Low performance and stuttering GTX 1070 i5 2500K OC 4.6Ghz

«1
cybergogo
2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
Hi All,
So i just replaced my SLI GTX 670 with one GTX 1070 hoping to get good enough performance to play BF5 without changing the rest for now.
the 1070 is coupled with an i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, 16Gb DDR3 1600Mhz RAM, and running on a Samsung 500Gb 850 series SSD.
All drivers are new, windows is windows 10.
The issue is that i get lots of stuttering, Fps goes between 45 and 60 on average with drops onto 25fps !!!
OK in know the 2500K isn't young.
But the thing is, my hardware monitor show 85/95% CPU usage and 50% GPU usage in game.
When in the menus or pre-post game, gpu goes to 95-100% and fps go to 100-120.
Every settings are on High, TXAA low, Preframe ON, Vsync ON, directx11.
Have tried to switch all to low but no change (at least not radical, just +10fps tops).
Power plan is on performance and same in nvidia control panel.
Any ideas?

Comments

  • nidahegg
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I have a GTX 1070 with i5 6600k @4,5GHz. CPU usage is also very high most of the time with GPU usage only reaching 100% outside of battles. FPS is usually 80+ with dips into low 50s in some situations, so I think you're getting the performance you should expect. It's a very CPU intensive game and 2500k is below minimum requirements.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1641 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    A i5 2500K is bottlenecking your performance. You could have the best GFX card in the world but you'll be held back by your CPU.

    My i5 4690K stutters like crazy in this game as it is also below minimum specifications for BFV. The game requires a CPU that uses 8 threads, 4 thread CPUs simply can't cope with what the game demands of the processor.

    I'd upgrade but I don't like the game enough to do so, perhaps I'd enjoy it more if it ran better than a 3 legged dog but I'm not convinced.
  • Dragam
    876 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    A i5 2500K is bottlenecking your performance. You could have the best GFX card in the world but you'll be held back by your CPU.

    My i5 4690K stutters like crazy in this game as it is also below minimum specifications for BFV. The game requires a CPU that uses 8 threads, 4 thread CPUs simply can't cope with what the game demands of the processor.

    I'd upgrade but I don't like the game enough to do so, perhaps I'd enjoy it more if it ran better than a 3 legged dog but I'm not convinced.

    If you do have a sufficient cpu, then it runs marvelous :)
  • spychodelics
    237 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Dragam wrote: »
    A i5 2500K is bottlenecking your performance. You could have the best GFX card in the world but you'll be held back by your CPU.

    My i5 4690K stutters like crazy in this game as it is also below minimum specifications for BFV. The game requires a CPU that uses 8 threads, 4 thread CPUs simply can't cope with what the game demands of the processor.

    I'd upgrade but I don't like the game enough to do so, perhaps I'd enjoy it more if it ran better than a 3 legged dog but I'm not convinced.

    If you do have a sufficient cpu, then it runs marvelous :)

    Bug Forum begs the difference :smile:

  • Dragam
    876 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dragam wrote: »
    A i5 2500K is bottlenecking your performance. You could have the best GFX card in the world but you'll be held back by your CPU.

    My i5 4690K stutters like crazy in this game as it is also below minimum specifications for BFV. The game requires a CPU that uses 8 threads, 4 thread CPUs simply can't cope with what the game demands of the processor.

    I'd upgrade but I don't like the game enough to do so, perhaps I'd enjoy it more if it ran better than a 3 legged dog but I'm not convinced.

    If you do have a sufficient cpu, then it runs marvelous :)

    Bug Forum begs the difference :smile:

    There are always people who doesn't know what the hell they are doing on a pc, even if they have the best pc components money can buy...
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    i'm not saying your cpu is to blame since at 4.6ghz it's technically above recommended (ryzen 1300x). but i would definitely stick a 2600/2700k in your rig. going from a 3570k to a 3770k made such a huge difference to smoothness in bf1. even though i was above 60fps , 99% of the time with the 3570 it just felt so much smoother on the i7. you can find them used for really cheap too.
  • Dragam
    876 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    i'm not saying your cpu is to blame since at 4.6ghz it's technically above recommended (ryzen 1300x). but i would definitely stick a 2600/2700k in your rig. going from a 3570k to a 3770k made such a huge difference to smoothness in bf1. even though i was above 60fps , 99% of the time with the 3570 it just felt so much smoother on the i7. you can find them used for really cheap too.

