Re: BF2042 CPU Running At 100% Constantly For No Reason

No change in behaviour. 100% CPU on all cores on my i7-1165G7 while GTX 2060 Super is at 40% usage (eGPU).

CPU on 65% - 70%
GPU 2% - 4% 

GTX 2060
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
16 GB RAM

Options:
Everything on low, VSYNC off, DLSS off 

30 FPS whole game - 5FPS at the begining (to first 5 mins) 

@SystemicProgressmight work for people with gpu performance issues (and even then one can simply turn on drs and set a desired framerate target percentage in the in-game settings, these console commands dont do anything else), but this thread is all about cpu bottlenecks due to the engine stressing 8 threads @100% with far too high cpu-rendered frametimes, hence bad performance on cpus far exceeding minimum and even recommended specs (despite gpu rendering more than enough fps in most cases), and no resolution tweak or any other graphics setting (apart from lighting and physics/effects) will affect cpu performance. the engine needs optimization.

Hey guys, dunno if this has already been posted, but while I was troubleshooting for this high cpu usage I found a Nvidia process that was using ~20% of my I7 9700K. Although the game still uses 100% of the cpu it seems killing the process gave it a litlle more breathing room and I was able to extract about 10 fps more. It is still far from good, getting about 70 fps on low settings with obs open on a 3080 (50% usage in game), but at least I can play and stream it now without looking like a slideshow.

If you have the same problem, right click on the process, go to folder, kill the process and rename the executable so it don't start again.

Apparently this doesn't interfere in anything related to nvidia software/hardware. For further details check this post on reddit.

Edit: I forgot to name the process. It's NVRLA.exe.

Cheers!

I have solved "CPU 100%" problem by creating a new account on win10 then playing bf2042 on this new account. Before doing this, my CPU ran at 90-100%. After doing this, my CPU runs at 70%. My desktop configuration： CPU   i7 10750h，mem  8G*2 dual channels，GPU 2070s. You can try this, maybe helpful for CPU 100% problem.

Ok first of all. Anyone trying to play BF2042 with a CPU of any less than 8 cores and 16 threads is not going to have a very good time at all. 

Even older BF1, and BFV use 15 threads steadily and consistently. I mean that even an Intel i7 8700K or Intel i7 8086K with 6 cores and 12 threads are going to get pressed to the max. (In the older Battlefield titles) Yes every single thread will hit 98-100% CPU usage under those very heavy loads with explosions and a lot of action etc. etc. Once that CPU usage goes up, your GPU usage falls down.. Lowering the graphics is going to make this worse, because you are giving the GPU less burden and giving more to the CPU. 

I recently purchased and installed the new Battlefield 2042. The only issues I had was that I would play the game, and after 10-15 minutes it would just close to the desktop without an error of any sort. It turns out that Nvidia Geforce experience was causing this. So, I quickly resolved the issue. And my game play is ridiculously smooth..

First of all, I am a performance junkie!! I love computer hardware and I love 0% CPU usage when I idle on my Windows 10 desktop. Meaning I dont want any unnecessary crap running in the back ground. Your keyboard RGB software? Yeah, no thanks! Or maybe your software for your sound card and headphones. This is all the most ridiculous crap that the average people constantly install and run. When is why the above user is getting better performance, because when you create a new windows user account, it gives you a new desktop. Which means it won't be running all these garbage programs and services at startup when you login. These programs consume and eat resources away and do nothing for you! 

I run a very stripped-down version of Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC, I run an Intel 11900K delidded direct die @5.4Ghz all cores, I have a 3090 Kingpin at 2,190Mhz and the memory is at 23Gbps. The reason I run an 11900K is because of the IPC and how fast this CPU actually is once properly optimized. My latency is around 36NS which is literally half of that of any Ryzen platform, and I don't need to worry with Windows 11 with Intel 12th gen processors. Windows 11 is NOT ready yet.. So, while 12th gen intel is fantastic and all.. I'm going to take a pass for now. My setup is tuned out to the maximum of bleeding edge with overclocks, and so is my operating system. My bottom right windows task bar shows two icons running, and that is the Nvidia control panel and Evga Precision for overclocking my 3090 Kingpin.... Thats it!! 

