i5-8600k + GTX 1080 @ 60 FPS average (1080p)

ouch1230
postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited August 11
I run this setup:

Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz (not overclocked)
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC
Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
Motherboard: ASUS PRIME Z370-A
Corsair 16 GB (2x8 GB)   DDR4 3000 Mhz CL15 Vengeance

@ 1080p i get around 60-70 FPS at Ultra settings (V-sync turned off)

Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
probably has even higher FPS without.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoilrQu8-o


According to HWmonitor:

CPU usage on all 6 cores jumps up to 100% occassionally
GPU usage 98% max - 70 degrees max

Post edited by ouch1230 on

Comments

  • YourLocalPlumber
    2795 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    ouch1230 said:

    Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
    Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
    probably has even higher FPS without.


    Only it does. i5 needs to be overclocked to get high FPS. At stock it will bottleneck the hell out of your system in BF5. One of my friends is playing on 9600k overclocked to 5.2Ghz, that gives him extra 45FPS 1% low FPS when using RTX2080.
  • Xedius2142
    38 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    And with an i5 6600K not OC and RX 480 NITRO+ 8GB I get steady 80 FPS on 1080p ULTRA settings. You know how buddy? I never listened to those who told me to upgrade to an i7. What I did to fix the FPS problem was to downgrade the Windows to version 1607. Anything higher than 1607 will make your CPU run like crap because they crippled the performance to "fix" the security. I know you probably won't do this to solve your FPS, but neither EA will do something to fix the game.
    Post edited by Xedius2142 on
  • Nutcrusherr
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Xedius2142 wrote: »
    And with an i5 6600K not OC and RX 480 NITRO+ 8GB I get steady 80 FPS on 1080p ULTRA settings. You know how buddy? I never listened to those who told me to upgrade to an i7. What I did to fix the FPS problem was to downgrade the Windows to version 1607. Anything higher than 1607 will make your CPU run like crap because they crippled the performance to "fix" the security. I know you probably won't do this to solve your FPS, but neither EA will something to fix the game.

    Whats wrong with an i7? :D
  • Xedius2142
    38 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    Nothing wrong with an i7, but this game did not require an i7 at launch to run on recommended settings. It required an i5 6600K. Anything higher than this is a waste of money if you are on a tight budget. And it did not feel right for them to change the system req just because Microsoft **** the performance on the i5s.
  • TFBisquit
    1516 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I can see that yes.
    As for the op, out of curiosity I ran this game on a stock i7 2600k, and compared to the 4.5Ghz it costed between 30 and 40 fps on the same settings. So yes, it can lift that threshold.
    As for those ultra settings, that means nothing in this game. Sure, it all looks a bit crispier, some more detail, but with mixed settings you won't miss much. So lower them and get that fps you are comfortable with.
  • 5hadyBrady
    426 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    ouch1230 said:
    I run this setup:

    Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz (not overclocked)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC
    Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
    Motherboard: ASUS PRIME Z370-A
    Corsair 16 GB (2x8 GB)   DDR4 3000 Mhz CL15 Vengeance

    @ 1080p i get around 60-70 FPS at Ultra settings (V-sync turned off)

    Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
    Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
    probably has even higher FPS without.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoilrQu8-o


    According to HWmonitor:

    CPU usage on all 6 cores jumps up to 100% occassionally
    GPU usage 98% max - 70 degrees max

    There's a setting called "future frame rendering" that eats up a massive chunk of performance. However, even with that turned on I get extremely poor performance in this game with a similar setup. I run a 7700K and a GTX1080 at 1440p and I'm lucky to get 80fps sometimes. With the same settings on BF1 I actually have to cap the frame rate at 144. I don't think Battlefield V looks that much better than 1. Not for that kind of performance hit anyways. And I'm playing with mostly everything on Low, AA turned off, occlusion off, etc. The only thing I have on high or ultra is textures. So this is as good as BFV gets for me, unless I scale down the resolution to like 1080p or something. But then I feel blind. The problem you're talking about with high cpu usage and lower GPU usage is typically associated with DX11. I wouldn't switch to DX12 though. It's a nightmare, contrary to what some users report. I don't care what microsoft update comes out, or who claims dx12 is "running better", it's still worse than 11.
  • Nutcrusherr
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    5hadyBrady wrote: »
    ouch1230 said:
    I run this setup:

    Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz (not overclocked)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC
    Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
    Motherboard: ASUS PRIME Z370-A
    Corsair 16 GB (2x8 GB)   DDR4 3000 Mhz CL15 Vengeance

    @ 1080p i get around 60-70 FPS at Ultra settings (V-sync turned off)

    Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
    Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
    probably has even higher FPS without.




    According to HWmonitor:

    CPU usage on all 6 cores jumps up to 100% occassionally
    GPU usage 98% max - 70 degrees max



    There's a setting called "future frame rendering" that eats up a massive chunk of performance. However, even with that turned on I get extremely poor performance in this game with a similar setup. I run a 7700K and a GTX1080 at 1440p and I'm lucky to get 80fps sometimes. With the same settings on BF1 I actually have to cap the frame rate at 144. I don't think Battlefield V looks that much better than 1. Not for that kind of performance hit anyways. And I'm playing with mostly everything on Low, AA turned off, occlusion off, etc. The only thing I have on high or ultra is textures. So this is as good as BFV gets for me, unless I scale down the resolution to like 1080p or something. But then I feel blind. The problem you're talking about with high cpu usage and lower GPU usage is typically associated with DX11. I wouldn't switch to DX12 though. It's a nightmare, contrary to what some users report. I don't care what microsoft update comes out, or who claims dx12 is "running better", it's still worse than 11.

