The Intel Core i9-9600K paired with Battlefield V at 1440p is performing significantly poorly.
The Intel Core i9-9600K paired with Battlefield V at 1440p is performing significantly poorly.
The subject line indicates that I am presently utilizing a 9600K processor running at a moderate 4.8 GHz, and it’s performing poorly in Battlefield V. My query is: "Is this typical behavior? Should I have invested in a more robust central processing unit? Are there any straightforward solutions available?"
Here’s some background information:
I understand that it's a recently released game and likely not fully optimized at this point, however, I was anticipating better performance based on reviews and the absence of any mentions of issues.
The CPU consistently reaches 100% utilization or very near to it while playing, even after I’ve closed every other program to ensure it receives ample resources. I am setting the game graphics to ULTRA with only minor adjustments.
My display is a 27-inch 1440p 165Hz G-Sync monitor, and even with the CPU operating at this level, I am consistently achieving over 100 frames per second—approximately 120 fps.
To provide further context regarding my system:
AGON AG271QG Monitor
Gigabyte Aorus Pro WIFI Motherboard
Intel i5 9600K @ 4.8 GHz
Noctua NH-D15 Cooler
16GB RAM @ 3000 MHz
EVO 970 M.2 500GB Drive
EVO 840 M.2 500GB Drive
Windows 10
Both the CPU and motherboard were purchased recently, approximately a month ago. All drivers and BIOS updates have been applied in the past few weeks.
Any guidance on this matter would be immensely valued!
The issue likely centers around frames per second, similar to the video I shared elsewhere. Both 1080p and 1440p resolutions are generally manageable for powerful graphics cards. However, the processor still needs to generate each frame beforehand, and increased complexity within the game—such as more elements on screen—will increase CPU load along with any other ongoing processes.
A similar individual is present as well. Please review my response. Frankly, a multi-core design like that would be beneficial at those performance levels. Despite the 9600k boasting more cores, it’s simply insufficient.
A similar individual is also present. Please review my response. Honestly, I believe Hyperthreading would be beneficial at those performance levels. Despite the 9600K boasting more cores, it's ultimately insufficient. It appears I made a poor choice; I should have selected the 8700K instead. I was considering between these two processors and opted for the 9600K due to its newer release and apparent lack of thermal problems, a concern some 8700Ks experienced. My alternative would have been to choose AMD, though I’m uncertain that would have improved the situation. I don't intend to spend a significant amount on a 9900K, as it’s excessively expensive even if I can afford it. I'll attempt to reduce the maximum frame rate and observe if that mitigates any issues. Thank you for your assistance, Boju!
Okay:
Boju:
Sure.
Please inform us if reducing frames per second improves your experience. Honestly, it made almost no difference... Battlefield 5 offers frame rate choices of 200/144/120/60. If they included an option like 80, I might have been more inclined to try it, but 60 frames per second feels quite sluggish after you’ve experienced significantly higher rates. I don't understand DICE's reasoning, but this will detract from the game if they can’t discover a solution. It's also worth noting that many players aren't playing at 1440p (and that may be part of the problem).
What are the refresh rate or frames per second configurations?
Experiment with Nvidia Inspector to restrict frame rates.
https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/nvi...nload.html
Locate the desired frame rate in the list under the fps limiter, and click the apply button found in the upper right. Afterburner can also control frame rates, although I haven’t personally used it.
Regarding display settings: are you referring to Hertz or frames per second?
Consider utilizing Nvidia Inspector to restrict your frame rate. You can find it here: https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/nvi...nload.html. Within the list under "fps limiter," specify your desired frame rate and click the upper-right “apply” button. Afterburner may also be used to limit frame rates, though I haven't personally experimented with it.
Thank you for the suggestion! I’ll certainly test that as well. I recently attempted playing at a reduced resolution (1920x1200) and the problem persisted—quite frustrating.
The issue primarily revolves around frames per second, similar to the video I shared in a previous discussion. Both 1080p and 1440p resolutions are generally manageable for powerful graphics cards. However, the central processing unit must still prepare each frame in advance, and increased complexity within a game map significantly increases CPU load along with any other running processes.
Regarding the game’s performance: I believe it's largely dependent on frames per second, similar to the example I shared earlier. Both 1080p and 1440p resolutions are straightforward for powerful graphics cards to handle. However, the central processing unit still needs to prepare each frame in advance, which increases CPU load and is compounded by any other processes running within the game’s map.
Following your advice, I experimented with lowering my refresh rate from 165 to 99.95 while maintaining a resolution of 2160x1440, and the result was significantly improved. It’s now consistently operating around 60%, a level I'm satisfied with.
Thank you very much for your helpful insights!