1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

4 GB RAM - BF 4 stuttering a lot.

Discussion in 'Motherboards & Memory' started by itsakjt, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. ShiBDiB

    ShiBDiB

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,063 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    754
    Location:
    Clifton Park, NY
    So steps to upgrade

    1. More RAM (Will be playable on medium/high)
    2. GPU (Will be smooth on high)
    3. MOBO/CPU (Ultra all day er day)
  2. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,476 (5.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,936
    955 better than a 8120. rofl.
  3. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
  4. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875

    Even with a 200Mhz handicap the FX 6300 is faster than 980BE in the majority. Keep in mind some of the results are "lower is better".


    Also keep in mind that only 4 games appear, Its a very small sample, not large enough to make any credible assessment. Those 4 games are World of Warcraft, Dawn of War II, Dragon Age Origins and StarCraft II. None of these games are new or as CPU intensive or as optimised for multi core CPU as BF4 and they still favoured the FX 6300.

    Again nobody is questioning your CPU, the main issue is the RAM and GPU.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  5. AltecV2 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    4 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I have been trying to work through BF4 campaign with my now ancient PC (E8400,4GB ddr2,HD4850),and it has been a nightmare. With lowest possible settings i get ~18-44 FPS,can only play like 30min before getting a migrane thanks to the contant low frame rate, also game freezes and stutter when it's trying to stream data from my dying harddrive. Being poor sure sucks :(
  6. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    itsakjt what's more interesting is...

    The FX 8150 8 core is actually slower than the FX 6300 6 core in a lot of applications. In Dawn of War II and Dragon Age Origins 12 FPS and 15 FPS separate the two. The FX 6300 seems faster in some of the non-gaming apps too, despite the 2 core, 2MB L2 and 100Mhz handicap. I can only put this down to the Piledriver refinements outweighing the Bulldozer architecture.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=699
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2013
    itsakjt says thanks.
  7. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Yeah. :) Anyways, a friend of mine having a Core i3 540 @3.7 GHz, 8 GB dual channel 1600 MHz(OCed) RAM and a GTX 560Ti 1GB is getting 45-60 FPS Vsync on at all Ultra and highest settings and 2x MSAA @ 1600*900 in BF4. A better GPU should max it out on a 1080p screen. Correct me if I am wrong. And a 955 is better in all terms than an i3 540.
    Yeah a 6300 is indeed better than a 955. But a 955 isn't bad either. I am sure that with a good GPU and good RAMs, an overclocked 955 can max out BF4 too without major issues right? Yeah a 6300 will run it better but there is no end to better right?

    BTW, this forum is so much for the win. These discussions- I learn so much from these. Respect TPU and its members. Thanks everyone. :)
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
    Aquinus and Wrigleyvillain say thanks.
  8. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    Chicago
    Keep your chin up. Maybe you can find a deal on a used 7850 or something plus another 4GB ram.
  9. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,476 (5.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,936
    even without looking at benchmarks, i am sure.
    plus most synthetic benchmarks are really worthless.

    you can never beat the advantage of having two extra threads.
  10. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875


    The i3 540 would probably out perform the 955 single threaded games and app, the 955 would outperform in multithreaded games. But the i3 is a very strong dual core and a fresh architecture so it can still hang with quad cores. The FX 6300 will consistently beat out the i3 540 though.

    i3 540 v 955
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/143?vs=88

    i3 540 v FX 6300
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/143?vs=699


