Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would I bottleneck this?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 25, 2012 12:45:38 AM

Okay, so tell me which of these would bottleneck

965 BE (Clock) 4GB
965 BE (Clock) 8GB

^ those are gonna run at either 1333 or 1600

also a

i3 2100 4GB
i3 2100 8GB

^ those are gonna run at either 1333 or 1600


Would I bottleneck my 7870 2GB IceQ?

Also whats the cheaptest i5 or i7 I could get, that still works good?

More about : bottleneck

September 25, 2012 1:01:06 AM

azathoth said:
For nearly every game, the i3-2100 with 8GB of ram would be best.
However, BF3 Multiplayer will be CPU bottlenecked unless you have a quad core.



Wait, so your saying if I get like... 64 player server, I`ll lag? How bad? Because I know on an i7 the 7870 w/8gb runs 70fps, how bad on my i3? D: Also would a 965 BE be better?
m
0
l
Related resources
September 25, 2012 1:05:27 AM

StrangeInstance said:
Wait, so your saying if I get like... 64 player server, I`ll lag? How bad? Because I know on an i7 the 7870 w/8gb runs 70fps, how bad on my i3? D: Also would a 965 BE be better?


This is one example, my laptop has a i5-2410m, a dual core processor that runs at 2.7Ghz. And a GT555m.
I can turn everything to low and get ~40% GPU usage, but 100% CPU usage and only get 20-35 FPS average. The spikes are ridiculous when explosions happen.

However, the same system with a quad core has 100% GPU usage and a MUCH more stable, higher FPS.

BF3 multiplayer eats dual cores for breakfast, but gets nice and comfy with quad cores.
m
0
l
September 25, 2012 1:08:50 AM

Without knowing your resolution and perhaps refresh rate, we do not know enough info to answer your question.
m
0
l
September 25, 2012 1:13:37 AM

bystander said:
Without knowing your resolution and perhaps refresh rate, we do not know enough info to answer your question.


60ghz 23' 1080p
m
0
l
October 3, 2012 9:11:42 PM

Neither would be bottlenecked in most games. However, I'd go for 8gb, because some games will use up to 4gb, and the OS is going to want to use some of the ram. The i3 is faster for games that don't use 4 cores, and it's not far off when they do, because the i3 does have hyperthreading to somewhat compensate for being a dual core system.

It's a tough call on the CPU choice. If you could afford an i5, it would be simpler.
m
0
l
October 3, 2012 10:47:52 PM

I`m going to use an 8 GB already, but would my i3 get laggy on 64 man?
m
0
l
October 3, 2012 10:49:34 PM

StrangeInstance said:
I`m going to use an 8 GB already, but would my i3 get laggy on 64 man?


There is a decent chance it would. That said, I think it would be wiser to go i3 than AMD atm. You can update the i3 for an i5 in the future without having to purchase a new motherboard and memory. But sure the board you choose does support both (if they don't all support both).
m
0
l
October 10, 2012 7:44:57 PM

bystander said:
There is a decent chance it would. That said, I think it would be wiser to go i3 than AMD atm. You can update the i3 for an i5 in the future without having to purchase a new motherboard and memory. But sure the board you choose does support both (if they don't all support both).



Yeah I decided not to buy a new CPU and reuse this i3 2100, so I also made my ram 16GB and my PSU better
m
0
l
!