Battlefield 2042 CPU Benchmark feat. 128-Player Battles

Phylop

Posts: 38   +36
BF2042 has bigger maps, double the player count, higher polygon count, destruction, physics, explosions with shockwaves, higher quality volumetric smoke, AI etc.
Previous Battlefield titles had all the features you mentioned, except for 128 players. Higher Polygon Count and Volumetric smoke are completely GPU rendered and are barely affected by CPU performance. Even physics are often processed by the GPU, but I'm not sure how Battlefield does it these days. I understand the move to 128 players is going to affect CPU performance more than anything, but even playing on 64 players BF2042 performs a lot worse than BFV and especially BF1 even on lowest settings. I understand that my 5930K is old, but this game shouldn't run as shitty as it does. Even brand new top end CPUs struggle with BF2042, and they should be destroying it.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
Previous Battlefield titles had all the features you mentioned, except for 128 players. Higher Polygon Count and Volumetric smoke are completely GPU rendered and are barely affected by CPU performance. Even physics are often processed by the GPU, but I'm not sure how Battlefield does it these days. I understand the move to 128 players is going to affect CPU performance more than anything, but even playing on 64 players BF2042 performs a lot worse than BFV and especially BF1 even on lowest settings. I understand that my 5930K is old, but this game shouldn't run as shitty as it does. Even brand new top end CPUs struggle with BF2042, and they should be destroying it.
(Havok) Physics is software based that runs on CPU.
(Nvidia) PhysX is hardware accelerated that runs on GPU.
You have a very old CPU thinking it shouldn't matter.... It def does.

If you don't know that, how can you be so sure you know what you're talking about?
 

Phylop

Posts: 38   +36
(Havok) Physics is software based that runs on CPU.
(Nvidia) PhysX is hardware accelerated that runs on GPU.
You have a very old CPU thinking it shouldn't matter.... It def does.

If you don't know that, how can you be so sure you know what you're talking about?
You're ignoring 90% of what I said so you can defend your argument and try to look smart by nit-picking because I didn't elaborate on physics. I know what PhysX and Havok are. All I said was I don't know exactly how the latest Battlefield implements physics, but that is besides my point. I know that my CPU is old, and I know it matters. Doesn't change the fact that the game runs worse than it should even on brand new top of the line hardware. Look at the benchmarks.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
You're ignoring 90% of what I said so you can defend your argument and try to look smart by nit-picking because I didn't elaborate on physics. I know what PhysX and Havok are. All I said was I don't know exactly how the latest Battlefield implements physics, but that is besides my point. I know that my CPU is old, and I know it matters. Doesn't change the fact that the game runs worse than it should even on brand new top of the line hardware. Look at the benchmarks.
Again, you bring up physics as if that is the only thing you can think of that would have greatest effect on performance. 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.

"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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Phylop

Posts: 38   +36
Again, you bring up physics as if that is the only thing you can think of that would have greatest effect on performance. 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.

"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.

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.
"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.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
"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.
"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."

Because you replied with novels to say things that were wrong. That's why I'm going on about this. Meanwhile, you're the one writing novels. Will take me 2mins to write this. Your argument is all your opinion. A bad one. Maybe try asking DICE in the forums or on Twitter instead of echoing things where it does no help to the game. I call it game entitlement. It isn't a CPU hog since 60% usage is max I see on my 5600X. You THINK it should run better. That isn't news if that was your whole point. Look anywhere and you'll see people saying the same thing. DICE said don't expect much. So now what? You gonna say DICE doesn't know what they are doing and you do? Neither of us are in game development, so to say, "it should be better" is just insane really. Based on what? BF1 and BFV? You didn't even know what kind of physics BF2042 even used. Not knowing if it was GPU accelerated or not. It's not. Never was.

"It kinda sucks how much of a performance difference there is between these games when BF1 still looks just as good as BFV and BF2042, if not better in a lot of ways and runs a lot smoother."

That started it all. That sentence right there. Because it "looks" the same as old games, it should run the same?

NO! Upgrade your CPU and you'll be gucci.
 
Last edited:
"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."

