The more economic way (in my own opinion) is to upgrade your PC to 32GB or 64GB of RAM, and totally turn-off virtual memory (0 GB size). The goal here is to minimise usage of virtual memory. Rationale: CPU access in real memory is much faster than virtual memory created on SSD or HDD, thus minimise stutterings and lags. If run out of memory, the game just simply crash.
On my PC having 8GB RAM, I had tested with the following virtual memory sizes:
0 GB (turn off) -> crash upon launching
2 GB -> crash upon launching
4 GB -> can launch, but crash upon loading save game
8 GB -> can launch, but crash upon loading save game
10 GB -> my current sweet spot, played for 2 days, no crashing yet
12 GB -> for my past 100 hours, never crash (except for certain identified in-game bugs)
I'm on a 4790k, 1080ti, 16 gb ram, normal mechanical HD for Steam games. Although the 4790k has been a beast for many years, this game is just so CPU intensive I don't think it can keep up. Battles have to be limited to 400, map stutter is moderate (although my normal, mechanical HD probably plays a part in that). I'm wondering how the people here running 3700x+ or 9700k+ etc. are playing this game. Can you have 1,000 man battles? Is it worth it to upgrade to a 3700x now, or wait for 4th, 5th gen Zen? I've never had an issue running other games smoothly at 2k, even with an older processor, but I have waited for this game for 10 years. What would you do?
Hello, look here at this link for a complete analysis of Bannerlord (various CPU and GPU, processors and video cards for almost 10 years at a resolution of 1080p, 2K, 4K). Mount & Blade II Bannerlord тест GPU/CPU
Here is what knowledgeable people write in the comments:
This is DX11. No matter how parallel it is, drawcalls go to only one core (thread), and FPS on multi-threading will directly depend on performance on one core.
The processor can be clogged with anything. But the main "bottleneck" on the processor side today is the focus of drawcalls on single-threaded performance. And this question is most acute in DX11. Although at least 64 cores will be jammed by 70-80%, all the same, the performance will rest on a single-threaded main “core” core. This is exactly what we observe in Mount & Blade 2. In short, DX12 / Vulcan just cry for the game.
In dx11_1, everything happens within the framework of one stream, and, as it were, is parallelized, according to the principle of hyper-trading. But in fact, this does not even give a double increase in drawcalls. Against DX12 / Vulcan, which already know how to parallelize them into 6+ threads, no crutches will help.
In your place, I would just overclock the processor as much as possible if it supports the motherboard. What the result will be in modern games, and what is the performance gain, you can see here:
In my example, when overclocking the processor, the performance per core is located in the region between Rysen 7 2700X - 7 3700X, the system is as follows:
QuadCore Intel Core i5-3570K, 4600 MHz (46 x 100)
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H
16GB DDR3-1600 MHz (9-9-9-24)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition (Vega 10) 8GB -- undervolt
Samsung SSD 860 EVO mSAT (465 GB, IDE)
For myself, at the moment I don’t see any reason to update the processor, because until in Bannerlord the API will change from DX 11_1 to DX 12 / Vulcan, I won’t get any tangible improvement when playing in 4K. I played with the settings of 500 warriors in Bannerlord, so conditionally when the developers fix the current problems in the game (AI, snowball, understanding of the territories of kingdoms during wars) even in 2025 my current processor performance will not drop lower in the game than it is now .
If you have a lot of money, you can buy what you want, but do not forget to overclock the processor to 5,000 MHZ, then you will have a processor performance of 1 core comparable to I9 - 9900K.
I'm on a 4790k, 1080ti, 16 gb ram, normal mechanical HD for Steam games. Although the 4790k has been a beast for many years, this game is just so CPU intensive I don't think it can keep up. Battles have to be limited to 400, map stutter is moderate (although my normal, mechanical HD probably plays a part in that). I'm wondering how the people here running 3700x+ or 9700k+ etc. are playing this game. Can you have 1,000 man battles? Is it worth it to upgrade to a 3700x now, or wait for 4th, 5th gen Zen? I've never had an issue running other games smoothly at 2k, even with an older processor, but I have waited for this game for 10 years. What would you do?
