xfx 7900 gtx dissapointing

[SpeedZealot369]

Why are you playing at that resolution?!? of course your bottlenecked raise the fvcking resultion hardcore, it would probably even speed up framerates since you will not be cpu bound any more.

 

[RussianSensation]

Guys a 3800+ doesn't bottleneck a 7900GTX card. Even his 3dmark 05 score increased linearly. Not only that but BF2 doesn't even care for cpu speed to begin with beyond 3000+ rating.

BF2 cpu scaling
BF2 cpu scaling at 1280x1024 4AA

Also why are you playing at 4AF? Enable 16AF. The performance hit is minimal.

Try different Nvidia drivers. If you care about BF2 performance, might want to exchange that 7900GTX card for X1900XT. Save some $ while at it.
BF2 - ATI vs. NV

To check if you are being bottlenecked by CPU, remove AA altogether try at 1280x1024. If frames rise, then you are graphics card bottlenecked.

 

[aka1nas]

No, I think that's still CPU limited. If you drop to the next resolution down, does your framerate change significantly?

Also, the newer high end cards seem to mainly show their stuff at higher resolutions than what you are running. Couple that with the fact that you already have an extremely fast card and I would be surprised that you would see much of a benefit.

 

[professor1942]

You know you've got too much money when you upgrade because of 45 fps!

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: kingdomwinds
1)yeah it is in the right slots and in dual channel. I dont think there is anything wrong with my config because in CS:S fps is high. Also 3dmark05 is in the right range at 10360. Its not that i get bad fps in bf2. On wakeisland 64 player server, I get 99fps when im standing on the ship deck with my team to the point where im riding the boat to reach the island. But when i approach the island and start to enter a firefight, fps goes to 45-60.

Interesting. Have you tried the low res/low texture detail experiment? I'm thinking you're chunking along due to texture loads. May be time to defrag/move bf2 to somewhere earlier in the disk.

Is it 45 every firefight, or just at first? If every firefight, could be smoke/shadow effects are slowing you down. Try dialing every eye candy option down, and see if any of them are the real killer or if it's still awful with everything cranked to 'ugly mode.'

2) In battlefield 2:special forces, wow fps is worse than bf2. I get like 40-60 at most on a 64 player server. You know how sucky 40fps is?

Not so sucky if everyone else is getting 5 fps. But yeah, I'm consistently getting higher than that running on a $63 piece of crap 6600 non-gt (with eye candy turned down). No slowdowns in assault choppers, jeeps or jets either. Try the low res textures, see if life improves. I'm going to blame slow disk next.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Guys a 3800+ doesn't bottleneck a 7900GTX card. Even his 3dmark 05 score increased linearly. Not only that but BF2 doesn't even care for cpu speed to begin with beyond 3000+ rating.

BF2 cpu scaling
BF2 cpu scaling at 1280x1024 4AA

Also why are you playing at 4AF? Enable 16AF. The performance hit is minimal.

Try different Nvidia drivers. If you care about BF2 performance, might want to exchange that 7900GTX card for X1900XT. Save some $ while at it.
BF2 - ATI vs. NV

To check if you are being bottlenecked by CPU, remove AA altogether try at 1280x1024. If frames rise, then you are graphics card bottlenecked.

As long as XBit used a single player game and not a pre-recorded demo to get their CPU scaling numbers in BF2, then it's accurate. If they used a pre-recorded demo then the CPU didn't utilize realtime physics + AI and the numbers are wrong. Unfortunately the Xbit article doesn't mention which method they used. Personally I have noticed a difference in BF2 going from a Winchester 3000+@2.7 GHz to an X2 4400+@2.7GHz mainly due to the X2's L2 cache. That said though, if the OP wants the best image quality AND performance in BF2, he should return the 7900 gtx and get an X1900XT instead. With my X1900XTX I game at 1680x1050 4x Adaptive Antialiasing, 16x HQ (angle independent) AF with max settings and never drop below 50 fps no matter how intense the combat gets.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is how I always understood gpu vs. cpu limitation argument since I joined the forums. 95% of all games are both gpu and cpu limited. This means that if you have P4 1.5ghz and Radeon 9700 you'll get higher framerates by upgrading the cpu to 3.0ghz and keeping a 9700 pro. If you were to upgrade 9700 to 6800GT you will also get a boost in framerates. The main question is when will you get higher framerates? Is the game more gpu or cpu limited?

With BF2, all the links I've shown so far and these Benches show that as a game itself, it's much more gpu limited.

Let's look at the benches. At first glance one might say it's cpu bottlenecked since Crossfire X1900XT gets 120.2 framerates at 1024x768 4AA/16AF and 1 X1900XTX gets 124.9fps. This would be misleading however. There is almost always a cpu limitation (ie. limiting absolute top performance ie. you could get more frames with A64 10000+). But that's not the same as saying it's CPU limited. You need to consider will you get much higher framerates with a cpu upgrade or a gpu upgrade to be able to say if it's a gpu or a cpu limitation.

