aint just about the performance difference, think more PCIE lanes, USB 3.1, and DDR4

 

However if I were to buy a whole platform I would go X99

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

But Z97 is already out of date architecture wise, it aint just about the performance difference, think more PCIE lanes, USB 3.1, and DDR4

 

However if I were to buy a whole platform I would go X99

it is the same number of pcie, ddr4 is not that much better than ddr3 and usb 3.1 you can always get a pcie card for

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

it is the same number of pcie, ddr4 is not that much better than ddr3 and usb 3.1 you can always get a pcie card for

No it isnt, only the Asrock Extreme 6 can support full speed m.2 on the Z97 platform. My XP941 runs at around 890mb/sec when it's rated at around 1100mb/s at full speed (which i've done using a PCIE adapter card) 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

No it isnt, only the Asrock Extreme 6 can support full speed m.2 on the Z97 platform. My XP941 runs at around 890mb/sec when it's rated at around 1100mb/s at full speed (which i've done using a PCIE adapter card) 

same speed and number from the cpu. the dmi is not as fast. also you may not be using the correct adapter card

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

same speed and number from the cpu. the dmi is not as fast. also you may not be using the correct adapter card

I meant the adapter card provided me with full speed where as native m.2 is limited to 890. However my point still stands, if op wants to buy a new processor he may as well grab the newer tech, the only downside is Kabylake will want a new socket again but at least he could carry over the ram at that time.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, stealth80 said:

I meant the adapter card provided me with full speed where as native m.2 is limited to 890. However my point still stands, if op wants to buy a new processor he may as well grab the newer tech, the only downsize is Kabylake will want a new socket again but at least he could carry over the ram at that time.

it is spending 600$ vs 350$

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

it is spending 600$ vs 350$

You could use that argument in every scenario. Graphics cards, SSD vs HDD etc.

 

If its within his/her budget he/she may aswell purchase the best/max/most modern hardware within that budget. 

 

You could have a point if OP grabs an i7 and sits on the rest of the budget and waits on kabylake and grabs Z270 and DDR4 at that time 

[Praesi]

100 FPS average 64 Player ultra settings in 1440p. You will have no framedrops at all.

[LogicalDrm]

4 hours ago, stealth80 said:

But Z97 is already out of date architecture wise, it aint just about the performance difference, think more PCIE lanes, USB 3.1, and DDR4

 

However if I were to buy a whole platform I would go X99

4 hours ago, stealth80 said:

No it isnt, only the Asrock Extreme 6 can support full speed m.2 on the Z97 platform. My XP941 runs at around 890mb/sec when it's rated at around 1100mb/s at full speed (which i've done using a PCIE adapter card) 

 

The difference in performance is too little to make any sense to get more than DC i7. If OP would want something new which is provided with new hardware, then it would be different. But 4970K isn't going to be issue in gaming for next 2-3 years. Think of how well 3770/K is still dojng. Or even older CPUs.

 

3 hours ago, stealth80 said:

You could use that argument in every scenario. Graphics cards, SSD vs HDD etc.

Yes. But this is about performance. Not features. With performance, gain/cost is pretty bad going to whole new system base. Compared to what getting even used i7 for current setup would be.

[Thelillypad123]

11 hours ago, Praesi said:

100 FPS average 64 Player ultra settings in 1440p. You will have no framedrops at all.

Weird question, but do you think it possible you could run the game at 1080p in a 64 man server and tell me how it feels maxed out? (Other than the blurriness from your monitor being a higher res)

[Praesi]

3 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Weird question, but do you think it possible you could run the game at 1080p in a 64 man server and tell me how it feels maxed out? (Other than the blurriness from your monitor being a higher res)

A Friend has a 980Ti + 6800K and plays in 1080p and is always above 130FPS. No matters whats going on on the Screen.

[stealth80]

10 hours ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

 

The difference in performance is too little to make any sense to get more than DC i7. If OP would want something new which is provided with new hardware, then it would be different. But 4970K isn't going to be issue in gaming for next 2-3 years. Think of how well 3770/K is still dojng. Or even older CPUs.

 

Yes. But this is about performance. Not features. With performance, gain/cost is pretty bad going to whole new system base. Compared to what getting even used i7 for current setup would be.

The OP has already decided to go Skylake in the opening post .....

[Rambi83]

15 hours ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Currently I have a i5 4690k and 8 gb of ram. This Christmas I plan on making the jump to skylake with 16 gb of ddr4 and an i7 6700k. I have a gtx 1070 with a 144hz 1080p monitor. Honestly, I could care less whether I get 144 fps as long as I don't get ridiculous frame dips or stuttery gameplay. Does anyone have/know someone who may play the game with this config? I just want to know if the experience is smooth and solid. I realize I can look up videos of people playing and benchmarking it. However, once the CPU usage goes above 70%, from my experience with other games, the stuttering and frame drops are something you can really only truly feel, not see in a YouTube video.

With 1080p the experience will without a doubt be smooth for you, i have 6700k 32gb ddr4 and a seahawk 1080 but i play on a 1440p monitor.

That said, some maps in BF1 are just bad when it comes to fps and i don't think a dual titan pascal setup would even solve that problem, they just need to optimize the game.

[Praesi]

52 minutes ago, Rambi83 said:

With 1080p the experience will without a doubt be smooth for you, i have 6700k 32gb ddr4 and a seahawk 1080 but i play on a 1440p monitor.

That said, some maps in BF1 are just bad when it comes to fps and i don't think a dual titan pascal setup would even solve that problem, they just need to optimize the game.

There is not a single map that cause any Problems for me.

[Thelillypad123]

16 hours ago, stealth80 said:

But Z97 is already out of date architecture wise, it aint just about the performance difference, think more PCIE lanes, USB 3.1, and DDR4

 

However if I were to buy a whole platform I would go X99

Do you think it would be worth it for me to get an x99 over z170 if I'm just strictly a gamer? I think they do almost the same in most games don't they?

[Rambi83]

23 minutes ago, Praesi said:

There is not a single map that cause any Problems for me.

Define problems, I'm picky, It's not huge fps drops.

I can't remember being under 100 but i also don't stare at the fps counter.

Monte grappa and Empires edge gives the shittiest results though resulting in noticeably less accurate aiming

[stealth80]

1 hour ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Do you think it would be worth it for me to get an x99 over z170 if I'm just strictly a gamer? I think they do almost the same in most games don't they?

I would always advocate people to buy the best performance within their budget. Games are now starting to show a trend for more cores and threads (WD2, BF1, Witcher 3) and I honestly wish I had gone with a 5820k when I went 4790k. As others in this thread have already stated, the 4790k is still a very strong CPU, but if early DX12 bench's and those pre-mentioned games are anything to go by, I would recommend X99 to anyone building fresh a PC that they want to last for a couple of years. Obviously this is my opinion, I can't know for sure how or what direction games will take in the next 24 months, but I do stand by my initial statement:

 

Buy the most modern/fastest platform you can afford within your budget. Make sure your platform covers the newest expansions to make it last as long as possible, same goes for SLI, if starting out, get the most powerful card you can afford, that way you leave SLI upgrade for further down the line (aka 2x 1070 vs single 1080) 

[Praesi]

17 hours ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Do you think it would be worth it for me to get an x99 over z170 if I'm just strictly a gamer? I think they do almost the same in most games don't they?

No. For Gaming alone z170a + 6700k is your best choice.