"There might have been GPU bottleneck, still BF4 supports 8 cores and FX-8350 is keeping up with i7 CPU's:"
The fact that the FX8350 kept up absolutely confirms the GPU bottleneck. (I knew there had to be some reason you favored the game for comparing CPUs; it's total unsuitability for the comparisons was only mildly surprising.)
It's like testing CPUs at 4k Ultra....the R3 is not really the R7's equal, is it?
Considering we have integer heavy software with "equal" optimizations for AMD and Intel and software uses 8 cores/threads. Then FX-8350 is faster than i7-4770K (both at stock speeds). So basically if any i3 is faster than FX-8350, then software does not use 8 cores/threads properly, speed is depending on single thread or software is Intel optimized or non-AMD optimized.
As you can see, dual cores have no chance against quad cores. This is why:
The graph you posted does not seem to show the FX8350 faster than the 4770K, as the latter appears to be 18.5% faster in the graph shown....
Given the low placement of the 2600K in the results shown, which is hyperthreaded, it'd be difficult to make any conclusions about any relative 'strong core potential' or utility of BF4 in core scaling based solely on semi-respectable placement of the assorted FX processors, given their near total decimation in pretty much every other game in existence. (If we can find some graphs showing R5 and R7 orr even the 5820K, 6900K, etc, scaling upward with cores in BF4, lets check them out...with GOOD GPUs.
The rest of the graphs showing CPU utilization I have little use for, other than confirmation of various cores receiving semi-even tasking thru Windows Scheduler, as I've seen some processor fans declare some sort of semi-mutated semi-victories over moderate processor utilization while still taking a stomping on all measures of delivered framerates. (as though 45% utilization and 60 fps is somehow 'better' than 95% utilization and 90 fps...)
Edited by MDD1963, 03 September 2017 - 07:28 AM.