Now, getting to actual performance results and numbers. This game is extremely well optimized! Just not on any CPU with less than 16 logical processors/threads. And the reason is that Battlefield has been using 15 threads now since 2016. So yeah! It's time to upgrade your CPU as I said before it has been over 5+ years now since Battlefield has been pushing well on 15-16 threads from a processor, so anything less is NOT going to cut it, I run the game BF2042 at 2560x1440P at 165HZ refresh rate, I run ULTRA detail, with (DLSS=OFF) I average 120-158+ FPS depending on the map. This game literally runs like butter. (And yes DLSS is OFF) 

So, the simple and very easy fix after ranting over this is you need to re-install Windows 10! But first, you need to upgrade your CPU's to something with some fast IPC, then set your memory timings up properly, as DDR4 XMP profiles are terrible right out of the box. Just a $350 dollar well tuned 11700K would eat this game alive. Now, I am sure there are plenty of Ryzen CPU's that would work great too. The only reason I don't run one is because their latency is total crap. Easily doubling my system memory latency.

@tps34433I have an I5 8600k 3.6 GHz with 6 cores which since 2 years and it was running BFV very well, without a 100% CPU usage and with a very good average fps (without any lag)... 

I also have friends with a "lower end" PC (and lower CPU), the game is running better than mine (they don't have the CPU 100%) 

I tried everything that has been told here, no change at all.

I5 8600k 3.6 GHz

GeForce RTX 3060 8 Go
2*8 Go DDR4
Game running on SSD

Direct X 12 Enabled

I see, but as EA-DICE you shouldn't put in recomended requirements that is fine use an Intel Core i7 4790 with 4 cores, 8 treads, with speeds between 3,6 and 4 GHZ. If the game doesnt work with less CPU power than 6 or 8 cores, put it in the requirements and dont lie.

If you dont put it and this is unplayable because you need more CPU or the optimization is ridiculous bad such as an indie game, that is false advertising...

I bough a game that I cannot play with requirements between more than minimum GPU and more than recomended CPU.

Bad quatily product, they dont care about fans, insults us. Same as GTA Trilogy or Ciberbug 2077.

This should be called Betafail 2042...

Liars...

The game's player count has doubled which unfortunately means the CPU is going to be the bottleneck in most systems now. I'm a game dev. Hear me out.

BF3 and BF4 featured 64-player support. However, BF3 on X360 and PS3 couldn't handle the doubled player count of 64. Now, 2042 supports 128-player counts. Xbox One, Xbox One X, PS4 and PS4 Pro can only run 64-player matches. Only PC, Series X and S, and PS5 can run with 128.

This is simply because of how game code is utilised. It is purely a mathematical calculation that is run on the CPU side. Doubling the player count will quite simply double the CPU cost per frame for synchronising positions. I'm going to guess that position synchronisation logic is the bottleneck out of all CPU tasks with this game given the player count limitations of the past and present platforms. There's isn't a simple fix for this, unfortunately.

FYI, I'm running a 6800 XT which in most cases can net me 144fps. My 3600 however, struggles to achieve 90 in a 128 match. This is not a bug, it's simply how the game is designed.

You want to tell me that mine I9 9900K is too slow to reach 80 fps in that game on low details just because there's 128 players on map ? Please stop this 🙂

Ok - But why DICE recommend then a 4790K quad-core CPU? Why also hexa/octa-core owner describing the same problem? If that is really by design, then its a fatal decision. Then they should drop that 128 players feature.

---

@LeMairyHuff wrote:

The game's player count has doubled which unfortunately means the CPU is going to be the bottleneck in most systems now. I'm a game dev. Hear me out.

BF3 and BF4 featured 64-player support. However, BF3 on X360 and PS3 couldn't handle the doubled player count of 64. Now, 2042 supports 128-player counts. Xbox One, Xbox One X, PS4 and PS4 Pro can only run 64-player matches. Only PC, Series X and S, and PS5 can run with 128.

This is simply because of how game code is utilised. It is purely a mathematical calculation that is run on the CPU side. Doubling the player count will quite simply double the CPU cost per frame for synchronising positions. I'm going to guess that position synchronisation logic is the bottleneck out of all CPU tasks with this game given the player count limitations of the past and present platforms. There's isn't a simple fix for this, unfortunately.

FYI, I'm running a 6800 XT which in most cases can net me 144fps. My 3600 however, struggles to achieve 90 in a 128 match. This is not a bug, it's simply how the game is designed.

