What CPU is the best for Besiege?

[TomGames Channel]

I'm always thinking about which CPU could run besiege on the highest settings
and have 60 fps when loading big creations.

The low frame rate annoys me ,
Because my laptop only has a i3-3217u Quad Core CPU and that wont run the game smoothly if i load bigger creations.

Yes you can turn down the settings , but i want to know if there is a CPU that could run the game
on at least 30 or 40 fps while having a big creation loaded in.

And no my laptop is not that bad it can run besiege on high settings , but as i said
when i load big creations in , the frame rate just drops to 20.

 

[QuextArt]

which CPU

the most expensive one

 

[stuChris]

well considering that computers are ALWAYS getting better (or can get better) id have to agree with @QuextArt on that one

 

[stuChris]

@TomGames Channel it it makes you feel any better, i have a similar computer to yours where any creation over 400+ blocks i have to run at 20% speed for a framerate of 20-30.
but i just deal with it, and build, its not that bad IMO.

 

[ITR]

How many blocks makes a "big" creation? :-P

 

[TomGames Channel]

How many blocks makes a "big" creation? :-P

For me it starts from 300+ blocks

 

[Shade]

for me its 1000+

 

[Petrus1904]

its not just the block count (as far as i know) but also the amount of independent moving parts. if I make a complex track system, my frames start dropping around 350 blocks, while cars for example have much less lag at this amount (with a i7-6700). Also, most of the graphical settings currently ingame can be completely done by the GPU (can be doesnt mean the devs have done that), so i think that lowering these setting barely influences cpu usage (unless, ofc you have integrated graphics).
The important question is, have the devs looked at dividing the physics calculations over the cores (multiprocessing) or not*. if they did not, everything is done by a single thread (this is as far as I know the default method). in that case looking at a modern cpu with a high frequency would perform better (even better if they can be overclocked) than a i7-hexacore at a lower frequency (as most of the cores arent used).

*looking at my core usage in msi-afterburner, I recognise that both my GPU and CPU are not using everything they have, but my frames are not solid 60. this makes me think they did not, or barely looked into multithreading/multiprocessing.

 

[stuChris]

its not just the block count (as far as i know) but also the amount of independent moving parts. if I make a complex track system, my frames start dropping around 350 blocks, while cars for example have much less lag at this amount (with a i7-6700). Also, most of the graphical settings currently ingame can be completely done by the GPU (can be doesnt mean the devs have done that), so i think that lowering these setting barely influences cpu usage (unless, ofc you have integrated graphics).
The important question is, have the devs looked at dividing the physics calculations over the cores (multiprocessing) or not*. if they did not, everything is done by a single thread (this is as far as I know the default method). in that case looking at a modern cpu with a high frequency would perform better (even better if they can be overclocked) than a i7-hexacore at a lower frequency (as most of the cores arent used).

*looking at my core usage in msi-afterburner, I recognise that both my GPU and CPU are not using everything they have, but my frames are not solid 60. this makes me think they did not, or barely looked into multithreading/multiprocessing.

sort of.
some blocks, if i remember correctly what was stated by @ITR , generate more block frame loss than others, i cannot remember what it is exactly, but for instance, a hinge (might be, again i cant remember the exact number) 4x a singlewood block, or a blade might be the equivalent of 2, per se.
but yes, it also depends on what physics are happening within the level, which can be avoided quite easily

 

[stuChris]

and, @TomGames Channel with the coming multiverse update, the host of the server will bear most of the lag, while the other players lag will be dependent on how much lag the host is carrying.
so if you join a game where the host has an amazing processor, then the game will run smoothly until a certain blockcount equivalent (see my previous post above).

 

[ITR]

its not just the block count (as far as i know) but also the amount of independent moving parts. if I make a complex track system, my frames start dropping around 350 blocks, while cars for example have much less lag at this amount (with a i7-6700). Also, most of the graphical settings currently ingame can be completely done by the GPU (can be doesnt mean the devs have done that), so i think that lowering these setting barely influences cpu usage (unless, ofc you have integrated graphics).
The important question is, have the devs looked at dividing the physics calculations over the cores (multiprocessing) or not*. if they did not, everything is done by a single thread (this is as far as I know the default method). in that case looking at a modern cpu with a high frequency would perform better (even better if they can be overclocked) than a i7-hexacore at a lower frequency (as most of the cores arent used).

*looking at my core usage in msi-afterburner, I recognise that both my GPU and CPU are not using everything they have, but my frames are not solid 60. this makes me think they did not, or barely looked into multithreading/multiprocessing.

The game uses Unity which uses PhysX. From what I rememeber, part of the reason they switched over to Unity 5 was because Unity 5 switched over to using a version of PhysX that used /more multi-threading.