Looking for an upgrade, need advice. --Updated-- Purchased 980, odd findings.

I just picked up BF3 a couple of days ago, and the game runs like crap on my system in the 64 player rooms. I am reasonably confident that my processor is to blame (Athlon II x3 425 @ 3.5GHz), as changing the graphical settings below high settings does nothing to help the framerate, and task manager always reports the processor usage as being maxed out.

I'm therefor looking to replace my processor with something better. My budget is ~$300, so a 2500K+compatible motherboard is not out of the question, though I'd rather spend less than that and also not have to go through the hassle of replacing the hold-down plate on my waterblock with an LGA1155 compatible one.

The AMD processors that I'm looking at are the Phenom II 960T, the Phenom II 980 (OEM), and the Phenom II 1090T.

I've got a Microcenter at St. Louis that's maybe an hour and a half's drive away (and I don't mind going there every once in awhile), so their in-store 2500K deal is also an option. If I do pick up a 2500k, I'd probably take advantage of their $60 off deal on motherboards while I'm at it.

Thoughts? I'm not very familiar with how well the Phenom II quads perform in 64 player rooms, so I'm slightly hesitant to pick one up. Also, would there be any benefit in picking up a hexacore at this point, or should I stick with a quad? And finally, with an OEM processor, would there be any form of warranty on the processor after the 30 day period is up?

Thanks in advance.

------Update------

I ended up purchasing the Phenom II 980 (it had a promo code for $10 off, I couldn't resist :P), and I was quite surprised at how much of a difference it made. Not only did the framerate double in some areas, it also felt less jittery in comparison to the Athlon II x3 when the framerate dipped to the lower 30's. What's also slightly alarming is the fact that even when at 4.3GHz, I still see the CPU usage in task manager approach 70% on all cores :shock:.

So I guess my only theories are that either:

A: Battlefield 3 puts a hellova high load on the processor when running on DX10 cards.

B: Battlefield 3 just really needs a relatively powerful processor in the 64 player rooms.

The framerate does drop to the 30's every once in a while in some of the more heated close-quarters maps, so I might pick up one or two 6850/6870's at some point to test these theories.

Also, if there's anyone else out there who is looking to upgrade from an Athlon II dual core or tri-core and is cosidering the Phenom II 980, the 980 certainly gets my recommendation. The bugger hits 4.3GHz without too much trouble at all, and I imagine 4.5GHz is doable with decent cooling and a bit of tweaking. Plus, I believe there is a promo code on Newegg right now which puts it at around $135, which is about $10 more than the 960T.

Your cpu isnt to blame, What is your current gpu? Even with a GTX 580 an Athlon 2 X2 is roughly only 6-8 fps slower then a quad core cpu, any quad core cpu will roughly perform the same in BF3 if anything just get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and overclock it.

If you're looking towards the future of your computer i would suggest going to microcenter and getting the i5-2500k and mobo bundle, thats what I currently have and it overclocks amazingly. In the end it all comes to how much you wanna spend.

Upgrading to an i5 2500K would make a big difference in games that are CPU intensive. I suggest an i5 2500 instead of the 2500K and you can save a little moneythis way. The only advantage of the i5 2500k is that it has an unlocked multiplier and this makes overclocking easier and potentially overclock further than the non-k because of the higher multiplier limit,but I don't recommend overclocking as it can result in an unstable system and can damage and shorten the life of your CPU. Run hardware within specifications if you want a stable system and not risk damaging components.

Your cpu isnt to blame, What is your current gpu? Even with a GTX 580 an Athlon 2 X2 is roughly only 6-8 fps slower then a quad core cpu, any quad core cpu will roughly perform the same in BF3 if anything just get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and overclock it.

04dcarraher

Twin 4850 512MB cards. I'm quite flummoxed as to what the problem is then. I've seen the reviews and was quite confident that my Athlon II x3 would perform well, but in multiplayer, the framerate can dip below 20FPS quite frequently. Changing the graphical settings doesn't seem to change the framerate at all (except when it's on ultra, in which case the game almost becomes a slideshow).

I'll be away for about three hours, so pardon me if I don't get back to you guys quickly. And thanks for all the responses so far.

