Naked Snake
Member
I think I heard BF1 on PS4 runs at 60fps and with 64 players? If that's true then how's that possible if its CPU is so underpowered?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I think i'm happy that CPU technology is hitting a wall
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
I think I heard BF1 on PS4 runs at 60fps and with 64 players? If that's true then how's that possible if its CPU is so underpowered?
I got the game on PC about a week ago and I've been wondering the same thing every time I play it. The CPU requirements are insane.
Naked Snake
Member
I had forgotten about needing new RAM when upgrading... have I don goofed by recently upgrading my DDR3 from 10GB to 24GB?
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
I think a lot of folks including myself are just skeptical that all of a sudden CPUs are relevant again - to be honest I dont think there was ever a proper investigation into the impact of the CPU on games beyond looking at the average frame rate which is a limited metric in my eyes.
I think what is needed in order to put matters like this to bed is benches of recentish games - measuring frametimes with say a 6900k vs 6700k at the same clock, in addition to this in order to discount the influence of the HUGE cache advatage the 6900k has - something I think a lot of posters overlook when arguing this - a further set of benches with cores disabled on the 6900k - I am pretty sure you can do this.
6900k 8 cores + HT @ 4Ghz
6900k 8 cores no HT @ 4Ghz
6900k 4 cores + HT @ 4Ghz
6900k 4 cores no HT @ 4Ghz
6700k + HT @ 4Ghz
Repeat benches at 3.4Ghz, I personally would also love to see what effect altering memory speed and the uncore clock have on performance.
I'm still on an i7 960 and the latest Kaby lake benches was kinda devastating to me because I really, /really/ want to upgrade because to say my rig is long in the tooth would be an extreme understatement.
The only upgrades that really seem really interesting are the extreme range options, but the pricing is so outrageous on them that I can't stomach them. I feel like I've been saying "oh well, x is right around the corner I'll upgrade then" for /5 years/ now.
Because ram speed has started to become really important I feel like I don't really have much of a choice long term. Ddr3 1066 is going to choke the best years out of my gpu if I don't bail on it soon, so I'll probably upgrade for kaby lake, but I'll likely have to do it while holding my nose. Skylake e might do it for me too though, so I'll likely wait on that, and if that ends up being just as insane as broadwell e was I'll just bite the bullet on it. Sigh...
The only upgrades that really seem really interesting are the extreme range options, but the pricing is so outrageous on them that I can't stomach them. I feel like I've been saying "oh well, x is right around the corner I'll upgrade then" for /5 years/ now.
Because ram speed has started to become really important I feel like I don't really have much of a choice long term. Ddr3 1066 is going to choke the best years out of my gpu if I don't bail on it soon, so I'll probably upgrade for kaby lake, but I'll likely have to do it while holding my nose. Skylake e might do it for me too though, so I'll likely wait on that, and if that ends up being just as insane as broadwell e was I'll just bite the bullet on it. Sigh...
Kaby Lake will still be a massive upgrade for you.
I know, it's just kind of infuriating that I sat out last year on skylake because while I knew this year my rig was going to take a hammering, I could get by, wait a bit, and get a better upgrade for the money. Then kabylake ends up being practically a 0 increase off Skylake. 2016 in a nutshell, I guess T_T
Well you still get better OC headroom, or better stock if you are conservative.
The only monkey wrench in your plan now is whether mainstream 6-8core (coffee lake and zen) becomes common by start of 2018.
I went from an i5-2500k to an i7-6700k and I don't regret it in the slightest.
Yes, the 2500k was able to run many of the latest titles but it was still a major limiting factor for me. Games that were/are CPU intensive were nightmares. Fallout 4 was hell for me to run properly. I had no overhead if I also wanted to stream those games to, say, Twitch. OBS would constantly choke on the encoding part.
So I either had to hope that lowering my personal resolution from 1080p to 720p helped. Or hoped that lowering the CPU priority in OBS helped. Or hoped that lowering visual options in game helped. Going back to Fallout 4: The game ran like a hot mess when I was also trying to stream it. I had to lock it to 30fps, game and stream both at 720p, set OBS CPU usage preset to a notch lower than default, turn the shadows down to essentially nothing and hope that the quests didn't take me into the heart of the city. It obviously ran better when I wasn't also trying to stream, but not by a whole heck of a lot.
Recording and editing videos met with many of the same pitfalls.
