I still have 100% CPU usage in bf1 with a i5 4460

[hazard155]

Ive got a i5 4460 and a gigabyte gtx 1060, and my cpu is always at 100% when i play battlefield 1, i get from 40 - 60 fps when i play on high and 100% resolution scale, can anyone pls help or explain why

 

[kaptainkuftic]

It sounds like you're bottlenecked by your CPU in that game

 

[chalky16]

There's a CPU bottleneck. BF1 is a CPU instesive game though.

 

[sizzling]

That's normal for BF1. It can max out the best i5's and is a game that benefits from more threads (i7)

 

[t53186]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

 

[kaptainkuftic]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

Any idea as to why the 6600k, a much better chip than even the FX-8350, is implied to be on par with the 6350 in here?

 

[t53186]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

Any idea as to why the 6600k, a much better chip than even the FX-8350, is implied to be on par with the 6350 in here?

Nope, info is direct from Battlefield.com

 

[kaptainkuftic]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

Any idea as to why the 6600k, a much better chip than even the FX-8350, is implied to be on par with the 6350 in here?

Nope, info is direct from Battlefield.com

Huh, fair enough. Just seems weird. Might have something to do with total core/thread count or something

 

[sizzling]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

Any idea as to why the 6600k, a much better chip than even the FX-8350, is implied to be on par with the 6350 in here?

It does seem extreme, however the FX6xxx and FX8xxx don't do badly with BF1 as it actually utilise the extra threads. Most games use 4 or less.

 

[sizzling]

Here, this is interesting http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2

 

[kaptainkuftic]

The minimum spec:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350.
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K.
Memory: 8GB RAM.
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB.
Graphics card (Nvidia): Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB.
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent.

Any idea as to why the 6600k, a much better chip than even the FX-8350, is implied to be on par with the 6350 in here?

It does seem extreme, however the FX6xxx and FX8xxx don't do badly with BF1 as it actually utilise the extra threads. Most games use 4 or less.

It's just so strange seeing an FX chip held in any sort of decent position relative to intel chips. lol, thanks for the answer though

 

[hazard155]

thanks well thats annoying and kinda stupid how a nearly £200 cpu bottlenecks but o well