---

@LeMairyHuffwarzone has 150 players on a bigger map than any bf2042 map, and the destruction in bf2042 is so minimal (dice should be ashamed of bf2042's destruction and still calling it battlefield, after all previous games so far) that it doesnt count anyway, and i have no issues with warzone at all, neither at the beginning of a match when all 150 players are here (ie. more than in bf2042 at any time, even if there are bots filling missing real players slots), nor later when many leave.

moreover, bfv with 64 players and 60 tick runs at more than double the cpu-rendered fps than bf2042 with double the player count and 45 tick does for me (while the gpu renders it like a 5-years-old perfectly optimized game would run, ie. great, since it doesnt look any better anyway), and the engine is basically the same, so if there were no optimization issues, the performance should scale accordingly, which it just doesnt.

and as already mentioned by several people, there are reports of people with top-end intel 9/10/11-series i9 hexa-core cpus, and their amd counterparts, experiencing bad (cpu-rendered) performance, while the *recommended* specs for bf2042 state a quad-core i7 from 2014 to be enough.

so, there definitely is a huge problem with the game code, see eg. jayztwocents comment on bad game optimization; i doubt he is the type of guy who would just blame it on the code despite knowing better....
worst of all, most likely the meanwhile dated frostbite game engine simply isnt capable of handling bf2042 without overstressing most cpus, so there unfortunately isnt much optimization headroom anyway. this even more shows just how bad the whole bf2042 development is and misleading the system requirements are. i have lost all hope with this game already since the beta, technical playtest still had the "alpha excuse".

The explanation as to why Warzone doesn't have issues with the player count is because rarely on warzone are there more than 10-20 players in the user's vicinity. It's not just player positions you have to consider though.

Technically, everything which is not in view of the Camera viewport (what the player sees) are culled (not considered for rendering). This is suitable in warzone and very effective because you rarely see upwards of 10 people at once. All of those other 130 are therefore not considered for rendering and have literally 0 negative impact on performance. In Battlefield, it's very often you see 30 or more in front of you. Although you may not notice 30 people, there are 99% of the time, more people on screen than you realise. However, it's not as simple as that either.

For example, there are more vehicles present and rendered in BF 2042 at any given time than Warzone. How many quads, Hovercraft, helis, Cars, Tanks, Jets? Ok there are a few more vehicles maybe 10 on-screen at any time. But... then the position and rotation of all of those items have to be scaled as well. When a tank shell fly's across the map? Everyone has to render it and all of the subsequent systems this triggers. For example, bushes may be pushed animated to the side by a grenade explosion or an ammo box animation has to be rendered for everyone near the ammo box. You can see where more players really add a lot more to the strain than just the players position themselves. 2042 is on another level compared to Warzone.

The tick count is an odd one. Actually, it can't really be factored in because even if the frame you're rendering is a frame not rendered using data directly from the server, the game still renders using predictions when data isn't available. So for example, if every other frame is guesswork (120 fps, 60 tick), your client is guessing where everything will be. This will be arguably lower or higher depending on what goes into the guesswork.

You can't add more players and have performance "scale". You have to lose some performance at least. It's not "free" and there's no technology that will make it free. However, it can be helped, for example with culling. Other common methods are "silencing" physics systems which don't move (turning their expensive calculations off), rendering objects at lower quality when further away (LOD). I'm very surprised we haven't seen Variable Rate shading implemented as an engine feature yet.

Moreover, everything associated with Physics is done on the CPU also. I noticed their vehicle physics systems have improved dramatically over previous games which will be more costly on performance.

I agree about the recommendations part. They are completely inaccurate. I think more optimization needs to be done and more tricks for rendering and passing only the needed data to fulfil a frame need to be added. But then when you look at the amount of missing "features" or "implementations" compared to other BF games, content was certainly cut for release. No questions asked. The gun customisation menu is a mess and would not expect that to be in an RC Build. The most confusing system I've ever used.

Nowadays the norm is releasing unfinished games and this is another great example.

@LeMairyHuff  warzone has game modes like rumble, king slayer, clash with 100 players all playing at once with unlimited respawns, condensed in an area far smaller than any bf2042 map (parachuting into the match actually lets you see basically everyone in the match at once, and the performance doesnt suffer), with vehicles. and there are bullet physics (velocity, drop, drag), explosions, terrain physics, weather effects, shadows, lighting, sound as well, and it still runs great. really dont want to defend warzone, never been a cod player, im a pure bf fanboy, just switched to warzone to bridge the gap between bfv's development end and bf2042, and now that bf2042 is out i played more warzone in the past 10 days than i did bf2042...

if the tckrate was doubled vs. bfv, i could understand that the client-side performance would suffer (this is eg. why cs/css/csgo never introduced 128 tick official public servers, but have them in most official leagues where there is a limited number of clients, all with equal high-end sytems), but the tickrate is 25% *less* than bfv in bf2042! and packet extrapolation worked in cs in 2000 already without overstressing single-core, single-threaded cpus 21 years ago, no reason why today's multi-core multi-threaded cpus with considerably higher ipc shouldnt handle it with some 2x-4x more players in a match. its just the engine, they forced 128 players mostly for marketing reasons without making sure the engine can handle it resp. developing a new frostbite engine that does, and even portal with 64 players doesnt run well, if it only was 128 players, portal should run as well as bfv does, but it doesnt at all, it is just slightly less unplayable, but still unplayable, compared to how it should run to be playable.