I'm running this game on a Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH-1060 (https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptop...series/Lenovo-Legion-Y530-15ICH/p/88GMY501020), Initially, I only had 8Gb of RAM, but upgrade to 16Gb. Under the patch 1.1, I had no problem, no shuttering or other problems. When 1.2 and 1.3 betas came it had a minor impact on the former and unplayable impact on the later. The upgrade from 8 to 16 helped a lot (this game wasn't the main cause for the upgrade). But I would address the problem with the game engine still being worked on, assets not optimized, and graphics settings system not working or fully implemented as of yet. IMO, there is no need to run out and make the upgrade, I would think the biggest bottleneck on your system of this moment is actually the HDD. Everything else looks fine for still running most games in medium to high settings without problems. But from my point of view, If it keeps being a problem in the coming months then you can always come back to this thread there're plenty of people on this thread posting system specks, to give you an idea of what hardware works and what doesn't. And use this as a template for your next PC-built.
If you have problems I would think most of it is simply badly optimized games, which is sad. But it should be an incentive for developers to actually optimized instead of expecting people to use 60$ on a game and after that use 300$ to play it (IMO). (And I know some games are just abandoned and stay in that state, but here is hoping that it's becoming a higher priority in the future of software developing)
So if I wasn't clear, I would hold up on the upgrading thoughts and wait until the game is close to release.
Hello, look here at this link for a complete analysis of Bannerlord (various CPU and GPU, processors and video cards for almost 10 years at a resolution of 1080p, 2K, 4K). Mount & Blade II Bannerlord тест GPU/CPU
Here is what knowledgeable people write in the comments:
This is DX11. No matter how parallel it is, drawcalls go to only one core (thread), and FPS on multi-threading will directly depend on performance on one core.
The processor can be clogged with anything. But the main "bottleneck" on the processor side today is the focus of drawcalls on single-threaded performance. And this question is most acute in DX11. Although at least 64 cores will be jammed by 70-80%, all the same, the performance will rest on a single-threaded main “core” core. This is exactly what we observe in Mount & Blade 2. In short, DX12 / Vulcan just cry for the game.
In dx11_1, everything happens within the framework of one stream, and, as it were, is parallelized, according to the principle of hyper-trading. But in fact, this does not even give a double increase in drawcalls. Against DX12 / Vulcan, which already know how to parallelize them into 6+ threads, no crutches will help.
In your place, I would just overclock the processor as much as possible if it supports the motherboard. What the result will be in modern games, and what is the performance gain, you can see here:
In my example, when overclocking the processor, the performance per core is located in the region between Rysen 7 2700X - 7 3700X, the system is as follows:
QuadCore Intel Core i5-3570K, 4600 MHz (46 x 100)
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H
16GB DDR3-1600 MHz (9-9-9-24)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition (Vega 10) 8GB -- undervolt
Samsung SSD 860 EVO mSAT (465 GB, IDE)
For myself, at the moment I don’t see any reason to update the processor, because until in Bannerlord the API will change from DX 11_1 to DX 12 / Vulcan, I won’t get any tangible improvement when playing in 4K. I played with the settings of 500 warriors in Bannerlord, so conditionally when the developers fix the current problems in the game (AI, snowball, understanding of the territories of kingdoms during wars) even in 2025 my current processor performance will not drop lower in the game than it is now .
If you have a lot of money, you can buy what you want, but do not forget to overclock the processor to 5,000 MHZ, then you will have a processor performance of 1 core comparable to I9 - 9900K.
The graphics API limitations in parallelization are not very relevant to bottlenecks in other systems that are highly parallelized such as individual pathfinding, combat AI, physics calculations, etc. that are going on in large battles. Large battles slow down because you're increasing the number of actors, not polygons. You care stare at the ground in large battles and see almost no FPS increase.
I would not advise people to overclock their 3.5ghz processors to 5ghz.
Nice, thanks for the info guys. From what I've gathered over the last week: A) buying Intel is a ripoff and they've been sitting on their laurels offering minimal improvements at a high premium for years. It seems the 4790k was actually the last revolutionary chip they had. AMD has been kicking their butt in every category except IPC, which will be addressed with Ryzen 3 series coming out this year. The problem with the 4790k is not that it can't reach high FPS, it can, as that video demonstrates. But it's lows are BAD. This shows up in Bannerlord even, a non shooter game. Basically FPS will go from 120ish to 50ish and just cause horrible stutter. I'm going to wait for Ryzen 4000 and upgrade then. From what I've heard of the 3700x, it definitely is a revolutionary chip, and worth the money. You won't see massive FPS gains from a 4790k>3700x, but it handles the background processes (way better multi-processing than Intel) so well that games have consistent, smooth FPS. Hopefully they stay on schedule and continue to release this Summer.
From the article: "The game uses up to 24 computing threads, and most effectively 16." That makes the 9700k even more of a terrible buy I would imagine. They removed hyperthreading entirely on it just so people would have a reason to purchase the way overpriced 9900k.