Because you replied with novels to say things that were wrong. That's why I'm going on about this. Meanwhile, you're the one writing novels. Will take me 2mins to write this. Your argument is all your opinion. A bad one. Maybe try asking DICE in the forums or on Twitter instead of echoing things where it does no help to the game. I call it game entitlement. It isn't a CPU hog since 60% usage is max I see on my 5600X. You THINK it should run better. That isn't news if that was your whole point. Look anywhere and you'll see people saying the same thing. DICE said don't expect much. So now what? You gonna say DICE doesn't know what they are doing and you do? Neither of us are in game development, so to say, "it should be better" is just insane really. Based on what? BF1 and BFV? You didn't even know what kind of physics BF2042 even used. Not knowing if it was GPU accelerated or not. It's not. Never was.

"It kinda sucks how much of a performance difference there is between these games when BF1 still looks just as good as BFV and BF2042, if not better in a lot of ways and runs a lot smoother."

That started it all. That sentence right there. Because it "looks" the same as old games, it should run the same?

NO! Upgrade your CPU and you'll be gucci.

I play on a PC with a Ryzen 7 5800X OC at 4.2Ghz, Nvidia RTX 3070, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz CL14, Asus B550-A Gaming, M.2 PNY XLR8 1TB and the game goes very poorly while I play on a 3840x1080 screen in 144hz in high settings without Raytracing, the activation of DLSS does not change anything therefore the game only runs at 80fps and 30-40 in aim mode. So no upgrading your CPU isn't "gucci". This game is poorly optimized, they are aware about it, but "they are working on it".
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
I play on a PC with a Ryzen 7 5800X OC at 4.2Ghz, Nvidia RTX 3070, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz CL14, Asus B550-A Gaming, M.2 PNY XLR8 1TB and the game goes very poorly while I play on a 3840x1080 screen in 144hz in high settings without Raytracing, the activation of DLSS does not change anything therefore the game only runs at 80fps and 30-40 in aim mode. So no upgrading your CPU isn't "gucci". This game is poorly optimized, they are aware about it, but "they are working on it".
That was meant for the guy with the 6 year old CPU that noticed a perf hit in BFV. It def doesn't help keeping it when you are more likely to have issues on older and slower hardware trying to run the latest software. Bypassing W11 TPM requirements come to mind as an example of that.

I've had no crashes and frame rates are smooth in BF2042. Sadly when performance still isn't good, you'll have to wait for patches. It sucks and wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but whining about it every time like it's an unheard of event gets annoying fast. It then becomes script reading. Upset people just repeating the same things word for word, not offering any actual helpful suggestions. They probably don't report their issues in the proper forums either. I also wonder if how people have their computers (hardware and/or software) configured is what causes some people to have more issues than others.

*Shrugs*
 
Last edited:
I think we need 64 player data to test the theory that 128 players are causing the CPU bottlenecking. The map sizes may also play a role.

I've also seen posts from people saying that disabling SMT/hyper threading reduces stutter, and that the game performs better on 6 cores than 12 on a 5900x. That was typically not the case with BFV. Something doesn't smell right when it comes to the game's multithreaded performance.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
I think we need 64 player data to test the theory that 128 players are causing the CPU bottlenecking. The map sizes may also play a role.

I've also seen posts from people saying that disabling SMT/hyper threading reduces stutter, and that the game performs better on 6 cores than 12 on a 5900x. That was typically not the case with BFV. Something doesn't smell right when it comes to the game's multithreaded performance.
Think again.
The game has perf issues. Not an optimization issue. Trying to play this game on old hardware is not wise for starters. If you are running modern hardware then you want to make sure you check Google and BF2042 forums for fixes and or settings you can try. Future patches may fix underlying issues, but if you're getting half the frames you should be, that's not a sign of bad optimization if that's not the majority's experience which it isn't.
 
Last edited:
The low budget memory, as you said, is single rank, while the rest is dual rank. Maybe this has bigger impact rather than the cl14 vs cl18 and 3000 vs 3200?
 
Think again.
The game has perf issues. Not an optimization issue. Trying to play this game on old hardware is not wise for starters. If you are running modern hardware then you want to make sure you check Google and BF2042 forums for fixes and or settings you can try. Future patches may fix underlying issues, but if you're getting half the frames you should be, that's not a sign of bad optimization if that's not the majority's experience which it isn't.
Define perf issue vs optimization issue. I am actually a game dev so don’t try to fool me with your previous faked shiny cartoons.
 
That was meant for the guy with the 6 year old CPU that noticed a perf hit in BFV. It def doesn't help keeping it when you are more likely to have issues on older and slower hardware trying to run the latest software. Bypassing W11 TPM requirements come to mind as an example of that.