    Its all really subjective too. Yes a new GPU would help significantly but stick in a GTX 560Ti or 7850 and you'll start to see diminishing results due to bottlenecking, these new cards perform better on a fast dual core than a slow quad core. But I wouldn't let that deter you as its a huge upgrade from a 6770.
  11. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,476 (5.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,936
    pretty sure that the bottle neck is the 6770 and not the cpu. i got a 945 and i am getting 60fps at all ultra except no anti aa(post enabled) and ambient as ssao. took advice from the BF4 thread here :D
    Jetster says thanks.
  12. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Synthetic benchmarks ARE NOT worthless. They are surely a reflection of the performance. And forget the 8120. A stock 980BE beats the crap out of a stock FX 8120 or a FX 8150. Those two FX perform well where rendering related work is there or as in very high multi-threading. As for the 980BE, my overclocked 955 at 3.8 GHz and 2.8 GHz NB speed is better than a stock 980BE. And therefore, it beats the 8150 black and blue. And as for the overclock, I really don't care if you say I am comparing an OC'ed CPU with another one at stock. All I know is that the 8150 costs twice as much as the 955. So if I can overclock the 955 that much and in that much low voltage and make it equivalent to a 8150 and at most works, beat the 8150, I think its my good luck and my credit. As for overclocking, I am pretty good than most people who do so. Show me one person who overclocked a value RAM to 1744 MHz from 1333 MHz at 8-9-8-24-1T, a Phenom II X4 at 3.8 GHz from 3.2 using the AMD stock cooler, NB to 2.83 GHz from 2.0 and the list goes. And ask me for stability, I am using this overclock for almost one year without a single crash. Yes I don't need to run 8 hrs of Prime 95. I run it max 1 hr after doing the OC or modifying any setting. I run prime 95 for just 1 hr max to prevent damage to the CPU, Intel Burn Test at Max 10 tests, Memtest for 45 mins and so. And then use the computer like I should doing random tasks like I do in real time like rendering, gaming, benchmarking, downloading, surfing and all. Never crashed for once = 100% probability it is stable.

    Yeah true. But compare an i3 540 with a 980BE and I think it will be better in all aspects. My overclocked 955 is better than a stock 980BE. And I will be getting a GPU equivalent to the R9 270 next year. :) Should be good for a 1080p screen.

    True. Will be getting a better GPU next year. No one told me that I have to play all games at Ultra. XD My 6770 is doing good in a mixture of high-ultra settings with AA off but with AA post high and SSAO. Getting 40 FPS average.
  13. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Anyways. :p

    [​IMG]
    Hilux SSRG says thanks.
  14. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    The Bulldozer FX 8150 beat out the 9850BE in 22/33 tests according to the anandtech.com comparison chart you posted earlier. I doubt your mere 100Mhz overclock over base will change this fact.

    Not all aspects. The architecture is significantly faster. It would take your CPU overclocked just to match it in single threaded environment.



    I like how you conveniently didn't notice the dual core i3s crushing the Phenom II X4 955. :)




    When you've got a $600 GPU, R9 290x. Which happens to be one of the worlds fastest GPUs on the planet its fair to say the GPU is doing most of the work. All this is showing is GPU performance not CPU performance.

    Notice all the GPUs are between 95-98 FPS. 3FPS is within margin for error. Do you really think a Phenom II X4 980 @ $100 is only 3FPS slower than a i7-4960x @ $1150.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2013
  15. Hilux SSRG

    Hilux SSRG

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    858 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
  16. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,418 (10.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,986
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Dent you are lost. :)
    Crunching for Team TPU
  17. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I never compared an i3 3220 to a 980BE. I compared a 1st gen i3 540. And you are forgetting, the i3 3220 is newer and its IMC is the only thing which is A LOT better than that of a 980BE. But the benchmark shown above have them at stock(did not say anything about OC). Remember my Phenom II IMC is highly overclocked at 2.83 GHz and I get a memory bandwidth score of 16.5 GB/s in SiSoft Sandra bench. A stock 980 BE gets around 12.5 GB/s. So that 3.5 GB/s extra gain will rise my FPS by atleast a 2 or 3. As for the $100 and $1150, you have answered the question. The discussion this is all about is what I stated earlier. I said that ultimately,when it comes to gaming, it is the GPU that counts. And my point is that my tweaked Phenom II can in no way bottleneck a good GPU. If I upgrade now, the best I can get is a 8350. What's the use?
  18. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Your rant has no basis because your i7-920 (94 FPS) is getting beat out by the Phenom II X4 980 (95FPS) in that chart. It's actually below a few of AMDs products. So I guess its the other way around and AMD have been sitting on their hands. No :)

    Again 3 FPS between the lowest and highest is margin or error due to the top #1-3 GPU driving the frame rate. I just wanted to prove a point that your rant was flawed.