Your twin 4850's are the issue, You cant run high settings, that setting needs upto 1gb of video memory you only have 512mb. also there is known issues with Crossfire where you get framerate problems with BF3. Your better off disabling your crossfire and use medium settings and see if you get roughly the same performance. I know someone that had a E8500 with a 4870X2 and his BF3 performance sucked until he upgraded to a GTX 570. If you can afford it Get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and a GTX 560/6870 or better and you will solve your issues with BF3 on high settings.

Your twin 4850's are the issue, You cant run high settings, that setting needs upto 1gb of video memory you only have 512mb. also there is known issues with Crossfire where you get framerate problems with BF3. Your better off disabling your crossfire and use medium settings and see if you get roughly the same performance. I know someone that had a E8500 with a 4870X2 and his BF3 performance sucked until he upgraded to a GTX 570. If you can afford it Get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and a GTX 560/6870 or better and you will solve your issues with BF3 on high settings.

04dcarraher

Thanks for the suggestion. I have tried running it at low settings with no success unfortunately, though I haven't tried disabling Crossfire yet. I'll give it a go in a few minutes and see what happens.

--EDIT-- That also reminds me; would you suggest going for a boxed Phenom II 960T over an OEM processor like the Phenom II 970 or Phenom II 980? I have to admit that I find the higher clock-rate of the 970 and 980 very tempting, though I am worried about the very limited warranty of OEM processors.

As long as you have a cooler, OEM cpu's are just fine, Ive always bought OEM CPU's from Tigerdirect. But 960T for $115 is a steal and they can Overclock to 3,8 ghz easy.

As long as you have a cooler OEM cpu's are just fine, Ive always bought OEM CPU's from Tiger. 04dcarraher

That's good to hear. I just did a quick game while running a single 4850, and while the framerate was similar, the experience felt "smoother" in my opinion. I have some work to do right now, so I can't continue testing, but I will get back to you tommorow if I have the time.

If the cards turn out to be the cause of the problem, I might just pick up a 6850 or 6870 and leave it at that. I have heard news of the 7870 and 7850 circulating around though, so I'm unsure if it's worth waiting for those as opposed to purchasing a 6870 or 6850 now. :?

And thanks again for the advice.

I guess I was just imagining things; disabling Crossfire didn't help the framerate, even when at the lowest settings. I'll see if I can get to Microcenter this weekend and purchase a 2500K; if not, I'll probably just purchase a Phenom II quad from Newegg or some other site. If the framerate is still poor after upgrading the processor, I'll look into upgrading my video card.

Thank you for your time.

Your cpu isnt to blame, What is your current gpu? Even with a GTX 580 an Athlon 2 X2 is roughly only 6-8 fps slower then a quad core cpu, any quad core cpu will roughly perform the same in BF3 if anything just get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and overclock it.

04dcarraher

ER.......i though intel chips were ment to be 10000000000000x better than amd? why are there 2 amd's above 2500k and 2600k, am i missing somthing?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Your cpu isnt to blame, What is your current gpu? Even with a GTX 580 an Athlon 2 X2 is roughly only 6-8 fps slower then a quad core cpu, any quad core cpu will roughly perform the same in BF3 if anything just get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and overclock it.

jonleeprice

ER.......i though intel chips were ment to be 10000000000000x better than amd? why are there 2 amd's above 2500k and 2600k, am i missing somthing?

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Your cpu isnt to blame, What is your current gpu? Even with a GTX 580 an Athlon 2 X2 is roughly only 6-8 fps slower then a quad core cpu, any quad core cpu will roughly perform the same in BF3 if anything just get a Phenom 2 X4 960T and overclock it.

04dcarraher

ER.......i though intel chips were ment to be 10000000000000x better than amd? why are there 2 amd's above 2500k and 2600k, am i missing somthing?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="jonleeprice"]

ER.......i though intel chips were ment to be 10000000000000x better than amd? why are there 2 amd's above 2500k and 2600k, am i missing somthing?

jonleeprice

Another note, almost all users with intel cpu's with hyperthreading where getting microstuddering and fps issues when BF3 came out. Because before the first patch BF3 was treating each thread as a separate core putting a real work load. With intel's HT the 2nd thread on each core is just left overs of unused cpu cycles. So if a game was using 90% of each core that would leave only 10% of cpu for the other threads. a buddy of mine has a i7 2600k and was getting the problem so I found the solution on the net by disabling HT until the game was patched.

Updated OP. Looks like a new processor helped to a certain extent. Thanks again for all the responses.