Help on game performance?

[dr muska]

I have a fx5600 and a fx5500 they are both 128 bit and 256 mb. I run the 5600 with a 2.5 p4 and the 5500 with a 2100+ xp. Both comps have 512mb of ram. I want to know why I am laggin with 1942 arent these cards sufficient for 1942? Does service pack 2 do anything?

 

[Jeff7181]

They really aren't sufficient to have all the details cranked. BF1942 seems to need a lot more power than it's graphics would lead you to believe... I'd suggest turning down some of the details.

 

[Mattd46612]

I just got a fx5500 256mb, overclocked it nicely and it absolutely crushes my 9200se when playing hl2. And my 9200se is total crap but still can play hl2 cs:s at 40fps 800x600 high settings. Dont see how you could lag with them.... possibly connection? Improper settings? drivers? maybe try oc a little with coolbits?

 

[dr muska]

Do you think that ATI AIW 9800 pro 128mb would be able to run battlefield 2?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Mattd46612
I just got a fx5500 256mb, overclocked it nicely and it absolutely crushes my 9200se when playing hl2. And my 9200se is total crap but still can play hl2 cs:s at 40fps 800x600 high settings. Dont see how you could lag with them.... possibly connection? Improper settings? drivers? maybe try oc a little with coolbits?

Do you HAVE BF1942? It's a hog... 1 GB of RAM helps A LOT... I had a FX5900 overclocked past FX5900 Ultra speeds and I wasn't happy with the performance... wasn't with my 9800 Pro either... never got a chance to try it with my 6800GT cause I sold the game on eBay.

 

[Malak]

Yeah BF1942 is a serious hog. I ditched the game a long time ago because of that.

 

[dr muska]

Yeah I have 1942. An fx5900 cant even run 1942 beautifully?

 

[Mattd46612]

No i dont have it but was considering it in the future, might have been a dumb assumption that half life 2 was more demanding.

 

[VIAN]

Battlefield is developed by EA Games, which is the reason why the game sucks performance wise.

 

[Silversierra]

Yeah, I have 512mb of ram and a pci-e 6600gt and sometimes it lags. Get another gig of ram?

 

[christopherzombie]

I ran BF 1942 ( desertcombat) on my kid's old 1.8ghz Celeron / ti 4600. I had to play at 640x480 for anything over 60 FPS. A P4 and FX5600 should be good for 800x600 without the candy turned on.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Battlefield is developed by EA Games, which is the reason why the game sucks performance wise.

Except it runs just fine on a GF2MX and 512MB of RAM if you turn down the details and resolution (although 1GB helps, especially in games with many players). I should know; I played it like that for a good six months. It's not the best-coded game in the world, but it's far better than something like EQ2.

I *really* don't know what you folks are complaining about; a card like a 5900 or 9800Pro will basically crush this game. Will it run it at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF and everything cranked up? No. But there are few newer games you can run like that except on the very fastest cards. But it will run it well at 1600x1200, or at 1280x1024 with AA/AF.

here's some numbers from BF:V. This game is based on an extended version of the same engine and, if anything, is more demanding on your video card.

 

[Malak]

You know I noticed that, EA games generally are more demanding on hardware. But I'll be damned if I didn't like the last 4 I purchased. Go EA!

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
Yeah, I have 512mb of ram and a pci-e 6600gt and sometimes it lags. Get another gig of ram?

Get another 512 for a full gig... I saw memory usage up around 800-900 when I had the game...

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: VIAN
Battlefield is developed by EA Games, which is the reason why the game sucks performance wise.

Except it runs just fine on a GF2MX and 512MB of RAM if you turn down the details and resolution (although 1GB helps, especially in games with many players). I should know; I played it like that for a good six months. It's not the best-coded game in the world, but it's far better than something like EQ2.

I *really* don't know what you folks are complaining about; a card like a 5900 or 9800Pro will basically crush this game. Will it run it at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF and everything cranked up? No. But there are few newer games you can run like that except on the very fastest cards. But it will run it well at 1600x1200, or at 1280x1024 with AA/AF.

here's some numbers from BF:V. This game is based on an extended version of the same engine and, if anything, is more demanding on your video card.