Not really, especially when you consider that the 10700K has hyperthreading. Just the usual design and manufacturing needing to make sense, I'd imagine. AMD and Intel go back and forth through generations. It's been this way since the Athlon.
Feel sorry for people who need an excuse to hate on people who upgrade their PC's. If you actually read the thread you'd note that I'm running 400 man battles with most of the pretty effects on low. It's a 6 year old processor that is struggling with most modern games, as they are optimized for 6 cores, and the upcoming consoles are 8 core. How other people spend their money is not your business.
I’m not hating. 50 FPS dips, the horror. Bannerlord is not really released. It is not finished. It is barely a game yet. Those terrible 50 FPS dips will likely be ironed out by TW or by installing game on a 500gb 970 EVO. This thread is an excuse to humble brag. Terrible performance, 50 FPS. I have lesser pc and game runs fine, but I guess that’s really subjective.
What you are really doing is hating on perfectly fine computer hardware and acceptable performance from a game not yet released. Now if you feel the need to spend more money, fine. I think you are asking people on this forum permission to make a foolish purchase. Put your pants on and go get it. You’re on this thread asking for advice and feedback, well you got it.
This thread is an excuse to humble brag. Terrible performance, 50 FPS. I have lesser pc and game runs fine, but I guess that’s really subjective.
What you are really doing is hating on perfectly fine computer hardware and acceptable performance from a game not yet released. Now if you feel the need to spend more money, fine. Put your pants on and go get it. You’re on this thread asking for advice and feedback, well you got it.
Yeah, except you didn't offer advice. You merely posted to a) make a snide remark, and b) make a false claim I'm "humble bragging" about a 6 year old processor struggling to play modern games. Kindly leave my thread, thanks.
Not really, especially when you consider that the 10700K has hyperthreading. Just the usual design and manufacturing needing to make sense, I'd imagine. AMD and Intel go back and forth through generations. It's been this way since the Athlon.
Hopefully this forces Intel to lower their prices and actually make significant advancements, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. They are really far behind in all metrics except one (IPC).
Hopefully this forces Intel to lower their prices and actually make significant advancements, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. They are really far behind in all metrics except one (IPC).
I'm no expert, but this is what I've been reading from those that do it for a living. The 10700k is a slightly higher clocked 9900K with 2 more cores (10) and a lot higher power consumption. They're at a dead end with their architecture (it still slays in games), and have prolonged it for this long because they can. The multi-core performance of the Ryzen's (even the 3700x) are twice as good, while still behind slightly (~10 FPS) in IPC. I just don't think the price is justified any longer and the Ryzen 4000 series is supposed to increase IPC 10-15%, which would put Ryzen ahead in every metric. Lower price, single core performance, multi-core performance.
I've never tried AMD, but everything has been trending in their favor the past couple years. It's nice to finally have someone forcing Intel's hand and AMD being recognized as the leader rather than the red-headed step child for budget-only buyers. They're making better chips and still keeping the costs low comparatively. Plus including coolers that work well enough, so that's another cost you have to account for if buying Intel. If Intel was close to releasing new technology, they would let it be known. Word is among all of the tech gurus they're panicking and don't have a response. It takes a long time to develop a new chip. They just sat on their laurels too long. Pretty exciting time I think...it's nice to see huge jumps in performance for reasonable cost again.
I'm on a 4790k, 1080ti, 16 gb ram, normal mechanical HD for Steam games. Although the 4790k has been a beast for many years, this game is just so CPU intensive I don't think it can keep up. Battles have to be limited to 400, map stutter is moderate (although my normal, mechanical HD probably plays a part in that). I'm wondering how the people here running 3700x+ or 9700k+ etc. are playing this game. Can you have 1,000 man battles? Is it worth it to upgrade to a 3700x now, or wait for 4th, 5th gen Zen? I've never had an issue running other games smoothly at 2k, even with an older processor, but I have waited for this game for 10 years. What would you do?
I have a 3800x with 32 GB of RAM and a 2TB Nvme SSD and can run most battles with 1000 men on high settings at around 1440p. I say around because I am running a 3840 x 1080p super ultrawide monitor which has about the same amount of pixels as a traditional 1440p monitor. Sieges can be choppy with at 1000 men at times and for some reason any battle in the desert seems to see a huge fps drop as well. On the other hand, I can say without a doubt that I am suffering a bottleneck with my GPU, not my CPU since my GPU is pegged at 100%. I am still running a Vega 56 because I decided I would wait for the next gen of GPUs. Little did I know the COVID was going to delay their release by 6 months.
