x850xt and bf2 results

[videoclone]

The new patch that came out fixed everything ^____^ the game runs great now hehe

 

[PerfeK]

Originally posted by: McArra
If your are using fraps that the problem. Write in the game console "renderer.drawfps 1"
Also 2Gb of RAM is the way to go with that crappy coded game.

It's not crappy coding. The textures and the maps are both huge. It requires a lot of memory and a large fram buffer. Shut the fu ck up.

 

[PerfeK]

Originally posted by: ddogg

Originally posted by: McArra
Mine is not a recommendation, since I tryed BF2 and saw that it was so poorly coded I decided not to play it again. That game is crap and expending the money for 2Gb for that stupid game is pointless IMO.

yup...dont upgrade your ram just because of one game. 1gb ram is good enough for most games.

More and more games will start to thrive on 2gb as we approach 2006.

 

[PerfeK]

Originally posted by: Randum
ugh
well I do a lot of video editing/photos anyways with dual monitors so i have a lot running, 2gb wont hurt me, i already ordered some this week to match my current pair lol. well see how it goes...just bugs me cause graphically i think hl2 is so much cleaner...and it runs no lie about 100 times better than bf2....frustration

ut2k4 still pwns so i might just play that instead lol of bfv which has gotten better...
x850xt....still a damn good card for those games!

People need to get off of HL2's nuts. BF2 has more shader calculations going on, bigger maps, more action and GPU intensive dynamic lighting.

 

[PerfeK]

Originally posted by: Randum


Thats really odd. Cause I have hl2 maxed out, (8x AF, 8xAA) and it runs great, and im pretty anal about fps.

The 2nd monitor thing--I tried that, not too much of a dif but i think il do that now out of habit when playing bf2...weird but i dont get a dif benchmarking with another vid card.

I lose 200 points in 3dmark05 with my second monitor on. 5400 -> 5200

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
there is a topic of bf2's 1gb vs 2gb. in video somewhere. search it up sometime. 2gb provides vastly improved gameplay.

edit: here it is
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1618155&enterthread=y

I am upgrading to 2GB on Monday for this silly game. I am annoyed that it has to be done!

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: mwmorph
there is a topic of bf2's 1gb vs 2gb. in video somewhere. search it up sometime. 2gb provides vastly improved gameplay.

edit: here it is
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1618155&enterthread=y

I am upgrading to 2GB on Monday for this silly game. I am annoyed that it has to be done!

THe patch fixed the ram problem ..... it was a bug the system wasnt clearing the build up memory .. but now its more LIVE and it runs great on 1 GB's

 

[Dimmu]

It's funny, b/c I have almost the same set-up as you (Randum) and I get poor frame-rates as well...I don't like it, not one bit.

 

[Randum]

Ok guys, heres my solution, disabled virus scanner and installed another gb dual channel. also i am oced at 440mhz ram speed, thats 4 sticks of pc3200. turning off the 2nd monitor doesnt hurt and its just something ill do now I guess. But the staggering is gone for the most part. I honestly think it was the extra ram that cleared it up.
I have to check on average FPS but playing last night for a few hours i noticed a fairly large difference in terms of scoping, vehicles etc. much smoother.

on a side note, i think ill jump on HL2's nuts cause i think the textures are MUCH nicer, AA x6 is sick in that game

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Randum
p4 3.0ghz OC'ed 3.3 880fsb (northwood, 478 socket)

Problem located, kekeke.

 

[Randum]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Randum
p4 3.0ghz OC'ed 3.3 880fsb (northwood, 478 socket)

Problem located, kekeke.

When viewing the benches on 3dmark, my cpu tests are not that far off any of the LGA775 chips running at the same clock speed-If not beating them, In some cases, obvioulsy due to the graphics card I will outperform them overall.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Randum

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Randum
p4 3.0ghz OC'ed 3.3 880fsb (northwood, 478 socket)

Problem located, kekeke.

When viewing the benches on 3dmark, my cpu tests are not that far off any of the LGA775 chips running at the same clock speed-If not beating them, In some cases, obvioulsy due to the graphics card I will outperform them overall.

I know bud...I was kidding, making light of all the AMD lovers (myself included) we have around here.

Hence the "kekeke".

