Rus, What's your game name? Since you're presenting yourself as an authority, I think it's only fair that everyone gets to see that you don't actually play the game. Battlefield is a multiplayer game. I should not have to say that, but apparently I do, because you keep referencing canned single player benchmarks to respond to the charge that non hyper threaded Intel cpus have 100% usage... which is odd, because it's totally non-responsive. If you had any facts you'd post a chart showing cpu usage. It's also not clear you're familiar with any Battlefield game? It took dice and dice la a year of optimizing BF4 before it was playable. I suspect you will dispute this too, but you would be alone. This isn't a claim made up by some random guy on the internet; this is what ea admitted: https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/electronic-arts-develops-games-high-end-pc-first/ That you ran fine on a 2600k isn't unusual. Hyper threaded cpus run the game fine, and there hasn't exactly been a huge leap in ipc between Sandy Bridge and Sky Lake. When the game came out I was running a 6600k and a 970. I didn't have any issues, but a metric poop ton of guys did, and still do. However, I could not help but notice that even in the menus cpu usage was ~ 95-100%. If your game is at 100% cpu usage even in the menus, then you can't make the claim that it's well optimized... no matter what bootlickers or single player canned benchmarks say. That said, this is typical dice though. They get around to optimizing, it just takes them a while.