How the Number of CPU Cores Affects Battlefield V PC Performance - BF5 CPU Benchmarks

Written by Jon Sutton on Fri, Sep 7, 2018 1:17 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

After our initial Battlefield 5 PC benchmarks yesterday, a number of GD community members also wanted to know about CPU performance in Battlefield V. So, this morning I did just that, benchmarking BF5 with the exact same system. This time though, CPU cores and threads were disabled in order to find out just how CPU-hungry Battlefield V really is.

Battlefield V Open Beta benchmarks and frames per second analysis performed on GeForce GTX 1060 6GB | Intel i7-5820K 3.3GHz | 16GB DDR4

Following our GPU benchmarks yesterday, today we're looking at the impact CPU core count has on Battlefield V performance. The processor we're using is the 6-core/12-thread Intel Core i7-5820K, running at stock clock speeds (3.3GHz base). The same 64-player Conquest Rotterdam map was played for each test, with an additional CPU core disabled for each BFV benchmark.

Battlefield V Open Beta CPU 2-Core, 3-Core, 4-Core, 5-Core & 6-Core Benchmarks

 

  Low Ultra
1C/2T 0 0
2C/4T 63 45
3C/6T 99 52
4C/8T 113 74
5C/10T 111 71
6C/12T 115 70

The first thing that should be mentioned is that Battlefield V will chew up everything you throw at it. It's utilising 100% of the CPU in practically every benchmark test, aside from in 6 Cores / 12 Threads where there are a few percentage points of headroom. Battlefield 5 is unrelenting on this front, which could be problematic if you want to run a few other programs alongside BFV. 

Aside from that though, we can see core count doesn't begin to affect Battlefield V's PC performance until we drop below quad-core with multithreading. Anyone with a 4 Core/8 Thread CPU is unlikely to see Battlefield V's performance bottlenecked by their CPU.

However, once we drop below eight threads we see a noticeable performance dip in BF5. 6 Threads drops Battlefield V's frame rate by 12-29%, depending on the graphics settings. Battlefield V was still very playable with six threads though, and there was no apparent hitching or stuttering. Where we really begin to see Battlefield 5 suffer though is with four threads. Here, the frame rate is almost halved compared to eight threads, and a bit of stuttering and a few framerate drops in BFV are apparent. This is a significant bottleneck on the GPU and, while playable, doesn't come recommended.

As for two threads, Battlefield V simply can't load into a map. The game does boot just fine but it hangs every time it tries to load into a game, which is to be expected really.

For those of you out there without multithreading, how are you finding your performance in the Battlefield V open beta? Is anyone running into trouble with their CPU bottlenecking frame rates? Let us know below!

Battlefield V Open Beta PC Performance Report - GeForce GTX 1060 Benchmarks

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
2
Offline
21:00 Sep-17-2018

Duuuuuude wheres the 4 core 4 thread benchmark????????

0
Rep
17
Offline
admin approved badge
06:05 Sep-10-2018

I wonder how this game will perform with 16c/32t.... Based on this, it may be able to use my core count while I run a ton of chrome tabs, music, and video encode in the background lol.

1
Rep
94
Offline
07:18 Sep-10-2018

Wow, that's a beastly rig, although I expected at least double the ram XD

2
Rep
17
Offline
admin approved badge
16:38 Sep-10-2018

Ya man, I wish I could increase the amount of RAM, but RAM prices are still very high! I'd love to have 64GB of RAM.

0
Rep
55
Offline
11:08 Sep-09-2018

"When are you gonna upgrade, boi?!"



  • screw you! The 4th gen i7 is immortal!!!!

0
Rep
213
Offline
admin badge
20:35 Sep-09-2018

hahhah yeah fourth gen is holding up even second gen is also but its time is coming to close shortly

0
Rep
28
Offline
05:24 Sep-10-2018

4th gen is still holding up well but these 2nd gen-7th yes 7th gen i7-7700k are nearing their end thanks to Ryzen upping the core count and Intel following suit games are likely to need more than 4 cores/8 threads in the near future.

0
Rep
55
Offline
23:42 Sep-08-2018

For me personally the performance of this game on my PC is on the 2nd place. On the 1st place is that EA doesn't learn at all. You have to pay with currency almost for every single thing in this game.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:43 Sep-09-2018

The only thing you will pay with in-game currency are skins, all future DLC Maps and Weapons are for free...

0
Rep
55
Offline
16:08 Sep-09-2018

Weapon attachments aren't

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:02 Sep-09-2018

Yes, they are, their variations aren't, but they are the same as the base model, just cosmetically different.

0
Rep
2
Offline
13:33 Sep-08-2018

well my rig cant get 60fps low 1080p ... so ill passs on this bf.. :)

3
Rep
213
Offline
admin badge
15:52 Sep-08-2018

how? lol i seen people with worse rigs then yours achieve that

3
Rep
55
Offline
23:38 Sep-08-2018

I have very similar RIG as Woodee and I can't get stable 60 on low @ 1440p aswell. I mean I get 60fps but when the action starts, then I get often drops.

