The Original issue was fixed, I'm closing this thread to stop it from being necroed.
If you have any issues with Battlefield 2042 please make a new topic about your problems and what kind of steps you have tried to solve them.
/Atic
i played around with these settings right on the first day of the early access, and there is something weird happening. setting the processor count to *far* below actual available physical/logical cores of course reduces performance heavily. however, setting it to somewhat below the actual available cores still may use *all* threads at 100%, which shouldnt happen.
the game seems to use 8 threads, and if one has eg. 8c/16t, it mostly uses the 1st thread of each physical core > 8 threads, while the second remains unused; occasional usage of both threads of a core is most likely due to windows power settings (overutilization > switch to another thread; or even constant duty cycling), however using high/gaming/ultimate performance power plans, or a custom one as i do, actually should prevent this from happening > another indication of an issue if it still happens, except it is due to heat throttling; stuttering may also occur when a task hops from one thread to another, this is why setting the game's worker threads above the actual available threads leads to stuttering or even crashes (task reserved for a non-existing core/thread needs to be queued back to an existing one, and the task currently performed on this one needs to be halted, then the same happens with the next task > microstutter).
yes, id really be surprised if it turned out everything with the game was ok, whenever... but if actual fixes take a year, not sure how many people with hardware above the recommended specs, yet unable to play, will still play it or will return. btw. it is always wise to have one thread less reserved for a game than physically available, since 1-2 threads should be left for the OS; at least in w10, w11 with the new thread scheduler and alder lake hopefully handles this automatically.
btw. didnt expect any wonder with todays patch, just for the record:
😛
probs not for another month or so.. they are happy the game is released and people that can play it fine are playing it and reporting bugs and what ever else they find for devs to fix will be a higher priority than us who cant play/cant provide feedback..
Well, as long as there are people saying "everything is fine" and "cmon you need better CPU its 128 players on map! (when playing on 32v32 is exactly the same performance) then they will do completely nothing about it.. at least most desperate people will feed intel/amd budget alot.
The truth is that people who wanted to play this game already bought it and "maybe" some of them will buy better hardware so i think its win/win for developers and intel/amd
@necropxhyteSaw a video from a guy playing on a i7 alder lake and a 3070 running at 120 fps, dunno the resolution. But he was playing on breakthrough on discarded with bots, and if I try that here on my 9700k/3080 I get 100~120 as well. The fps was more constant, but I don't think alder lake will solve the problem taking his example on count.
Edit - And no, it was not capped at 120 because it goes beyond some times, but nothing expressive.
@h0p_r9i just mentioned alder lake regarding the thread commands and leaving 1-2 threads for the OS and other processes probably not being necessary in w11 with alder lake anymore, since the game would run on p-cores only whereas the OS and other processes would run on e-cores only automatically.
i hope alder lake doesnt have any issues with this game, but remember having read some threads here during early access about unexpectedly bad performance as well, but as we can see from the numerous other complaints with a wide range of hardware, its the game to blame, not the hardware
