Slick wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 06:16:
Suppa7 wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 04:00:
Saboth wrote on Sep 19, 2016, 20:40:
i5 6600K is the minimum? I'm sure processors from 2-3 generations ago will work, but it's unusual to list such a new and higher-end processor as the bare minimum.
PFFT minimum requirements don't mean shit since CPU advancement has slowed to a crawl since around 2006. We've been getting maybe 10% per generation, people who think they would be getting low fps in an i5 2500K are fucking idiots, the new processors will be barely faster than that because most software workloads can't be parallelized. Multi-core can only work on parts of the code that are tractable to being split up and are not interdependent.
As I already said, friend with 2500k and GTX 1080, software engineer, not a noob, bad framerates in BF1.
As I also already said, this is the first BF game not to be released on PS3, and XB360. This is the first true "current gen" BF game.
And more to your point, the 2500k doesn't have hyper-threading, which is a big deal, That was the 2600k. 4 threads vs 8 is a big deal. Also I've been told from several friend's reports that the performance is fine once you hit the 3770k and up.
And all of this is GREAT NEWS for PC gaming, more games that actually puts some demand on the hardware, we should be rejoicing. Have you ever seen the CPU usage during a BF 64-player CONQ game? all 8 threads are highly active, this is almost completely unheard of with any other AAA game.
Your friend has other shit going on. I have a 2500K at 4.5GHz, game ran perfect, all maxed out except render scale at default. I too have a GTX 1080, and ran the game at 2560x1440.
EDIT: Also, I work on the support side of the I.T. dept. in my company, and all the developers I know are quite "noob" ish when it comes to issues on their computer. They don't know what to do or how to fix it. So being a developer does not necessarily mean anything.