64 player Battlefield 3 Gaming Rig - CPU Question.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
I'm trying to decide between the FX 6100 and the AMD x4 970 Chip. I can't afford any higher chips, I've already added +10$ onto every other hardware piece, PSU, Ram, Mobo, Case, etc etc. So this is the best I can do.

My question is, I know that the x4 900 series chips are said to be better than the bulldozer FX series in general.
But I've reviewed many many Youtube Framerate during Multiplayer Videos, and the Fx 6100 seemed to do the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHJfLSUXU_o

Its hard to argue with this guys testimony.

Not only does it run max settings, its recording full HD with zero Frame skipping.

I would rather have a stable 30-40 FPS (With none of those damned skippy skips, during traveling, or heavy gameplay).

I can't afford the x4 980 chip (Unless anyone has one for free) heh.

Am I making a bad decision? Surely the two chips are so close that no one would even notice anyhow..

I think im going with the fx 6100. Any other opinions? anyone else specifically have / use these chips
on 64 player maps?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
I want to agree with you guys, but im looking at proof with my own eyes on youtube.

This guy with this fx 6100 is not only playing, but recording with fraps with zero inconsistant frames per second.
No 970 video I can find does this.

Ill re think the 970. thank you.

====

Look at these casche numbers.. they are huge.

6mb l2 cache
8mb l3 cache.

the 970 amd only has
4 x 512KB .... (hardly even 2m)
6MB

..

Are these numbers useless?

I looking for large gameplay stability.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
palladin9479

palladin9479

Splendid
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
3,871
516
23,840


*Cough*

BD's caching is horrible. The L2 and L3 latency's are nearly double. Also branching prediction is very bad. This has been demonstrated several times over again.

I happen to have the 970BE clocked @4.2 Ghz, it solidly beats the BD and gives the 2500K a run for it's money (although it still loses).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
esrever

esrever

Splendid
Dec 27, 2011
5,391
0
26,160
Well in bf3 multiplayer it might be the one place the 6100 beats the 970, Bf3 seems to run well on 6 core cpus very well in multiplayer but the 6100 is 15% slower per core than the 970 so a lot slower in other games.

The 6100 is pretty solid if your main goal is to play bf3 multiplayer and I would think it will be better than the 970. OC can be done on both and the 6100 can go pretty high if you don't care about power consumption.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
Well im sure both will be very decent.
I would be very happy to go with the 970.

if it wernt for seing the proof myself, that super buttery smooth full HD recording with fraps (Craps fraps..) flawlessly with zero frame stutter....

Especially when I only find 970s that stutter when Fraps.

I thought I saw a benchmark on tomshardware that showed no relative increase between dual core quad and hex actually. but im sure they were not running Fraps.

I would sure think bf3 would eat extra cores, especially once your multiplayer heavy and physics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
lower cpu usage = more cpu available for 64 player maps

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

the 6100 does beat the x4 cpus considerably in this title

the performance difference is shown in single player on the reviews, but mulitplayer takes a huge hit for free resources. Even an Intel 2500k runs almost 50% with 2 cores vs 4 where single player doens't even change. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

3.4 ghz goes from 116 on 4 cores to 66fps on 2. vs single player not chaning at all.

intel%20core%20i7-2600k%20cores.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
I have never messed with overclock. I would only go so far as to buy the best 20 dollar cooler i could. as long as im carefull with keeping the case out of hot areas of the house, and a 20 dollar cooler, how high do you think i could OC the 6100 or 970?

Im not interesting in pushing it hard. just safe. Also, i dont want to reduce its life, as long as it last two years, ill be happy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
Wow..

This chart is making the fx 4100 look like it competes just as well as any other chip.
give or two 2-5 frames per second...

These are all single player only data?
and your thinkning these numbers will take a quick dive once your seeing 30 people on the screen?
Thats the main question here.

have you found any evidence that the fx based chips 6100 4100 are doing better for multiplayer situations?
or are you just guessing that , average unused CPU will translate into extra when it comes time for multiplayer?
which makes since.

