- Dec 26, 2018
- 41
- 1
- 1,545
hey guys, the thread is as states and i'll be talking about a workstation pc build with two cpus but is used to play games as well. this post is in no way an angry one, in fact quite the opposite. im new to workstation pc's so any (real) info people can lay on me would be amazing. heres whats up.
BATTLEFIELD 5 USES ALL 16 OF MY CPU CORES! thats right guys! i have a 3gb r9 280x graphics card and a 8 core 16 thread dual cpu. and im able to play at a locked 60 fps on high settings. right now my cpu's only have 2.4 ghz each core which isnt much. but i've upgraded to two 6 core 12 thread 3.4 ghz processor(for 50 bucks) and i assume it will just demolish this game for cpu usage. i've always understood that battlefield was very cpu intensive so it makes sense they would program it to just use all your cores fairly evenly which i absolutely adore. im just wondering if more games will be doing this as well. is it really that hard, i mean i know everything takes work but will other games follow suite now too considering the release of these ridiculous cpus like the thread ripper and such. this build handles a lot of other games really well too (new resident evil 2 reamake, sleeping dogs, gtaV.) but some games are just garbage(any far cry game, just cause 3, and others) because they only utilize a few cores of the cpu maxing it out and dropping fps a lot.
but heres where the crappy part comes in. it seems that if the devs are lazy (cough cough far cry franchise) that the game only utilizes maybe 4 cores and maxes them out causing my fps to drop to an abismal 35 fps in some places and my gpu usage drops to about 60 percent. it's maxed out while playing bf5. it seems that once a cpu core is maxed out the graphics card has a tough time working at it's full potential. and i understand why, because the processor has to process the information before the graphics card can turn it into an immage. so im wondering why the heck devs would create games to utilize only up to 4 cores maxed out. if your objective is fps then you should even the load amongst all cores and threads so the cpu isnt working as hard on a single thread causing single thread bottlenecking. this truly seems like a money grab going on between the devs of games and the people making computer parts. i cant see why you'd keep a game less efficient. the only reason for it being that they want you to think you have a bottleneck and buy new parts, mainly a cpu. lots of newer processors have up to 4 ghz with 4 cores and even they are starting to struggle a bit with new titles. so is anyone out there thinking this too? bf5 uses all the cores and works so smooth (especially for my shitty 3gb graphics card) so why havent more companies done this? im so confused and i cant find a single reason except the fact that they are doing a money grab hoping ppl will purchase newer cpus because their old one is obsolete when really it's not at all and the programming is just shit.
BATTLEFIELD 5 USES ALL 16 OF MY CPU CORES! thats right guys! i have a 3gb r9 280x graphics card and a 8 core 16 thread dual cpu. and im able to play at a locked 60 fps on high settings. right now my cpu's only have 2.4 ghz each core which isnt much. but i've upgraded to two 6 core 12 thread 3.4 ghz processor(for 50 bucks) and i assume it will just demolish this game for cpu usage. i've always understood that battlefield was very cpu intensive so it makes sense they would program it to just use all your cores fairly evenly which i absolutely adore. im just wondering if more games will be doing this as well. is it really that hard, i mean i know everything takes work but will other games follow suite now too considering the release of these ridiculous cpus like the thread ripper and such. this build handles a lot of other games really well too (new resident evil 2 reamake, sleeping dogs, gtaV.) but some games are just garbage(any far cry game, just cause 3, and others) because they only utilize a few cores of the cpu maxing it out and dropping fps a lot.
but heres where the crappy part comes in. it seems that if the devs are lazy (cough cough far cry franchise) that the game only utilizes maybe 4 cores and maxes them out causing my fps to drop to an abismal 35 fps in some places and my gpu usage drops to about 60 percent. it's maxed out while playing bf5. it seems that once a cpu core is maxed out the graphics card has a tough time working at it's full potential. and i understand why, because the processor has to process the information before the graphics card can turn it into an immage. so im wondering why the heck devs would create games to utilize only up to 4 cores maxed out. if your objective is fps then you should even the load amongst all cores and threads so the cpu isnt working as hard on a single thread causing single thread bottlenecking. this truly seems like a money grab going on between the devs of games and the people making computer parts. i cant see why you'd keep a game less efficient. the only reason for it being that they want you to think you have a bottleneck and buy new parts, mainly a cpu. lots of newer processors have up to 4 ghz with 4 cores and even they are starting to struggle a bit with new titles. so is anyone out there thinking this too? bf5 uses all the cores and works so smooth (especially for my shitty 3gb graphics card) so why havent more companies done this? im so confused and i cant find a single reason except the fact that they are doing a money grab hoping ppl will purchase newer cpus because their old one is obsolete when really it's not at all and the programming is just shit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram