Will a quad core run this game or would I need more cores?

[TheLaggyC]

I have an i5 7600k and I was curious if I could run this. I usually lag in BF1 due to having just 4 cores and I was curious if this would be the same.

[NachoDawg]

No spec requirement has ever been postet for Bannerlord, but I would assume that 4 cores is fine

[GrumpyDave73]

i'm not very wise about these things but... does any game use more than 1 core anyway? it seems i've seen it said about most games i've looked around about lag issues people will have already said or otherwise tell me that said game only uses 1 core. i can't remember the last game i checked... maybe HOI4... but i also can't remember ever hearing or reading that a game uses all of your cores.
EDIT; i've just remembered an example game. Tropico 5. i recall being told it gets laggy with a little bit of a population because of bottle-knecking 1 core.

[Dayve]

I doubt any game developer is going to release a game which requires more than 4 cores. I think most studies show that most gamers, at any time, don't have anywhere close to "modern" hardware in their PC. They're normally using processors and graphics cards that are 3 years old.

I'll bet not even half of PC gamers even have a quad core processor yet lol.

[Jcyrus]

This is a question I'd really like to know about as well, what kind of specs we're going to need.

Chances are they don't have a solid answer for that yet since they're probably still optimizing, but it would be nice to at least know what kind of system they're showing demonstrations on.

Originally posted by SLAYAH:

Seeing as the game production is 5 years old it will probably lean toward main systems of 5 years ago.

Generally developers work in anticipation of hardware having improved by release, rather than designing around what is present at the time they start work.

Sometimes they overshoot it, like Everquest 2 did when it launched in 2004.
https://youtu.be/Kn6lG37TvDQ

They're surely going to have battlesize scales again with Bannerlord which should really help older PC's, but if older PC's are stuck with dinky battles unlike what's been shown off that misses one of the big improvements Bannerlord is supposed to be bringing over Warband.

[gab.mc]

Dont worry, it will be run fine with tht proccesor

[Anndy578]

Originally posted by David Badger:

i'm not very wise about these things but... does any game use more than 1 core anyway? it seems i've seen it said about most games i've looked around about lag issues people will have already said or otherwise tell me that said game only uses 1 core. i can't remember the last game i checked... maybe HOI4... but i also can't remember ever hearing or reading that a game uses all of your cores.
EDIT; i've just remembered an example game. Tropico 5. i recall being told it gets laggy with a little bit of a population because of bottle-knecking 1 core.

plenty do but a lot of games are still using old engines stuck with a single core and even 32 bit. those are generally less known games tho, most AAA games have modern engines these day.

[GrumpyDave73]

Originally posted by Anndy578:

Originally posted by David Badger:

i'm not very wise about these things but... does any game use more than 1 core anyway? it seems i've seen it said about most games i've looked around about lag issues people will have already said or otherwise tell me that said game only uses 1 core. i can't remember the last game i checked... maybe HOI4... but i also can't remember ever hearing or reading that a game uses all of your cores.
EDIT; i've just remembered an example game. Tropico 5. i recall being told it gets laggy with a little bit of a population because of bottle-knecking 1 core.

plenty do but a lot of games are still using old engines stuck with a single core and even 32 bit. those are generally less known games tho, most AAA games have modern engines these day.

ahh... thanks for clearing that up. i wasn't too certain.

[Hobo Misanthropus]

Originally posted by TheLaggerCherokee:

I have an i5 7600k and I was curious if I could run this. I usually lag in BF1 due to having just 4 cores and I was curious if this would be the same.

A 7600k shouldn't be lagging in Battlefield 1. The IPC on Skylake and Kabylake are phenomenal. You're probably choking at the GPU.

Most modern AAA games are actually optimized for Hexa-core architecture, because you need every bit of Floating-point operational power on the consoles, which use eight core CPUs (But two cores are reserved for OS and system functions like streaming, leaving six for gaming)

However, keep in mind that the IPC and Frequency of console CPUs are often much lower than PCs, so a quad-core Skylake is around 50% to 100% more powerful (Faster) than the console APUs, despite having fewer cores.

Core count is a compromised, it's almost always better to have one exceedingly fast core than two cores totaling the same value (IE: 1 5GHZ core is better than two 2.5GHZ cores) because multithreading always results in some kind of performance loss. However, higher frequencies mean you quickly reach the terminal heat threshold for silicon and gold, which is why CPU's started to go for multiple cores. Of course, if you're multitasking a lot, multiple cores will always be better.

This is where the old wisdom of single-core power comes in, as most games on Console will bottleneck at one core if you try to push 60FPS (The Jaguar APU's are clocked at around 2GhZ)

TL;DR - Bannerlord will be fine on any Quad Core I5 or I7 from Sandy Bridge onward. Skylake and Kaby Lake CPU's are in no immediate threat of bottlenecking any game. Intel is soon releasing their first Mainstream Six core CPUs with Coffeelake, if you really want more than four cores for gaming, I'm sure the 8600k and 8700k will be the best price-performance ratio, with Ryzen 1600's being a respectable budget option, and Ryzen 1700's being ideal for streamers who also like to game.

[TheLaggyC]

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

Originally posted by TheLaggerCherokee:

I have an i5 7600k and I was curious if I could run this. I usually lag in BF1 due to having just 4 cores and I was curious if this would be the same.

A 7600k shouldn't be lagging in Battlefield 1. The IPC on Skylake and Kabylake are phenomenal. You're probably choking at the GPU.