If were only talking 5 frames per second bias from the video card.
I may just save myself a few bucks and go with the 4100.

Am I missing something?
1650 - 1080 resolution with 0xMsaa 16xAF is plenty resolution for me.

==============

the fx 4100 shows 71 percent useage for these charts.
same as the x4 980 (So I would assume that the 970 would be a few percent behind this.
which means theortically the fx 4100 should at least tie or slightly out perform the x4 970
(On heavy multiplayer battlefield) ?

Or would you say that its only safe to say that the fx 6100 and its extra two cores would do better?

If were only talking 2-5 frames per second, ill go with the 4100. unless I can blow the cash on a 6100.

The 6100 will perform well enough for the rest of my games im sure,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
**(Edited, oh damn you posted multiplayer maps charts, perfect thankyou)**
why the hell didnt i find these on toms front page X_x

On this chart it talkes about the fx 4100 running at 2ghz?
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

what does that mean? surely that doesnt mean at half power / half speed
it still ran the game fine? or is that exactly what it means?

Now the question becomes, just what percent extra is needed for 64 player maps.
Im sure you wont see 60 people in one building at once, maybe 40 on screen at a time at most.

Im sure you want as much cushion as you can get but...

Also.. wtf is the fx 6120 X_x. those arnt for sale on Newegg, just the 6100.

Its looking like the 6100 is the best buy for the dollar, when it comes to battlefield, that is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630
GRR why didnt they test the damn 6100 - 4100 X_x.

Basically.. it looks like, to me, the fx 8150 takes less of a dive once its under heavy mutiplayer strain than the 980.

Does the same thing happen on the fx 6100 ? I would guess so, so a fair degree.

The extra demand that fraps had on the game is probably the same extra demand that mutiplayer has.
which is why the 970 chip started to fall behind on recording while the 6100 appeared flawless.

Even though I dont exactly understand why, if all the other charts show the 980x4 having slightly higher performance.

Looks like I better go with the 6100, for multiplayer buttery smooth no skips.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860

the techspot article was posted near when bd was released, AMD was rumored to relase a 6120, 3.6 ghz instead of 3.3 .. overclocking tho, the 6100 = 6120 or better.

The drop to 2 ghz is just another way of showing what toms did with the 2-3-4 core test, single player isn't really affected by speed/core count. multiplayer is where they take a hit.

Exactly how much is needed is a tricky question for multiplayer. imo get what you can afford that shows the lowest cpu usage. 6100 at 4.0 ghz should play fine, I know for a fact that my 8120 at 4.7 doesn't even think of stuttering.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rockdpm

Rockdpm

Splendid
Dec 26, 2011
4,439
0
23,160
Hey man, i am a verified user of the FX 6100. I can play in 64 player maps and have some stuff running in the background and maybe only 80% at most. Go for the 6100 man. Its really not that bad of a CPU. I mean it doesn't and shouldn't at all compete against Intel because they are different level CPU's. As for the Phenom, well the Phenom 970 is good to but if your multitasking . More Cores= Better Multitasking
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rage33

rage33

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2010
466
1
18,860


+1^ I've seen the FX6100 in action and it performs very well, actually both CPUs will do the trick. The FX6100 OC's very easy also, you can easily get a 4.2GHz OC with barely touching the voltage. At the end of the day you should just buy the CPU that you think you'll be happy with both will serve you're needs just fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

robcardiv

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
50
0
18,630


This is basically what it comes down too.
I need the extra power for heavy multiplayer scenes. Thats about it, other than the generic "Id like regular gaming power all around". I just do regular gaming for the most part, no real jobs for the computer, so I wont notice much.

If I had to pick which game got the bonus, Id hand it to bf3. the rest will do "well enough" . Id imagine.

I can always buy a better am3+ chip next year if this one starts to peese me off.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom