For those trowing around that BF2042 is " Poorly opptimized " Look at this Video

Just watched the video, a lot of engines have automatic scaling checking the processors and assigning tasks to them it wouldn't surprise me if the game has unoptimized version of this so it isn't doing much with the extra cores.

Can it be solved by providing two clients - one for older machines and one for newer machines with more cores; as you reference consoles, yes it probably could.

I imagine the problem would be there would be a whole lot of deep engine work that would need to be done to make sure such a change would cause issues elsewhere.

Beyond the extra work that would need to be done, and making sure the extra client type didn't stuff up the anti-cheat I imagine the biggest issue would be the lack of engine coders who are well versed in Frostbite.

It could be a super simple fix, or it could require changing foundation elements of the engine, it would depend on what systems are in place for assigning tasks to cores / threads.

The game is poorly optimized and poorly coded to begin with.

I  get anywhere between 50-75 fps depending on what´s happening in the game (maybe 80 if i´m standing still looking at a wall) @1440p. I have a Nvidia 3090 (that is running at like 25% memory in BF2042, wtf) and a very stable overclocked 8700K @5Ghz that runs flawlessly. I have to run everyhing on "low" to get usable fps. I should have 100 - 120 fps  without problems on medium or high settings with my hardware.

Now the funny part is that the game bugged out once when i joined a Rush server...

All of a sudden there was just me on that server, no other players, no bots, no nothing. I decided to have a go anyway just to see the performance difference.  I was constantly at 120 - 130 fps regardless of what i did. So adding other players murders the fps. I understand that it has an impact, offcourse it does there is more to render, but cutting it in half? Poor coding/optimizing for sure.

@SgtHLWatch the video then comment ... The ignorants claims about how coding work is astonishing ...

Sadly I am not sure that EA would allocate the resources for two different PC clients.

Aw well at least I am in the "favored" camp due to being stuck with my 1050ti thanks to the miners inflating the GPU prices (and me not wanting to pay 900 euro for a 3070 right now) . The rest of my PC is brand new though.

Things are probably complicated in one way or another, but they are not really letting the players help them like they did with BF4 and the CTE

The Frostbite engine has CPU cache latency and RAM memory latency bottleneck issues. That's why the game's FPS doesn't increase with core count, but does increase with newer CPU architectures with larger CPU caches and higher IPC (instructions per cycle).

I'd argue if Frostbite were well optimized it would be able to use the extra cores to increase the FPS. The graph below shows more cores don't help increase FPS. Only around 3fps difference between a i5-12600K and i9-12900k.

The only way to increase FPS with Frostbite is upgrading to newer CPU architectures which minimize the cache and memory latency bottlenecks.

Posting a video, concluding things, that are not in the video. Classic Stewy. Must be hard to see your game dying. You might realize it some day.

Edit: For everyone that doesn't want to believe: Just watch the Nvidia promo. Constant stuttering and FPS-drops. (Attention: Stewy will decline that, as he will say GPU doesn't matter. I guess, Nvidia is running their high-end graphic cards with deep knowledge on potatos instead of high-end hardware.)

You only need to listen to what bioware says about using frostbite and it will all make sense.