Most modern AAA games are actually optimized for Hexa-core architecture, because you need every bit of Floating-point operational power on the consoles, which use eight core CPUs (But two cores are reserved for OS and system functions like streaming, leaving six for gaming)

However, keep in mind that the IPC and Frequency of console CPUs are often much lower than PCs, so a quad-core Skylake is around 50% to 100% more powerful (Faster) than the console APUs, despite having fewer cores.

Core count is a compromised, it's almost always better to have one exceedingly fast core than two cores totaling the same value (IE: 1 5GHZ core is better than two 2.5GHZ cores) because multithreading always results in some kind of performance loss. However, higher frequencies mean you quickly reach the terminal heat threshold for silicon and gold, which is why CPU's started to go for multiple cores. Of course, if you're multitasking a lot, multiple cores will always be better.

This is where the old wisdom of single-core power comes in, as most games on Console will bottleneck at one core if you try to push 60FPS (The Jaguar APU's are clocked at around 2GhZ)

TL;DR - Bannerlord will be fine on any Quad Core I5 or I7 from Sandy Bridge onward. Skylake and Kaby Lake CPU's are in no immediate threat of bottlenecking any game. Intel is soon releasing their first Mainstream Six core CPUs with Coffeelake, if you really want more than four cores for gaming, I'm sure the 8600k and 8700k will be the best price-performance ratio, with Ryzen 1600's being a respectable budget option, and Ryzen 1700's being ideal for streamers who also like to game.

I have a gtx 1080, I used this website called thebottlenecker and it told me I had a 16% bottleneck, but I did use the i5 6600k because there was no i5 7600k: http://imgur.com/a/ZL1Ic

I also have 16 gb of ddr4, 2 1tb hdds, and a 500w powersupply.

[Bookhead]

If any new game does not use 4 or more cores it is bound to be a failure in terms of optimization. With all the development going into this game you would hope it would use multi cpus

[Hobo Misanthropus]

Originally posted by TheLaggerCherokee:

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

A 7600k shouldn't be lagging in Battlefield 1. The IPC on Skylake and Kabylake are phenomenal. You're probably choking at the GPU.

Most modern AAA games are actually optimized for Hexa-core architecture, because you need every bit of Floating-point operational power on the consoles, which use eight core CPUs (But two cores are reserved for OS and system functions like streaming, leaving six for gaming)

However, keep in mind that the IPC and Frequency of console CPUs are often much lower than PCs, so a quad-core Skylake is around 50% to 100% more powerful (Faster) than the console APUs, despite having fewer cores.

Core count is a compromised, it's almost always better to have one exceedingly fast core than two cores totaling the same value (IE: 1 5GHZ core is better than two 2.5GHZ cores) because multithreading always results in some kind of performance loss. However, higher frequencies mean you quickly reach the terminal heat threshold for silicon and gold, which is why CPU's started to go for multiple cores. Of course, if you're multitasking a lot, multiple cores will always be better.

This is where the old wisdom of single-core power comes in, as most games on Console will bottleneck at one core if you try to push 60FPS (The Jaguar APU's are clocked at around 2GhZ)

TL;DR - Bannerlord will be fine on any Quad Core I5 or I7 from Sandy Bridge onward. Skylake and Kaby Lake CPU's are in no immediate threat of bottlenecking any game. Intel is soon releasing their first Mainstream Six core CPUs with Coffeelake, if you really want more than four cores for gaming, I'm sure the 8600k and 8700k will be the best price-performance ratio, with Ryzen 1600's being a respectable budget option, and Ryzen 1700's being ideal for streamers who also like to game.

I have a gtx 1080, I used this website called thebottlenecker and it told me I had a 16% bottleneck, but I did use the i5 6600k because there was no i5 7600k: http://imgur.com/a/ZL1Ic

I also have 16 gb of ddr4, 2 1tb hdds, and a 500w powersupply.

Well, if you're using a website with a application running, you probably will bottleneck at the CPU.

My advice, if you have the chipset to support it (Z170/Z270) is overclock your 6600k to 4.2GHZ. That should eliminate the bottleneck. You might be able to go to 4.4ghz with no voltage adjustments on your end, but 4.2 is what any 6600k should be able to run out of the box, and is higher than the peak single-core turbo.

Note: Overclocking does void the Warranty. While CPU's are extremely hardy, and typically overclocking a CPU WITHOUT adjusting voltage can't hurt it, be aware of what you're doing before proceeding.

If you don't know anything about Overclocking, youtube has literally millions of videos on the subject.

[TheLaggyC]

k thanks

[Hobo Misanthropus]

Originally posted by TheLaggerCherokee:

k thanks

I want to add one more thing: If you do start overclocking, don't panic if your system starts bluescreening, crashing, etc. It means your overclock is unstable which is a very common occurance and temporary, pending you either:

1) Increase the voltatge (CPU VCORE) being sent to the CPU or

2) Lower the Clock multiplier until the instability goes away.

As I said before, any good motherboard will have a BIOS that should automatically adjust things for a conservative overclock (10-20%) but to start really pushing beyond that threshold, you need lots of experience, lots of patience and lots of aftermarket cooling.

[TheLaggyC]

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

Originally posted by TheLaggerCherokee:

k thanks

I want to add one more thing: If you do start overclocking, don't panic if your system starts bluescreening, crashing, etc. It means your overclock is unstable which is a very common occurance and temporary, pending you either:

1) Increase the voltatge (CPU VCORE) being sent to the CPU or

2) Lower the Clock multiplier until the instability goes away.

As I said before, any good motherboard will have a BIOS that should automatically adjust things for a conservative overclock (10-20%) but to start really pushing beyond that threshold, you need lots of experience, lots of patience and lots of aftermarket cooling.

Im having trouble though, when I go into my bios my keyboard isnt working. My mouse does though