    Yeah. I run bf 1 mostly on the highest settings, render scale 200% having 80-100 fps.
    Bf V 2 settings on ultra rest of them low 100% render having 90-130 fps. 6700k and an rtx 2070.
    Upgarding to 8700 this week so i'll see how it goes. Hope it gets better. :D
  • TFBisquit
    1516 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    ouch1230 said:
    I run this setup:

    Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz (not overclocked)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC
    Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
    Motherboard: ASUS PRIME Z370-A
    Corsair 16 GB (2x8 GB)   DDR4 3000 Mhz CL15 Vengeance

    @ 1080p i get around 60-70 FPS at Ultra settings (V-sync turned off)

    Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
    Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
    probably has even higher FPS without.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoilrQu8-o


    According to HWmonitor:

    CPU usage on all 6 cores jumps up to 100% occassionally
    GPU usage 98% max - 70 degrees max

    There's a setting called "future frame rendering" that eats up a massive chunk of performance. However, even with that turned on I get extremely poor performance in this game with a similar setup. I run a 7700K and a GTX1080 at 1440p and I'm lucky to get 80fps sometimes. With the same settings on BF1 I actually have to cap the frame rate at 144. I don't think Battlefield V looks that much better than 1. Not for that kind of performance hit anyways. And I'm playing with mostly everything on Low, AA turned off, occlusion off, etc. The only thing I have on high or ultra is textures. So this is as good as BFV gets for me, unless I scale down the resolution to like 1080p or something. But then I feel blind. The problem you're talking about with high cpu usage and lower GPU usage is typically associated with DX11. I wouldn't switch to DX12 though. It's a nightmare, contrary to what some users report. I don't care what microsoft update comes out, or who claims dx12 is "running better", it's still worse than 11.
    Strange. I ran [email protected],5Ghz+gtx1080 and under dx12 I had with textures on ultra between 80 and 110 fps at 1440p. Mostly above 90. Dx11 was between 70 and 90 fps.
    Comparing it now with 9900k I find it's more consistent, no drops whatsoever, no matter the amount of explosions and buildings collapsing, higher fps with the same gtx1080.
    But overall, running it with the 2600k wasn't so bad in comparison.
    I keep wondering there is something else with this game and 7700k+8700k users, since I read several complaints from those using that.
    Btw that was all with windows 10 1809.
    ps. I always run with FFR off. I find there is a noticable difference in gameplay, with it on I loose firefights I would have won with it off.
  • CSO7777
    1129 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 13
    I use a GTX1080 (with a Ryzen 2700X) and use DX12 without any issues what so ever. DX12 works fine in BFV for most people and gives me higher FPS than DX11.

    The only framedrops I get, is from the bugged assignment-system. Not selecting any assignments and using ISLC make my game run stutter-free and with 120+ FPS on 1440p (mostly low to ultra settings).
  • Nutcrusherr
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So my i7 8700 came today.

    Just to explain the difference, my config was:
    I7 6700k stock, 16gb ddr3 1600mhz, rtx 2070.
    Fps was vary from 90-130 on low settings.

    New config:
    I7 8700, 16gb ddr4 2666 mhz, rtx 2070.
    Fps constantly above 120, mostly 140+ on high settings.
    Worth it! :)
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ouch1230 wrote: »
    I run this setup:

    Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz (not overclocked)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC
    Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series
    Motherboard: ASUS PRIME Z370-A
    Corsair 16 GB (2x8 GB)   DDR4 3000 Mhz CL15 Vengeance

    @ 1080p i get around 60-70 FPS at Ultra settings (V-sync turned off)

    Compared to this guy with almost identical setup i should be getting around 110-120 FPS average on 1080p with ultra settings.
    Note: His CPU is overclocked to 4,8 Ghz - mine is not. Still, it shouldn't account for 40-50 low FPS. Note also that he is recording the game which means he
    probably has even higher FPS without.




    According to HWmonitor:

    CPU usage on all 6 cores jumps up to 100% occassionally
    GPU usage 98% max - 70 degrees max

    The video is literally almost a year old. In that time, performance has dipped die to unoptimized patches that have hurt overall performance. You need to compare your set up to something more recent.
  • RudyMentally
    24 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Use MSI afterburner and make sure you enable GPU%, CPU% and CPU clock/temperatur. If your GPU is at 90+% lower the gfx settings, if your CPU is above 90% you're probably cpu limited, but you can put gfx on 1024x768 low settings with 25% resolution scale to see what kind of fps is possible from the CPU (as the GPU with these settings is pretty much doing nothing). If your CPU temp is rising constantly up to the point it starts to throttle, get a better cooler. If neither cpu nor gpu are running above 90% you could try faster memory to get more out of it. I found out my 4770k was throttling in this game, so after a better cooler it was obviously more stable, but I noticed my cpu 96% and gpu (gtx 1080) was 45%. Even very low 1024x768 didn't improve fps one bit, so I upgraded to 9700k with ddr4 and even then there was a fps difference between 2400 MHz memory and the 3333 MHz XMP profile quite substantial some 15 fps (and after XMP cpu use% also went down a bit). But after the cpu/memory upgrade the gtx1080 really came to life and now runs 1080p medium at 144 fps. This game really seems to like higher clock speeds for the cpu and memory to produce more fps. If I uncap the framerate it will go beyond 200 quite easily. The only thing that seems to cause a drop (to like 130) is when there's a ton of players running through a bombardement.
Sign In or Register to comment.