    It may be a different dual core but it illustrates my point that a powerful dual core can outperform or be on par with an average quad core, depending on the software tested.


    Since you didn't mention the Bulldozer FX 8150. You are in agreement with Anandtech results that the Bulldozer FX 8150 is faster than your overclocked Phenom II X4?

    Bottleneck a GPU? Depends on the GPU, depends on the game. The BF4 has a frame rate cap of 98FPS, hence why it bounces from 94-98FPS. Had the cap been removed who is to say the Phenom II X4 980 would have stayed @ 94FPS and the i7-4960x wouldn't risen 150 FPS.

    Also you are talking about average FPS, what about minimum FPS. You are not considering that the Phenom II X4 980 might get lows 10 FPS making certain spots unplayble whereas the i7-4960x might have lows of 60FPS making it playable.

    You can't use Sandra to predict real world performance. Not all applications are sensitive to memory bandwidth. 3.5 GB/s extra is insignificant, you may gain 2-3 FPS but will that make a game that's getting 30FPS more playable? No.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2013
  19. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Why are you comparing a $100 CPU to a $1150 CPU? Is that fair? First of all very people would be able to buy that CPU and I am definitely not one of them at present so that i7 4960x is out of the league. I compared the FX 8150 to a 980BE and that too in gaming. I stated that 8150 is better in multithreaded tasks.
    Now see an old 980BE beat the crap out of a FX8150.
    http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

    http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/4

    http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/7

    Crysis 2 is the only game in which the FX 8150 beats a Phenom II 980BE.
    BF3 is same but frame time is more in the 980BE.
    Considering all these and also considering memory bandwidth plays a major role in games, will you still say that a 980BE with overclocked IMC and a FX8150 have hell and heaven difference?
  20. Hilux SSRG

    Hilux SSRG

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    858 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Your point has failed miserably. Reread my prior post.

    My rant was referencing my i7 920 with current Intel products, aka 17 4770k. I made no mention regarding AMD products and don't care what they offer frankly. Just wanted to point out the unimaginably awesome 3 FPS gained in the last 3/4+ years by Intel processors.
    itsakjt says thanks.
  21. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Irrespective of processor there was no 3 FPS gain or hindrance. What you saw was margin for error. Margin for error means that the results can go in any favour depending on how many times the test has been run or external variables e.g. drivers, a random background app eating 0.5%, random unexplained CPU spike etc. The chart could have been in any order and it would still be margin or error.

    I already explained this margin or error was because it's not taking into consideration for minimum FPS and the average is being capped. Include the fact that its running the worlds #1-3 GPU distorts the results further.
  22. Hilux SSRG

    Hilux SSRG

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    858 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    I reject all your points Dent :D

    and recommend the OP get more RAM. As others have stated, can't have enough ram for BF4.
    itsakjt and Dent1 say thanks.
  23. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,065 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    875
    I agree more RAM is needed. Followed by a more powerful GPU.

    I also agree there is no reason to upgrade from an i7 920, not because of the chart above results, but because in all reviews I've seen its always performs respectably still. It's one of the reasons why I've also held onto my Athlon II X4 for so long. I see no reason to upgrade it until games require it. But I'm aware that my 5850 CF is being somewhat bottlenecked by my CPU, although it still performs pretty well still.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2013
  24. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,384 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,086
    Might be, but why not just test stuff as you use them? Can you tell the difference in gaming (I imagine that's what you're interested in) between your stock memory and overclocked? If you can't tell the difference, the real life point goes away.

    E-peen and group masturbation (or Internet Forums) is a different thing though.
    Dent1 says thanks.
  25. natr0n

    natr0n

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,759 (1.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    894
    lol wow

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)

Share This Page