0
Rep
105
Offline
17:29 Sep-08-2018

WHAT? something must be wrong with your pc man, that carde can even achieve 1080p 60 fps in this game as it is well optimized.

0
Rep
94
Offline
21:44 Sep-08-2018

Might be a cpu bottleneck? I can run fine on low/medium, didn't try full medium, because it has frame drops on heavy action. Friend of mine also had a bit of trouble on his 6600k, but his overclock profile on his cpu isn't on it since he updated the bios.

1
Rep
207
Offline
admin approved badge
21:51 Sep-08-2018

i get 60 fps on ultra wtf ?? how can a 6600k get worse results ?

0
Rep
94
Offline
17:00 Sep-09-2018

No idea. He runs at medium on 1080p (4k screen) with a 6GB GTX 1060. Could it be ram limitation? He has 8gb ddr4. My cpu utilizes for about 70%, so I guess that's decent

0
Rep
5
Offline
03:56 Sep-23-2018

I was getting 60 on High, 1080p. Somethings gotta be going on there. I'd wipe windows and start from scratch. Just make sure anything you want is on another drive...

0
Rep
58
Offline
09:12 Sep-08-2018

I had to turn some **** down, played 1 round, the game is full of rubberbanding. worse than the other releases. I know it's a beta but it's post alpha stage.


That said, I couldn't really get into the game, I like bf but I think i'm going to skip this one for now.

-1
Rep
8
Offline
23:55 Sep-07-2018

mine CPU was at 40-60% utilization which was quite good compared to other games i play

0
Rep
213
Offline
admin badge
00:30 Sep-08-2018

probably cause that gpu

3
Rep
207
Offline
admin approved badge
22:30 Sep-07-2018

My CPU is being stressed really hard , but that being said it keeps the game above 60 fps on 1080p ultra ( few settings turned off or low ) will post video soon

0
Rep
57
Offline
15:50 Sep-08-2018

post a link when you can, just curious :D Its interesting how amd fx manages to actually deliver playable performance over the years while having of extreme example of more cores, less single core performance. My theory is not clockspeed gives longevity for cpu but its cores and threads.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:05 Sep-08-2018

Both the core count and the performance of the cores are equally important in futureproofing a CPU. It's just that back when the fx CPUs were out and about almost no game was optimized for more than 2-3 cores and DX11.1 and DX12 weren't a thing.

0
Rep
207
Offline
admin approved badge
21:53 Sep-08-2018

will do , my upload sucks so it takes me a few hours for a 2.5GB file

0
Rep
5
Offline
03:59 Sep-23-2018

Mine was stressed real hard too, Had 85-90 percent usage at all times. Boy it got hot.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
22:07 Sep-07-2018

this needs to be tested with ht enabled and disable to to see if it actually helps. after 4c/8t, the difference is within the margin of error.

1
Rep
85
Offline
21:53 Sep-07-2018

The two core and four threads on i5-7200U are also unable to load the maps.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:13 Sep-07-2018

Surprisingly I can run the beta on playable frames

0
Rep
105
Offline
23:50 Sep-07-2018

at least good optimization xD.

0
Rep
55
Offline
18:11 Sep-07-2018

And Intel decides to ditch Hyper-Threading on their next-gen flagship CPUs just as it becomes relevant in games. It's like they are trying to give AMD the lead. And no, $500 i9-9900K does not count because it simply is too expensive for gaming.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:24 Sep-07-2018

AMD's SMT actually in many cases lowers performance due to lack of optimization, for example BF1, GTA 5 and a few others. At best it doesn't give performance in games, which is why ryzens perform like intel CPUs without hyper-threading.


Also Intel's i9 9900k will be an 8 core/16 thread.

2
Rep
55
Offline
15:28 Sep-12-2018

Yes but Ryzen has only to go up from here while Intel is still milking its fabrication process to provide minimal gains. You are right though, at 1080p older games do perform better on an Intel setup. But current gen titles at higher resolutions always perform better on AMD. And this will likely be the case with future titles as well.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
22:05 Sep-07-2018

the new i7 will be a 8c/8t cpu. complaining about intel ditching ht makes no sense. out of the gate, 9700k will easily outpace any previous 4c/8t part, stock to stock. clock for clock, itll still lead the others.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
11:47 Sep-08-2018

Hyper-threading gives just 25% extra performance on intel cores.

0
Rep
55
Offline
15:31 Sep-12-2018

Stock to stock raw power yes. But optimization and future proofing? NO.
If one is going to spend the market premium price Intel demands for its sub-par CPUs compared to AMD at that price point, one expects to receive better value. And remember people who buy these expensive CPUs require them for other than gaming. 8 core Ryzen with HT will always beat non-HT 8 core in 3D applications such as UE4 or any other.

