REQ: gtx 690 + 6 core cpu assistance for BF3 testing

I understand what Geeunit is asking for. It is a valid question just like when Crysis came out and folks were asked to compare dual to quad core in single and sli/cfx configurations.

BF3 is the not the main issue. It is the scaling of the engine, Frostbite 2.0, which will be used in a lot of future EA games. It would be good to see what kind of system would keep up with it.

I'm sure if another engine scales beyond quad cores, this same question will come up again for that also.

 

i do appreciate it and yep I have seen that thread and that is part of the reason I was hoping someone else would provide some data.

the review that Hilbert did with the gtx 690 and the i7 675 and the 3960X say other wise.

that is why I was wanting some more data.

hopefully some people that are interested in BF3 and top of the line hardware will provide some extra data so we can get to the bottom of it.

to bad dice/ea has not actually said how many cores bf3 actually uses.
when people alt-tab and look at cpu usage and seen it across 8 threads or more they naturally think it is using that many cores when really the task schedualer is just splitting it up and no frame rate increase comes out of it.

so the real way to test is to keep disabling cores until you actually see frame rate drop.

I see other people posting something similar to what I have posted here and if they ever get results I will post a link so other people thinking about buying a high end video card and high end cpu will have more data to help them make that decision.

to bad this data was not there from the beginning of the game to help people make that choice

 

Task Scheduler?
Either the game engine itself can allocate to multiple cores or not, so if BF3 shows up on 8 threads, it supports 8.
That doesn't tell anything about how many you need to maintain max fps thou.
That is where you can analyze percentage used pr. core, or ask for someone to disable cores.

 

I already explained this to him and provided evidence, but he didn't want to listen.....
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=365864

The GPU is more important anyway, as long as you have a decent quad or better....

 

Cough cough, I'd expect you to write to EA about it and ask them to revise their requirements spec sheets.

-----
Edit

I also don't get what has anything about disabling cores and benchmarking helps out people anyways, its all bull fights for nothing.

Just get a CPU and play the game, why all the headache.

 

to my understanding you are WRONG!

there are screen shots of a six core splitting it up over 12 threads and I have seen dual cpu mother boards with 12 cores and 24 threads and BF3 splitting it up over all them in a "CPU USAGE" screen shot like the phil monster provided.

that is why THAT INFO IS USELESS

you don't think I already know that info?

just find someone to do the test already and STOP EXPLAINING
I already know everything you provided WHAT YOU KEEP FAILING TO LOOK AT is HILBERT's REVIEW that I linked to
it CLEARLY shows the 4 core I7 965 vs the 3960X 6 core at 1920x1200 and only 2 fps apart and in 2560 res the fps goes lower so we know its not a gpu bottleneck right

go look at that and then get back with me (then you will realize) either the review is wrong or the task scheduler splitting it up among the threads is wrong.

SO that brings us back to LETS GET SOME MORE DATA!

thanks

 

BF3 uses about 80+ threads in MP, last time I checked anyway. Of course, the vast majority of those do VERY limited processing, so you don't notice then running by looking at the graphs in Task Manager.

The majority of work will be done by a handful of threads. Generally, the main bottleneck is the fact that the majority of the program will NOT be parallel, meaning there is very little you can do to speed up the application by adding more cores. Then you have various bottlenecks between threads that farther limits performance [EG: The Physics and AI engines needs to know the geometry of the environment before processing can begin].

I really do not see most games scaling much beyond 6 cores, simply because of all the extra bottlenecks that would be introduced. While you can parallize PARTS of programs easily enough [for example, you could handle updating AI objects totally in parallel by making each a unique thread], you will still have bottlenecks that limit the performance benefit [EG: you can't process AI until AFTER the Geometry has been finished by the GPU. If your AI takes audio cues, you also have to wait until AFTER the audio has been processed].

 

I think that is what I was saying.
If an application supports multiple cores, like 6 cores, but only utilizes 50% average on each of them at the highest spikes those 6 cores aren't pushed to their limit.
In addition there are other factors like memory, bus, pci-e bridge, disks and the graphic card itself, but it seems to me the OP completely forgot to add those requirements which might bottleneck and give the wrong picture of it.
Even PillMonsters screenshots show that 4 cores are enough.
Heck, the tests over at hardforum state the same, 4 cores are enough to give more than sufficient fps.
As for the OP, I start to think he only wants his "WRITTEN IN CAPS IMPORTANT DATA" to argue with some reviewers.
Maybe he should start his own site and do some 100% accurate reviews if he is so displeased over other people using their spare time on such.

 

when I write in caps it is for the people who try to explain something to me that I already know when I specifically said I want FPS

I do not want to have a lesson on multi-threading (that was not my topic).

what I want is a TEST to be done showing the FPS (FOUR CORE VS SIX CORE) although I do believe gamerk2 had some very good info that I will store in my brain.

but again the only way to know the info I am requesting is to actually do the test.

what is so hard to understand about that?

 

You should be more concerned with the graphics card, not the cpu.

 

And you should not mix the Task Scheduler into this, go figure.

 

why is this so difficult.

I see TON's of FPS benchmarks on TON's of games
heck I see tons of fps benchmarks with BF3 (although Single Player only)

why is it so DIFFICULT to get this test done.

anyone love playing BF3?

join a server (64 ppl) with a 6 core cpu (play for a round or so)
record with fraps

now do the same thing with only FOUR cores.

shouldn't be a big deal really.

 

Lulz.

 

@geeunit,

Why not just save up your money, buy a 6-core i7 and do the tests yourself? Problem solved. You'll have a killer CPU (granted, it's over-priced) and you be able to conduct all these types of tests first hand without the need to rely on outside sources. Since it seems you don't feel that most testing sites don't meet your needs or provide the info you want, this seems like the best course of action.

Also, if you are going to respond that you can't afford the 6-core or don't want to pay that much for one, then I don't see the point of this thread.

P.S. There is a very valid reason why the majority of sites don't run FPS tests in multiplayer. It's because you cannot achieve consistent results (especially with 64 players!) because there are just to many variable that change from each run, no matter how hard you try.

 

why would I do that when someone here can do that simple test?
omg

 

If you don't have a hexcore and have no apparent intention of owning one for the time being, why are you throwing up a fit over a single game you won't be playing when the sequel shows up? :3eyes:

 

I can't believe you people are actually doing the work for this rude OP. Very sad.

 

If you can't afford it to begin with than why do you care?
Telling everyone they are wrong when they are trying to help is not the best way to get an answer.

 

who said I wasn't gonna own one?

that is you putting words into my mouth

please don't do that

I made it VERY CLEAR im thinking about buying one and that is WHY I am asking for someone to do the test.

why else would I ask someone to do it?

 

please take your finger off the CAP button it is very rude