I don't know about you... but an AVERAGE of 44 frames per second is NOT acceptable to me in a fast paced shooter like that where you have multiple enemies coming at you... you're flying around in planes and helicopters... driving Jeeps and tanks. Maybe I'm spoiled... but I can't bear to play a first person shooter when the FPS drops into the 20's on a regular basis... I'd rather not play it at all.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Mattd46612
No i dont have it but was considering it in the future, might have been a dumb assumption that half life 2 was more demanding.

Actually with DX9 features disabled, HL2 isn't all that demanding... people play it on GeForce4's and GeForce3's and even GeForce4 MX's at 1024x768. When I had my FX5900 @ FX5900 Ultra speeds I had to play BF1942 at 1024x768 with no AA and only 4XAF and it still dropped too low at times.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't know about you... but an AVERAGE of 44 frames per second is NOT acceptable to me in a fast paced shooter like that where you have multiple enemies coming at you... you're flying around in planes and helicopters... driving Jeeps and tanks. Maybe I'm spoiled... but I can't bear to play a first person shooter when the FPS drops into the 20's on a regular basis... I'd rather not play it at all.

You're spoiled... when did 40-50FPS average drop below the minimum standards for playability? Also keep in mind that those numbers were from Battlefield:Vietnam, which is more demanding than the original BF1942.

I didn't find it to lag unbearably on my GF2MX (albeit at 800x600), nor on my Ti4600 at 1024x768 noAAnoAF. I had basically stopped playing it by the time I got my 9800Pro, but I did fire it up a few times and thought it was fine at 1280x1024 with AA/AF on. YMMV if you have to have 80+FPS all the frickin' time.

Maybe I'm just less sensitive to this because I can remember playing Quake (1!) in software-accelerated mode... not pretty. Getting ~20FPS with my Voodoo hardware accelerated 3D card was a big step *up*. And a tiny bit of slowdown seems pretty trivial when you've played FPSes over a modem connection -- 200ms lag, anyone?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't know about you... but an AVERAGE of 44 frames per second is NOT acceptable to me in a fast paced shooter like that where you have multiple enemies coming at you... you're flying around in planes and helicopters... driving Jeeps and tanks. Maybe I'm spoiled... but I can't bear to play a first person shooter when the FPS drops into the 20's on a regular basis... I'd rather not play it at all.

You're spoiled... when did 40-50FPS average drop below the minimum standards for playability? Also keep in mind that those numbers were from Battlefield:Vietnam, which is more demanding than the original BF1942.

I didn't find it to lag unbearably on my GF2MX (albeit at 800x600), nor on my Ti4600 at 1024x768 noAAnoAF. I had basically stopped playing it by the time I got my 9800Pro, but I did fire it up a few times and thought it was fine at 1280x1024 with AA/AF on. YMMV if you have to have 80+FPS all the frickin' time.

When the lows and highs can vary 50%, sometimes more, from the average. I prefer my lows to never drop below 50.

 

[Silversierra]

My 6600gt only gets 50-60fps average in bf1942. I was hoping for 100+. How much will having a gig total help(vs512). Sometimes it gets down to 15-20fps, and that's at 1024x768 on max detail.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
My 6600gt only gets 50-60fps average in bf1942. I was hoping for 100+. How much will having a gig total help(vs512). Sometimes it gets down to 15-20fps, and that's at 1024x768 on max detail.

I can't say for sure how much it helps because I never played BF1942 with only 512 MB... but considering it will use 600-700 MB for the game itself, not counting what Windows needs... I think it's safe to say you'd benefit from having a full GB.

 

[VIAN]

sucks for you jeff. I can stand playing at 30fps.

 

[Silversierra]

I think it's strange that bf1942 needs so much memory. I mean the graphics aren't spectacular at all, it just seems like your average dx8 game to me. Nothing like doom3, farcry.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: VIAN
sucks for you jeff. I can stand playing at 30fps.

I can't... hence my $400 video card and the temptation to upgrade to an Athlon-64 for another 10% boost in games.

 

[TheOasis]

maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: TheOasis
maybe it has something to do with the insanly complex physics engine?

I don't know that much about the game, but it's possible. I've just decided not to buy any EA products anymore. I dislike their games and how they work (or don't work)... and I dislike them as a company. I was going to buy BF2 and end my boycott against them, but after their deal with the NFL to have exclusive rights to make NFL games... they're back at the top of my sh!t list.