    A 2500k has MUCH lower IPC than ryzen cpu's, so no, even if it was clocked at 5 ghz, it would still be considerably slower than a 1300x.

    Sandybridge did well for many years, but it's time for an upgrade. A 2600k has 8 threads, so more than the crucial 6 threads this game needs, but it is ancient tech at this point, so you can only obtain it used with no warranty, and no idea of when it would die, so unless he can litterally get one for free, then he would be better off just buying something new.
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    Dragam wrote: »
    i'm not saying your cpu is to blame since at 4.6ghz it's technically above recommended (ryzen 1300x). but i would definitely stick a 2600/2700k in your rig. going from a 3570k to a 3770k made such a huge difference to smoothness in bf1. even though i was above 60fps , 99% of the time with the 3570 it just felt so much smoother on the i7. you can find them used for really cheap too.

    A 2500k has MUCH lower IPC than ryzen cpu's, so no, even if it was clocked at 5 ghz, it would still be considerably slower than a 1300x.

    Sandybridge did well for many years, but it's time for an upgrade. A 2600k has 8 threads, so more than the crucial 6 threads this game needs, but it is ancient tech at this point, so you can only obtain it used with no warranty, and no idea of when it would die, so unless he can litterally get one for free, then he would be better off just buying something new.

    [email protected] is equal to a ryzen1200 @4ghz



    ryzen [email protected] 3.7 is faster than a stock 1300x



    so no, it's not considerably slower, it's slightly faster.

    if he lives in the uk, you can get a 2700k from cex for £75 with a 2 year warranty. cpus generally last 10+ years though unless you seriously abuse them and i've never had one die on me in 20+ years of owning pcs and i generally keep them for a long time.

    also, why does my whole post get deleted if i try editing it ?
  • Dragam
    876 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dragam wrote: »
    i'm not saying your cpu is to blame since at 4.6ghz it's technically above recommended (ryzen 1300x). but i would definitely stick a 2600/2700k in your rig. going from a 3570k to a 3770k made such a huge difference to smoothness in bf1. even though i was above 60fps , 99% of the time with the 3570 it just felt so much smoother on the i7. you can find them used for really cheap too.

    A 2500k has MUCH lower IPC than ryzen cpu's, so no, even if it was clocked at 5 ghz, it would still be considerably slower than a 1300x.

    Sandybridge did well for many years, but it's time for an upgrade. A 2600k has 8 threads, so more than the crucial 6 threads this game needs, but it is ancient tech at this point, so you can only obtain it used with no warranty, and no idea of when it would die, so unless he can litterally get one for free, then he would be better off just buying something new.

    [email protected] is equal to a ryzen1200 @4ghz



    ryzen [email protected] 3.7 is faster than a stock 1300x



    so no, it's not considerably slower, it's slightly faster.

    if he lives in the uk, you can get a 2700k from cex for £75 with a 2 year warranty. cpus generally last 10+ years though unless you seriously abuse them and i've never had one die on me in 20+ years of owning pcs and i generally keep them for a long time.

    also, why does my whole post get deleted if i try editing it ?

    Fair enough, they are closer than i remembered.

    The test you link to use the 2500k with 2133 mhz ram though, while OP has 1600 mhz ram - this makes a considerable difference.