0
Rep
26
Offline
09:09 Sep-08-2018

I think you misinterpret the word 'flagship'. The i9 is exactly that, I don't see a budget gamer ever buying the flagship for casual gaming nor is it expected either.

2
Rep
46
Offline
17:43 Sep-07-2018

I noticed my CPU temperature spike while loading into a map, almost like I'm running some kind of CPU-intensive benchmark tool. The CPU is still heavily utilized during actual gameplay, and the temperatures go up, of course...but nothing like when I'm loading into a map. It was at its hottest the first time I loaded a map: -65°C! and my CPU usually hovers around 55°C in most games (and idles under 30°C). It could have been because it was my first time loading a BFV map, processing tons of shaders, or because I put the beta on my HDD instead of my SSD.

0
Rep
46
Offline
17:45 Sep-07-2018

Also, I've overclocked all cores to 4.8 GHz using adaptive voltage, and I can only offset it so much...so it normally uses 1.216-1.23v under load. My NH-D15 cooler has been really great for me so far, though. But I'm thinking I might reapply my thermal compound at some point...

0
Rep
46
Offline
17:49 Sep-07-2018

Anyway, I'm getting 60-80 FPS with everything on ultra, v-sync off, at 1440p. I really thought it would be lower than that. I am getting some stuttering now and then, but it's very quick and doesn't last long. I had a 3-5 second freeze while playing last night; I thought the game froze and I almost hit ctrl-alt-del to kill the task, but it unfroze and everything was fine after that.

0
Rep
4
Offline
17:31 Sep-07-2018

I wonder how it would go on my old AMD Bulldozer CPU (fx-8150) with "8" cores taking into account the low single core performance :Thinking:

0
Rep
94
Offline
11:04 Sep-08-2018

I think it's like comparing an old V8 engine with a newer V6 engine. The new engines are so much better, kinda weird considering how much fuel those old engines needed to get the power we have today from small engines.

2
Rep
160
Offline
17:30 Sep-07-2018

what about min fps and 1% low? Maybe there is some difference between 4C and 6C when looking at those

0
Rep
25
Offline
admin approved badge
17:27 Sep-07-2018

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is odd to test with one processor, as by design a certain CPU with more cores would favor multi-threading over single core performance, it's just not meant to be capped

1
Rep
25
Offline
admin approved badge
17:29 Sep-07-2018

As opposed to a processor with less cores, that favors single core performance over multi-threading, i.e you'd probably find better results with another processor with 4 cores when compared to i7-5820K caped to 4 cores (I could be wrong)

1
Rep
26
Offline
16:34 Sep-07-2018

The thing about the 5820K is though, that it boosts abysmally low, only 3.6GHz. Two cores get some pretty harsh treatment.. A great test though, shows how everything after 4/8ct just provides negligible gains in gaming. I would've liked to see the impact of running with 4.5GHz on 4/4ct for example, since that should still be by all means viable.

1
Rep
105
Offline
16:24 Sep-07-2018

So in theory my i5 3570k is slightly better than this CPU with 2 cores and 4 threads ?

0
Rep
52
Offline
16:16 Sep-07-2018

Intel will be always be good Gaming but AMD beats intel in every other tasks !!!

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
01:31 Sep-08-2018

Just because one beats the other, doesn't mean the other is bad. XD


People need to understand that not being first/the best, doesn't mean that you/it are bad, just not as good, same with the other argument, yes Ryzen CPUs beat intel's xxxLake CPUs in multi-threaded workloads, but that doesn't mean intel's CPUs are bad, not at all.


Currently, the real deciding factor between Ryzen and XXXLake is the price, along with thermals and for those who care power consumption. Performance is a given with both.

2
Rep
-6
Offline
15:58 Sep-07-2018

Rip old I5 quad core cpus.

0
Rep
105
Offline
16:22 Sep-07-2018

Rip my CPU :/

0
Rep
1
Offline
17:33 Sep-07-2018

we are on the same boat mate.
i am getting dips to 20 fps even at low settings
i guess this is the time to finally upgrade our processors.
:)

0
Rep
94
Offline
21:47 Sep-08-2018

Glad that my overclock is useful on this game. Only dips on heavy action to 45-50 fps. Same on battlefield 4 (though I ran the game at high there)

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Gigabyte G1 Gaming 8GB Edition 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-11400F 6-Core 2.6GHz GeForce GTX 970 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
Ryzen 9 5900HX 8-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 9 5900HX 8-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3580U 4-Core 2.1GHz Radeon RX Vega 9 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
Ryzen 3 2300X 4-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 560 Sapphire Pulse OC 4GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 11 6GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600H 6-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Ryzen 7 2700X Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 32GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 AF GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 11 6GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i7-620M 2-Core 2.66GHz NVS 3100M 4GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i7-7500U 2-Core 2.7GHz GeForce 940MX 2GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX 580 Sapphire Nitro+ 8GB 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Inno3D Twin X2 8GB 32GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
Ryzen R5 1400 Radeon RX 560 2GB 8GB
0% No [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]