I've had no crashes and frame rates are smooth in BF2042. Sadly when performance still isn't good, you'll have to wait for patches. It sucks and wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but whining about it every time like it's an unheard of event gets annoying fast. It then becomes script reading. Upset people just repeating the same things word for word, not offering any actual helpful suggestions. They probably don't report their issues in the proper forums either. I also wonder if how people have their computers (hardware and/or software) configured is what causes some people to have more issues than others.

*Shrugs*
That was meant for the guy with the 6 year old CPU that noticed a perf hit in BFV. It def doesn't help keeping it when you are more likely to have issues on older and slower hardware trying to run the latest software. Bypassing W11 TPM requirements come to mind as an example of that.

I've had no crashes and frame rates are smooth in BF2042. Sadly when performance still isn't good, you'll have to wait for patches. It sucks and wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but whining about it every time like it's an unheard of event gets annoying fast. It then becomes script reading. Upset people just repeating the same things word for word, not offering any actual helpful suggestions. They probably don't report their issues in the proper forums either. I also wonder if how people have their computers (hardware and/or software) configured is what causes some people to have more issues than others.

*Shrugs*
That was meant for the guy with the 6 year old CPU that noticed a perf hit in BFV. It def doesn't help keeping it when you are more likely to have issues on older and slower hardware trying to run the latest software. Bypassing W11 TPM requirements come to mind as an example of that.

I've had no crashes and frame rates are smooth in BF2042. Sadly when performance still isn't good, you'll have to wait for patches. It sucks and wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but whining about it every time like it's an unheard of event gets annoying fast. It then becomes script reading. Upset people just repeating the same things word for word, not offering any actual helpful suggestions. They probably don't report their issues in the proper forums either. I also wonder if how people have their computers (hardware and/or software) configured is what causes some people to have more issues than others.

*Shrugs*
You actually just want to bully that guy with an old CPU by flexing your “smooth experience “ rtx 3090 oced 5600x stock 3600mhz d4 telling you the experience is not smooth. Think again about your subjective “smooth”.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
You actually just want to bully that guy with an old CPU by flexing your “smooth experience “ rtx 3090 oced 5600x stock 3600mhz d4 telling you the experience is not smooth. Think again about your subjective “smooth”.
Facts can't be disputed. He revealed he had an inadequate CPU and you have a problem with me telling him that that is an obvious problem? Ok....

Let me explain bugs to you... they don't effect everyone. You're a game developer right? Then you should know this.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
Define perf issue vs optimization issue. I am actually a game dev so don’t try to fool me with your previous faked shiny cartoons.
You asked that after posting the video that explains it? Um, cool. You know those are the guys that run Techspot, right? If you have a problem with what I'm saying about the performance, then you have a problem with facts.

For a developer you said literally nothing to prove you know anything about game development.
 
Last edited:
You asked that after posting the video that explains it? Um, cool. You know those are the guys that run Techspot, right? If you have a problem with what I'm saying about the performance, then you have a problem with facts.

For a developer you said literally nothing to prove you know anything about game development.
Nicely done re-inventing "facts" "bugs" "performance".
Why would I disturb your ego by proving my dev state when you can just do a search for "rendering" and "glitch" from DICE patch notes?
"Bug does not effect everyone " basically explained why they stopped wasting time on talking to you who sits on your own "facts" looking for an echo chamber instead of facts. I bet you do not really understand glitch or rendering any way so just believe you are totally right about not answering my original question.
 
I posit this game was designed to run well on X box and PlayStation first and foremost. (they have 8 core processors) that is why it likes 8 core pc cpus. it is crushing my 4 core 8 thread 3770. I have 2 xeons in the mail ( E5-2687W and E5-2687W v2) (3.8 GHz and 4.0 GHz clocks) with 8 dedicated cores and 16 threads and will report back when I test on them. ( if it works, I will de clock the xeons until game is unplayable. I am curious how low of a clock speed xeon will play this game smoothly, as there are many cheap xeon workstations with 8 physical cores available refurbished. and if it doesn't work, guess I just have to buy new pc parts to play this terrible game LOL!
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,015
Nicely done re-inventing "facts" "bugs" "performance".
Why would I disturb your ego by proving my dev state when you can just do a search for "rendering" and "glitch" from DICE patch notes?
"Bug does not effect everyone " basically explained why they stopped wasting time on talking to you who sits on your own "facts" looking for an echo chamber instead of facts. I bet you do not really understand glitch or rendering any way so just believe you are totally right about not answering my original question.
"Addressing further bug fixes..."