Can i run Battlefield 1 ??

rocketpants

Baseband Member
Messages
34
The "System requirements" site say that the graphics card is good, ram needs to increase, which i can do, however the processor is not up to it, i have a Core2 Duo E7200 2.53GHz, can i over clock it ? & could i simply add more ram as they suggest, bearing in mind the graphics card is well able to handle BF1 .. cheers
 

AMD_man

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,699
Location
Argentina
The "System requirements" site say that the graphics card is good, ram needs to increase, which i can do, however the processor is not up to it, i have a Core2 Duo E7200 2.53GHz, can i over clock it ? & could i simply add more ram as they suggest, bearing in mind the graphics card is well able to handle BF1 .. cheers
Could you provide your full specs? Use Speccy and take a screenshot.
 

rocketpants

Baseband Member
Messages
34
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53GHz 43 °C
Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 333MHz (5-5-5-15)
Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. G31MF-S2 (Socket 775) 35 °C
Graphics
AL1917W (1440x900@60Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (Gigabyte) 29 °C
Storage
465GB Western Digital WDC WD5000AAKX-08ERMA0 ATA Device (SATA) 30 °C
Optical Drives
TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S223Q ATA Device
Audio
High Definition Audio Device
 

AMD_man

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,699
Location
Argentina
You have a pretty low resolution monitor so the GPU will be perfect. Now, most CPU related settings can be disabled or reduced. I don't know how well you'll be able to run BF1 though.

Some CPU bound settings are, for example, MLAA (a technique of AA), View distance (even more in games with lots of characters and objects), Lighting and Shadow.

Even by disabling all of them, I don't think your CPU will be enough. I guess the best way is to ask someone who has it already.

I must say I find the recommended settings ridiculous. How can someone recommend a 6350 or a 6600K? Those CPUs are not even close.
 
Last edited:
Messages
963
Location
US
Sure you can run it. It won't be at its best or fastest or prettiest but you can do anything you want to. You might find you don't like it though but it will show you what you need to buy to have a better system.
 
Last edited:

ChronoGuy

Baseband Member
Messages
22
Location
USA
Yes you can definitely run it but even with your resolution you should run it at medium with some settings at high. You should upgrade to at least 8GB of memory with your current system but it would be best to save up for a new system.
 

AMD_man

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,699
Location
Argentina
Yes you can definitely run it but even with your resolution you should run it at medium with some settings at high. You should upgrade to at least 8GB of memory with your current system but it would be best to save up for a new system.
Resolutions and graphic options do not affect the CPU (except for the ones I mentioned), and the same goes for resolutions (unless increasing it increases the visual range). If he disables those, he can keep the CPU impact to a minimum, no matter the resolution.

I would say you get a used and cheap Core2 Quad on eBay, get more RAM and you'll have a pretty decent computer. A Q9650 is so much better than what you have. You could get one for $30-50, and more RAM for very cheap.
 

ChronoGuy

Baseband Member
Messages
22
Location
USA
Resolutions and graphic options do not affect the CPU (except for the ones I mentioned), and the same goes for resolutions (unless increasing it increases the visual range). If he disables those, he can keep the CPU impact to a minimum, no matter the resolution.

I would say you get a used and cheap Core2 Quad on eBay, get more RAM and you'll have a pretty decent computer. A Q9650 is so much better than what you have. You could get one for $30-50, and more RAM for very cheap.
Resolutions do affect the CPU -- significantly in many cases as do graphic options in-game. If you have been reading CPU reviews for the past 15 years you would know that. A prime example would be how the power of Intel's I5-I7 since Sandy Bridge does significantly better at lower resolutions (EG anything @ 1080p and below) vs AMD FX for 6 years running. That was because of the per-core strength. Resolution has zero to do with "visual range" as you put it that has to do with in game settings usually draw distance and the like. Yes when in game if you disable view distance and or draw distances you can then many times get better FPS with lower tier CPU's but that in part takes some of the quality of the game away -- game depending.
 

AMD_man

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,699
Location
Argentina
Resolutions do affect the CPU -- significantly in many cases as do graphic options in-game. If you have been reading CPU reviews for the past 15 years you would know that. A prime example would be how the power of Intel's I5-I7 since Sandy Bridge does significantly better at lower resolutions (EG anything @ 1080p and below) vs AMD FX for 6 years running. That was because of the per-core strength. Resolution has zero to do with "visual range" as you put it that has to do with in game settings usually draw distance and the like. Yes when in game if you disable view distance and or draw distances you can then many times get better FPS with lower tier CPU's but that in part takes some of the quality of the game away -- game depending.
:facepalm:

Reading reviews is not the same as knowing how a computer works.

I said there are some graphic options that have an impact on the CPU, which can be amplified by increasing the resolution (like AA), indirectly increasing the CPU load, but that doesn't mean the resolution affects directly the CPU, because if you disable those, your CPU will not be affected. Do you even know what the role of a CPU in a game is?

By the way, I did not mean draw distance. I mean range as in width and height of what you can see. Some games work that way.
 

ChronoGuy

Baseband Member
Messages
22
Location
USA
:facepalm:

Reading reviews is not the same as knowing how a computer works.

I said there are some graphic options that have an impact on the CPU, which can be amplified by increasing the resolution (like AA), indirectly increasing the CPU load, but that doesn't mean the resolution affects directly the CPU, because if you disable those, your CPU will not be affected. Do you even know what the role of a CPU in a game is?

By the way, I did not mean draw distance. I mean range as in width and height of what you can see. Some games work that way.

Range of width height would be your common resolutions. AA does not increase the resolution it increases visual effect quality, AA a common GPU technique is used to smooth the otherwise jagged lines or textures by blending the color of an edge with the color of pixels around it. The end result should be should be a better looking more realistic appearance, depending on the direct intensity of the effect.

Like you and I a builder of machines (since 1998) and also worked for two OEM's including a motherboard manufacturer so to answer your question yes I know the role of a CPU during gaming and other various workloads. I don't just read I build, review, and game.

By the way you an disable pretty much anything and everything within a game/s settings (AA none- AF @ 2-4x), but if you have your textures (basic game settings) at high or ultra, a 2500k, even an old I7 920 will run it with significantly higher frame rates over something like an FX 6300/8350 at 1080p or below (mono-e'-mono GPU). Moving up to higher resolutions like 2k & 4k reduces some of that CPU resolution bottleneck advantage this is why you now see Ryzen competing fairly well with Skylake and KabyLake at 1440p. Once you move to 4k the difference in per-core strength is negligible.
 
Top