  • Head3masher
    1420 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Game looks much worse than bf1, so why does it need better cpu?
  • SgtQman19
    61 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DDR3 ram is your issue to slow. Also you may have cpu bottlenecking. Two simple problems
    cybergogo wrote: »
    Hi All,
    So i just replaced my SLI GTX 670 with one GTX 1070 hoping to get good enough performance to play BF5 without changing the rest for now.
    the 1070 is coupled with an i5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz, 16Gb DDR3 1600Mhz RAM, and running on a Samsung 500Gb 850 series SSD.
    All drivers are new, windows is windows 10.
    The issue is that i get lots of stuttering, Fps goes between 45 and 60 on average with drops onto 25fps !!!
    OK in know the 2500K isn't young.
    But the thing is, my hardware monitor show 85/95% CPU usage and 50% GPU usage in game.
    When in the menus or pre-post game, gpu goes to 95-100% and fps go to 100-120.
    Every settings are on High, TXAA low, Preframe ON, Vsync ON, directx11.
    Have tried to switch all to low but no change (at least not radical, just +10fps tops).
    Power plan is on performance and same in nvidia control panel.
    Any ideas?

  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SgtQman19 wrote: »
    DDR3 ram is your issue to slow.

    no it's not. i have [email protected] and don't have any issues.

  • Raptor_i81
    188 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    Game looks much worse than bf1, so why does it need better cpu?


    The "game look" have nothing to do with the CPU , the physics in BFv is more advanced than BF1 and I don't know what you are talking about cause BFv looks better than BF1.
  • IdiotBox
    41 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SgtQman19 wrote: »
    DDR3 ram is your issue to slow. Also you may have cpu bottlenecking. Two simple problems

    DDR3 is absolutely not his issue. His issue is that he has a 4 core CPU and the game really needs 8+ threads to run well.

  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    just did some testing for fun
    1080p, med texures, med texture filter, mesh ultra, taa high, everything else low or off.

    [email protected] gtx970 16gb ram

    64 player 100-110 average, min 70
    32 player 110-120 average, min 90

    simulated 3570k (HT disabled)

    64 players 70-90 average, min 50
    32 player 90-100 average, min 70

    overall though it felt way smoother with HT enabled but way definitely very playable with just 4 cores/threads.
  • Dragam
    876 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    just did some testing for fun
    1080p, med texures, med texture filter, mesh ultra, taa high, everything else low or off.

    [email protected] gtx970 16gb ram

    64 player 100-110 average, min 70
    32 player 110-120 average, min 90

    simulated 3570k (HT disabled)

    64 players 70-90 average, min 50
    32 player 90-100 average, min 70

    overall though it felt way smoother with HT enabled but way definitely very playable with just 4 cores/threads.

    I am going to go ahead and assume that you are gpu limited with HT enabled though, so in theory you could get much higher fps with that cpu, if you used a lower res for instance :)
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dragam wrote: »
    just did some testing for fun
    1080p, med texures, med texture filter, mesh ultra, taa high, everything else low or off.

    [email protected] gtx970 16gb ram

    64 player 100-110 average, min 70
    32 player 110-120 average, min 90

    simulated 3570k (HT disabled)

    64 players 70-90 average, min 50
    32 player 90-100 average, min 70

    overall though it felt way smoother with HT enabled but way definitely very playable with just 4 cores/threads.

    I am going to go ahead and assume that you are gpu limited with HT enabled though, so in theory you could get much higher fps with that cpu, if you used a lower res for instance :)

    actually not really, i tried running low 720p too and fps were about the same. and gpu usage was mostly under 100% through all tests. cpu usage also never hit 100% with ht enabled. i needed to use the medium preset before my gpu was 100% most of the time.
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2018
    delete.
    Post edited by B0ng0_Banger on
  • REPERCUSSIONS
    222 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    my first gen I930 is able to run this game. 90 fps average, be it only at medium settings taa high, at 1440p. just wish they would fix sli so I can utilize the second 980ti... I get over a 110 with both on all ultra but frames are all over the place and i cant get the second one to go past 30% usage. I know its time for an upgrade but why. Reading all the complaints about the new hardware I seem to be doing fine for what I have.
  • carewhatt
    3 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    have a smiliar specs after getting i8500 every run smoothly i think u need 6 cores to run this game correctly
Sign In or Register to comment.