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: mwmorph
there is a topic of bf2's 1gb vs 2gb. in video somewhere. search it up sometime. 2gb provides vastly improved gameplay.

edit: here it is
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1618155&enterthread=y

I am upgrading to 2GB on Monday for this silly game. I am annoyed that it has to be done!

THe patch fixed the ram problem ..... it was a bug the system wasnt clearing the build up memory .. but now its more LIVE and it runs great on 1 GB's

see perfek, it is crappy coding.
if infinite monkeys given infinite time could type out the entire works of shakespeare,
give me 1 semi retarderd monkey 5 minutes and we'd have better code for BF2.

 

[Randum]

QUICK TIP APerature size, decrease it if you are running at like 256, Im gonna try 128 and then drop to 64

Its my understand it works like Raid0 and the smaller chunks will yield faster performance, because its smaller data moving faster
right? someone please assure my assumption, if anyone can bench this, that would be great. The downside is obvioulsy more work. I read in tweakguides, older cards are better with larger chunks and newer cards are good iwth smaller

 

[mwmorph]

keep it a 128. too samll will decrease performance a little bit(it is used for texture buffereing when you run out of board memory) but too much will make it unstable. 64-128mb is where it should be at. generally you should keep it at 1/2 your video card memory.

 

[RussianSensation]

The Radeon X850 XT-PE is another good example of the hitching you may experience with 1GB of RAM if you run at 1600x1200 resolution. Perhaps the load at 1280x1024 4AF you are putting is pretty intense. They are also testing with an FX55. The problem is that it seems CPU speed doensn't matter in BF2 for X850XT --> See Here

Check the ram usage in the Task manager with 1 gig and with 2 gigs.

 

[Randum]

i added my addition 1gb of ram and the stuttering stopped! I dont know if its 69fps avg , but i watched its usually over 40fps and up to 70 or something, and I assume thats also taking into account the online lag, but its nice i get no jerking around, game looks a lot smoother now. thats settings high, AFx4 and 1280x1024 forced res with the startup command. RUnning trillian and xfire in the background with 2 monitors up-norton disabled.
I really think the extra gb of ram made a huge difference.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Randum
QUICK TIP APerature size, decrease it if you are running at like 256, Im gonna try 128 and then drop to 64

Its my understand it works like Raid0 and the smaller chunks will yield faster performance, because its smaller data moving faster
right? someone please assure my assumption, if anyone can bench this, that would be great. The downside is obvioulsy more work. I read in tweakguides, older cards are better with larger chunks and newer cards are good iwth smaller

You are talking drive I/O, and cluster size. While loading maps and the initial game start, RAID will let you read out the data to memory faster than a single disk. Smaller cluster sizes tend to create more processor overhead on either the computer CPU or the drive controller CPU if applicable.

Once you are loaded into a game map, your hard drive speeds will only impact if you need to access the page file. Which if you are, you need to invest in more memory as the disk systems are much slower than system memory.

 

[Randum]

I was reading the tweak guide, whats up with the shadows, NO difference between high and med? but it taxes on performance? what is going on? I was looking at screenshots and notice NOTHING.

I am convienced Bf2 needed some more time before they let it out...

 

[Auric]

Is there a 3D benchmark with selectable texture usage so as to reliably test the affect of insufficient VRAM and various AGP aperature sizes?

 

[Randum]

im begining to wonder if i have some setting off on my system to give me lower marks in 3dmark etc.

Any suggestions?

and BTW Bf2 seems to be working fine and dependent on the server I join- I can tell any stagger is server side.
ALSO interesting, the AA had no effect-it wasnt working-i have the screen res at 1280x1024 due to my LCD and some reason AA does nothing-makes sense- i might just change it so I can game on my CRT at 1024x768@4xAA

 

[Mij1124]

"Thats really odd. Cause I have hl2 maxed out, (8x AF, 8xAA) and it runs great, and im pretty anal about fps."


not that this is a big deal, but doent hl2 go up to 16x AF and only 6x AA?

 

[hootpie]

not that this is a big deal, but doent hl2 go up to 16x AF and only 6x AA?

That is correct.

 

[Auric]

I'm using 4xAA in-game (2x ain't enough!) and forcing 16xAF via drivers (ATI Tray Tools). I don't know but perhaps Catalyst A.I. must be disabled? Anyone got A.I. with AA/AF working and if so is there a performance advantage? High or Low setting?