I wasn't aware of that as I don't keep up to date with that game. However, I can guarantee the visual quality of 2042 is a step above Warzone. There's simply less going on to make everything look nice because the details are not the same.

I'm more aware the engine for Warzone will be more performant than Frostbite. Probably because it's simpler and most of its features aren't a WIP at any given time. I don't doubt that EA/DICE will be writing just as much engine code as game code to keep up with the upgrades they try to present with these games. Moreover, no one asked for 128 and from a player perspective, you won't be able to notice much of a difference. I doubt anyone wants to run at half the frames just to see a couple more explosions and helis flying in the distance. This isn't good game design.

The data per tick rate has doubled, which of course will degrade performance and all networking stuff is of course, CPU driven. Hmm CSGO can do that because literally everything on a given map is static. You don't even have to synchronise bullets because they don't have physics. They are implemented using Hitscan which costs nothing in comparison to 2042s simulation. COD used hit-scan until Modern Warfare (2019).

It all comes down to redundant and overcomplicated code. Frostbite is probably massive and overly complex compared to the likes of COD. You have to think about what games it's shared accross. Fifa, BF, Madden, NFS...

Not enough thought goes into larger games these days because they know they can get away with it. I would not work for a AAA like this which doesn't get to independently create a game they want. It's all money-driven.

If you enable the console using "`" key, type drawfps and set the value to 1, you can see the expected frame rate from the CPU and GPU seperately. My GPU is constant 130+, my cpu sits at 60 which is laughable.

An example from earlier. I run a 6800XT Nitro+ and 3600 @ 4.3GHz, 3600MHz DDR4 dual-channel linked with IF clocks perfectly:

6k1cbdW.png (166×112) (imgur.com)

• Yes BFV will run on an 8600K with alright performance. But why? You are literally shooting your self in the foot.  

You’d benefit greatly from a 8700K. Like, not just a small boost but massive massive boost in frame rate. You’re intentionally limiting your 3060 to the ability of a much slower GPU.

And when I say 100% CPU usage. I don’t mean your CPU usage is a constant 100% 24/7 with the game

open in BFV.

I mean in a graph like MSI Afterburner monitoring all

6 of your Logical processors Will and do hit 100% all the time. Total CPU usage reports a lower number though. So you are reading your CPU usage incorrectly. 

Why? Because I know this for a fact. I have graphs recorded of gameplay and my latency and 0.1% lows that show performance from my old 8086K i7 which was 12 threads. And they would often hit that 98% on all threads at once. And once that happens the GPU usage  falls to the 50-80% range. And this was just with a GTX1080 at the time. Yea the game was still smooth, but your losing performance and you don’t even know it. 

I mean, if you don’t want to upgrade then whatever.. Don’t upgrade. But there is a reason why I get 120-150+
fps in 2560x1440P in BF2042, and even I’m still slightly cpu limited in certain scenarios and this is at 2560x1440 on Ultra settings with DLSS off. The game is 100% butter though. Your CPU is totally overwhelmed. And it’s not the game at all.

bfv 2042 runs absolutely perfect. 

EA messed up bad with the system requirements I get that. But your GPU deserves much better than a 8600K.  And especially right now. Man I have a magical 10850K that runs 5.4Ghz all day long, and it’s just laying on my desk, I’d give it away just to prove my point here. That 3060 is a great card, so you are good to go there, but it’s literally golf balling through a water hose on that 8600K.

Guess you can explain why people with I9s are having the same issues? 

I tried several things from this Topic here. But now - the big step, also thanks to you guys - i tried to change the XMP Settings in BIOS to 3200. 

Bevor changing this Setting, i got 30-40fps with LOW Settings with a AMD 5 2600 + Nvidia 2070.

Now i can play it on ULTRA with Raytracing on 55-65fps. Really a big gamechanger.... 

edit: and yeah, i also had this problem with CPU 100%. Now CPU load on ~70%.

@tps34433You can't compare 1 setup and claim over the game performance is "absolutely perfect" because the simple answer is it is not. I have 3600 which is comparable to a 8700k.

I don't get anywhere near those numbers and my CPU is the limiting factor. I can't reach a stable 80 at 1080p nevermind 2K.

The game is not butter. It's a stutter fest at least for me. I turn on DX12 and the stutters disappear, by the way, which isn't a toggleable option unless you dig it out in the configuration file.

They messed up considerably more than just requirements. Certain configurations it just doesn't like. It seems to favour Intel in this case.