"Again, you bring up physics as if that is the only thing you can think of that would have greatest effect on performance."
The only reason I said anything about physics was because you mentioned it first and I was clarifying you mentioning a bunch of GPU bound workloads when we're talking about CPU performance. I actually didn't say anything about physics performance in the game. What I did mention was 128 players being a big CPU hit, and that is understandable.
"My 5600X and 2070S run the game great at 1440p. Your PC is old and slow. Time to upgrade if you want to play with the least amount of problems. For example I am level 30 something, and haven't had a single crash and the performance is great."
I have a 5930K OC'd to 4.5Ghz, a 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4-2800, game is installed on a 2TB NVME SSD, and I run the game at 3440x1440. Obviously the CPU is the bottle-neck here, but haven't I made it clear that I realize that?
""It was great on BF1, noticed a performance hit with BFV,..."
And you thought the next game being MUCH bigger with more going on would perform - better??? BFV already told you your system wasn't gonna cut it for much longer. You should have listened to what it was telling you."
No I did not think that BF2042 would perform better than BFV. I was pretty certain it would perform worse and it does, a lot worse, even with just 64 players. Again you misconstrue what I was saying to try and make yourself look smart. What I should have elaborated on is how much of a CPU hog BFV was when compared to BF1. Between BF1 and BFV I don't see much of a reason BFV should be so much harder on the CPU than BF1 is. Now with BF2042, there are legit reasons for the game to be more of a CPU hog, such as 128 players, but I still think it could be optimized a lot better. I'm not saying it should necesarily be optimized well enough to work on my 6 year old CPU, although that would be nice. I'm saying it should be optimized better in general, because it should run a lot better than it does even on a 12900K or 5950X.
"Could the game use some tweaks? Yes. But you can't expect hardware that was good years ago to last forever. Welcome to PC gaming."
I think it could use a lot more than "tweaks." But I'm not trying to split anymore hairs. I don't expect my hardware to last forever, but thanks again for assuming I don't know what I'm talking about. I started building PCs as a kid in the early 90s. Just going by CPUs, here's some of the systems I have built for myself...
The first PC I built was an IBM XT 286 that I threw together with random parts. Eventually moved onto a 486 build, then a Pentium II build, then a Pentium III coppermine build. After that I moved to AMD for a while, had an Athlon XP 2100+ build, upgraded to an Athlon XP Mobile 2500+ since the mobile version overclocked so well and still used a desktop socket. After that had an Athlon X2 4200+, eventually upgraded that to a 5000+. After that I switched back to intel and built a Q6600 based machine which was eventually upgraded to a Q9400. After that I built an i7 930 based machine which lasted me a few years until I built my current machine with the 5930K around 2015. That's just mentioning some of my personal gaming PCs, not mentioning any of my personal servers I've built, or servers I have built for work. I have been working as a Data Center Administrator for more than 11 years and have built thousands of servers.
Anyways... I don't know why I'm even still going on about this.