I got real tired of having to make major sacrifices that hindered not only my own experience playing but also the experience of those that choose to watch my stream. Hell, I couldn't just have a "casual" stream when I wanted where I played some stupid game, shot the shit with my viewers, and listened to music because just the added bit of having the music player up would cause CPU usage to peak alongside OBS, chat, and the game.
I'm sure the patches that have come out for Fallout 4 have helped out a lot in addition to the hardware upgrade. I hadn't played that game in months prior to a recent test. I can now stream that game at 720p (playing at 1080p), 60fps, with higher graphical settings than prior, with the CPU usage preset on a setting better than the default. It honestly made me giddy when I gave that game a test the other night after remembering how difficult it was for me to play it when it first came out.
I still plan on upgrading my GPU and eventually getting at least another SSD.
Yes, the 2500k was able to run many of the latest titles but it was still a major limiting factor for me. Games that were/are CPU intensive were nightmares. Fallout 4 was hell for me to run properly. I had no overhead if I also wanted to stream those games to, say, Twitch. OBS would constantly choke on the encoding part.
So I either had to hope that lowering my personal resolution from 1080p to 720p helped. Or hoped that lowering the CPU priority in OBS helped. Or hoped that lowering visual options in game helped. Going back to Fallout 4: The game ran like a hot mess when I was also trying to stream it. I had to lock it to 30fps, game and stream both at 720p, set OBS CPU usage preset to a notch lower than default, turn the shadows down to essentially nothing and hope that the quests didn't take me into the heart of the city. It obviously ran better when I wasn't also trying to stream, but not by a whole heck of a lot.
Recording and editing videos met with many of the same pitfalls.
I got real tired of having to make major sacrifices that hindered not only my own experience playing but also the experience of those that choose to watch my stream. Hell, I couldn't just have a "casual" stream when I wanted where I played some stupid game, shot the shit with my viewers, and listened to music because just the added bit of having the music player up would cause CPU usage to peak alongside OBS, chat, and the game.
I'm sure the patches that have come out for Fallout 4 have helped out a lot in addition to the hardware upgrade. I hadn't played that game in months prior to a recent test. I can now stream that game at 720p (playing at 1080p), 60fps, with higher graphical settings than prior, with the CPU usage preset on a setting better than the default. It honestly made me giddy when I gave that game a test the other night after remembering how difficult it was for me to play it when it first came out.
I still plan on upgrading my GPU and eventually getting at least another SSD.
I'm on search for a new 144hz monitor since I bought a GTX1070 but I realized that I would need a better cpu than my 4670k @4.3GHz because it actually bottlenecking the fps...
Mostly playing Dota2 (90-200fps). Funny thing that TF2 is the same shit while I don't get lower than 200fps in CSGO. Fuck hats I guess.
Mostly playing Dota2 (90-200fps). Funny thing that TF2 is the same shit while I don't get lower than 200fps in CSGO. Fuck hats I guess.
Indeed, now I'm in a bad spot because if I had jumped on skylake, then picking up a second gen 6-8 core in 2019 would have been tolerable. Now? lol I either pick up a refresh that might be leaped in a years time or stay stuck on this dinosaur for another year.
I don't plan on getting a new gpu until 2018 anyways, so I might just end up biting the bullet and do a total rebuild then. High end gaming is going to suck, but I think it'll probably pay off better in the long run. Then again it was thinking like this that got me here in the first place so ¯_(ツ
_/¯grandwizard
Member
thank you playstation for bringing us this amazing new upgrade strategy.
before playstation showed me the light i was stuck in the infernal hell of upgrading every component every 6 months
Battlesmurf
Member
I feel like the way CPU upgrades are progressing it'll lead to them maxing out what they have and being more creative. (Old school examples- Contra AC/NES, Double Dragon 2 AC/NES.) I'd rather them squeeze every last drop out of what they have before moving on to the next. Leading to better optimizations and such would be my hope.
Later Alligator
Member
its a variable framerate that rarely actually runs at 60 fps, frequent drops to 30 and 40s and feels terrible
ps4 pro fares a lot better
Standard PS4 is far from 60fps on CPU intensive maps, Pro is better but still have frequent dips to around 45fps.