As far an upgrade, you could probably just get by with a 3700x and a SSD. The 1080ti you have is still a very capable GPU, probably around a 2070 Super in performance.
As far as waiting though, I probably would if I was in your shoes. Based on every rumor we have right now, Ryzen 4000 for desktops should be released by the end of the year and also both AMD and Nvidia should have their next gen GPU out by that same time frame as well. Ryzen 4000 is supposed to be around another 15% performance gain and both Big Navi and Ampere are supposed to be huge upgrades over existing GPUs. That being the cast, you will get your best bang for the buck by waiting.
I'm no expert, but this is what I've been reading from those that do it for a living. The 10700k is a slightly higher clocked 9900K with 2 more cores (10) and a lot higher power consumption. They're at a dead end with their architecture (it still slays in games), and have prolonged it for this long because they can. The multi-core performance of the Ryzen's (even the 3700x) are twice as good, while still behind slightly (~10 FPS) in IPC. I just don't think the price is justified any longer and the Ryzen 4000 series is supposed to increase IPC 10-15%, which would put Ryzen ahead in every metric. Lower price, single core performance, multi-core performance.
I've never tried AMD, but everything has been trending in their favor the past couple years. It's nice to finally have someone forcing Intel's hand and AMD being recognized as the leader rather than the red-headed step child for budget-only buyers. They're making better chips and still keeping the costs low comparatively. Plus including coolers that work well enough, so that's another cost you have to account for if buying Intel. If Intel was close to releasing new technology, they would let it be known. Word is among all of the tech gurus they're panicking and don't have a response. It takes a long time to develop a new chip. They just sat on their laurels too long. Pretty exciting time I think...it's nice to see huge jumps in performance for reasonable cost again.
If you go Ryzen, you will never go back. Also Intel is really struggling right now. The only thing they have going for them is raw clock speed which usually requires the end user understanding how to overclock the processor plus also requiring a hefty (and usually expensive) cooling solution to be added as well. At stock clocks, Intel usually isn't much faster then Ryzen. Ryzen on the other hand just gives you its max performance without much tweaking and in a pinch you can use a stock or other inexpensive cooler. Also the trend in new software is getting to be less and less about raw clock speeds and more about more about using cores and threads to increase performance. As more software moves this direction, Ryzen just does this better. I am not saying Intel can't come back and knock our socks off but right now Ryzen is hands down a better processor than Intel especially on a dollar for dollar basis.
I'm no expert, but this is what I've been reading from those that do it for a living. The 10700k is a slightly higher clocked 9900K with 2 more cores (10) and a lot higher power consumption.
If you go Ryzen, you will never go back. Also Intel is really struggling right now. The only thing they have going for them is raw clock speed which usually requires the end user understanding how to overclock the processor plus also requiring a hefty (and usually expensive) cooling solution to be added as well. At stock clocks, Intel usually isn't much faster then Ryzen. Ryzen on the other hand just gives you its max performance without much tweaking and in a pinch you can use a stock or other inexpensive cooler. Also the trend in new software is getting to be less and less about raw clock speeds and more about more about using cores and threads to increase performance. As more software moves this direction, Ryzen just does this better. I am not saying Intel can't come back and knock our socks off but right now Ryzen is hands down a better processor than Intel especially on a dollar for dollar basis.
Yeah I'm excited to try it. The fact that the 10700k is only 8 core/16 thread and will cost 500+ dollars is just laughable. Time for people to stop giving Intel money. It was also a douche move to make the 9700k have no hyperthreading merely because they wanted people to buy the 9900k (otherwise there was no reason to buy it) - while all of AMD's chip support hyperthreading. Intel also released their chips right before Ryzen 2 was announced (like a day before) to avoid direct comparisons. Reap what you sow, I guess Intel...
Yeah I'm excited to try it. The fact that the 10700k is only 8 core/16 thread and will cost 500+ dollars is just laughable. Time for people to stop giving Intel money. It was also a douche move to make the 9700k have no hyperthreading merely because they wanted people to buy the 9900k (otherwise there was no reason to buy it) - while all of AMD's chip support hyperthreading. Intel also released their chips right before Ryzen 2 was announced (like a day before) to avoid direct comparisons. Reap what you sow, I guess Intel...
The 10700K is slated to be the same price as the 9700K. And they didn't just disable hyperthreading to make people buy the 9900K. I don't really have a horse in the race and this feels like the kind of discussion people have in comments sections or at car forums at this point. Look at benchmarks, wait for sales, and buy the tool that's best for the job.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