And I am running on a 144Hz monitor, so I want all the frames I can get and that puts a lot more stress on the CPU than someone who only plays at 60.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently - especially since upgrading to a GTX 1070 and confirming that a 2500K is really holding things back.Indeed, now I'm in a bad spot because if I had jumped on skylake, then picking up a second gen 6-8 core in 2019 would have been tolerable. Now? lol I either pick up a refresh that might be leaped in a years time or stay stuck on this dinosaur for another year.
I don't plan on getting a new gpu until 2018 anyways, so I might just end up biting the bullet and do a total rebuild then. High end gaming is going to suck, but I think it'll probably pay off better in the long run. Then again it was thinking like this that got me here in the first place so ¯_(ツ
I'm also regretting not having picked up a 6700K now that we know the 7700K is going to perform exactly the same at the same clockspeed.
The 7700K may clock a little higher, and you get a newer platform (mainly Optane and 4K Netflix support) but I would have preferred to upgrade and get this performance last year instead.
It appears that Skylake-X is going to be about 9 months away and I don't want to wait that long.
I've already been delaying a new build for more than a year now.
I'm thinking that it may be best to spend the minimum amount possible on 7700K-specific hardware, and then sell it to do a full new 7900K build when Skylake-X launches.
Spend big on RAM now because everything will still be using DDR4 and that isn't going to change.
Get the fastest 4x16GB package I can, since Skylake-X will be quad-channel and 64GB is the maximum that will be supported by the 7700K.
Pick up a 7700K in January, whatever the cheapest Z270 motherboard with an Intel NIC is, and get a mounting adapter from Noctua for my NH-D15.
It will still be a current platform when the 7900K ships (Coffee Lake is 02/18) so it should hold most of its value.
Buying the cheapest Z270 board available minimizes what I could lose on it.
There's little reason to buy high-end motherboards now anyway. I don't need WiFi/Bluetooth/Thunderbolt/RGB lighting/Audio.
This spreads out the cost a bit (buying the RAM now, setting money aside over the next 9 months) and gives me the option of waiting for Coffee Lake (mainstream 6-core) if I decide that the 7900K (enthusiast 8-core) is going to be too expensive.
I'm thinking that going from 4 cores to 8 rather than 6 is the right move for me though. Coffee Lake is likely to still be using dual-channel memory rather than quad-channel, and games seem to be requiring more memory bandwidth now too.
I'd love for hardware leaps to take a break so software can catch up and be refined. Literally the worst thing about game development is you only get a few short years to get used to some api or engine before Bigger is Better arrives and you have to spend years developing and learning new tools to work with it. Imagining what a dev could do with like, a REALLY good engine that they're used to and have no actual need to move from is something I do all the time.
Aguero9320
Member
This thread has convinced me now's a good time to build my computer for the next few years.
I already have most of the components, just not consolidated in one pc (don't ask).
I have an i7 4790k but I don't like the motherboard, so should I just replace the board and stick with that (socket 1150) in a new case or upgrade to an i7 6700k and socket 1151?
I already have most of the components, just not consolidated in one pc (don't ask).
I have an i7 4790k but I don't like the motherboard, so should I just replace the board and stick with that (socket 1150) in a new case or upgrade to an i7 6700k and socket 1151?
Im in same situation. Shouldve went with the 6700K. Will likely upgrade 3770K to 7700K which sucks, cause i want a big leap. So even if IPC technology isnt getting better, I can at least have 6 cores with CoffeeLake.
This sounds like a mismatch, like you'd be better off getting a GTX 1070, and spending the different of money to get a new mobo and CPU, which you basically could.
Already ordered the card mainly because I have a 4k Tv and thought for that resolution this card would be the best option. Im not opposed to upgrading my CPU, but I feel if I do im pretty much gonna end up building a new PC. I mostly play a heavily modded Skyrim with enb on PC.
Yes, I think that either Skylake-X or Coffee Lake will be the first time we have more than 4 cores without giving up IPC performance.
The enthusiast platform is always a generation behind mainstream, and the server-grade Xeons are a generation behind that.
Since Kaby Lake performance is identical to Skylake, it means that the enthusiast platform in late 2017, Skylake-X, will perform at least the same as the current mainstream CPUs for the first time.
So you won't be giving up IPC performance for additional cores, and may gain performance from additional cache and quad-channel vs dual-channel memory.
Coffee Lake in 2018 will possibly bring IPC improvements while also bringing a 6-core chip to the mainstream platform.
Being a mainstream platform it will probably have dual-channel memory instead of quad-channel, have fewer PCIe lanes, and cost less.