At 1600x1200 4AA/16AF X1900XTX single gets 103.1 frames while Crossfire is at 111.2. Sure one might say the game is cpu limited since crossfire barely gets any boost in framerates. However, 7800GTX 256 mb gets 67.8fps. In other words, even with 2x the power of X1900XT in crossfire one cannot get much better framerates due to some limitation (perhaps cpu but most likely limitation of the game - poor coding, slow servers, etc). BF2 is a graphics card limited game. 2.6ghz 512mb A64 would put it at about 4100+ rating. But 2.6ghz over 2.4 he has is less than 10% improvement. Generally it is agreed that <=10% improvement is unnoticeable by the user if 2 systems were put side by side and the user was unaware which system had what components. Therefore, almost every single user on these forums should have been complaining that BF2 runs slow unless their cpus are above 4100+ had the game been cpu limited.

 

[smut]

thats crazy, i just benched my 7900Gt and was right below 10k, and you get a lil bit over 10k? Whassup with that?!

edit: Proc is an opty at 2.8

 

[Avalon]

A 2.4ghz A64 is NOT causing your system to be CPU limited. If that were the case, 99% of the population would be CPU limited in gaming. Your CPU is fine. I would try a couple different drivers, maybe some modded ones as well. Guru3d is a good place to look for a couple new ones. You should be seeing a noticeable difference at 12x10 in BF2 going from a 7800GTX 256 to a 7900GTX. The latter is like a 7800GTX 512 on steroids.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Guys a 3800+ doesn't bottleneck a 7900GTX card. Even his 3dmark 05 score increased linearly. Not only that but BF2 doesn't even care for cpu speed to begin with beyond 3000+ rating.

BF2 cpu scaling
BF2 cpu scaling at 1280x1024 4AA

Also why are you playing at 4AF? Enable 16AF. The performance hit is minimal.

Try different Nvidia drivers. If you care about BF2 performance, might want to exchange that 7900GTX card for X1900XT. Save some $ while at it.
BF2 - ATI vs. NV

To check if you are being bottlenecked by CPU, remove AA altogether try at 1280x1024. If frames rise, then you are graphics card bottlenecked.

As long as XBit used a single player game and not a pre-recorded demo to get their CPU scaling numbers in BF2, then it's accurate. If they used a pre-recorded demo then the CPU didn't utilize realtime physics + AI and the numbers are wrong. Unfortunately the Xbit article doesn't mention which method they used. Personally I have noticed a difference in BF2 going from a Winchester 3000+@2.7 GHz to an X2 4400+@2.7GHz mainly due to the X2's L2 cache. That said though, if the OP wants the best image quality AND performance in BF2, he should return the 7900 gtx and get an X1900XT instead. With my X1900XTX I game at 1680x1050 4x Adaptive Antialiasing, 16x HQ (angle independent) AF with max settings and never drop below 50 fps no matter how intense the combat gets.

I wouldnt do that unless he wants blocky shadows in bf2.
7900gtx looks alittle better then the x1900xt. i should know. i owned both and saw the differnce.

Guess ATI has there new AEG lol.

 

[obeseotron]

There is a very, very easy way to determine if you are cpu limited or gpu limited. Drop the CPU to 10X and run it at 2.0Ghz. Does it slow down roughly 17%? Then try the same thing underclocking your gpu and vid mem speeds by 16.7% with the cpu back at normal. Whichever one hurts your framerate more is the limiting factor.

 

[imported_Sigma]

I was gonna upgrade for BF2 also.

I run at 1280x960 2xaa 4xaf with most settings at medium with an average framerate in the 80's and I still get drops down into the 40's during heavy fighting. The worst map for me is Sharqi Peninsula around the construction site. It is so damn bad sometimes that you can barely run up the stairs without flying off the side of the building. I play mostly infantry so the framerate fluctuations are a lot more noticeable than if I were in a vehicle.

One thing I've noticed can annihalate your framerate is when a helo flys overhead and the dynamic shadows from the rotor blades are cast in your FOV. This makes the game feel like your in quicksand even if the framerate counter is showing an ok number. I've turned shadows off and it does help. Problem is the game looks a little weird with no shadows on.


Framerates in the 40's on BF2 feel a lot clunkier than that same framerate would in a lot of other games.

These review sites crack me up saying you can run BF2 at 1600x1200 4xAA 16AF all settings maxed. Yeah sure you can if you dont mind your framerate dropping into the 30's when it matters most. I think a lot of these sites must be testing these cards in the 16 player single player game.

I guess I should give the ATI cards a look since BF2 is my main game and I play a couple of hours a day. I'm not looking for FPS on the top end I just want my minimums to come up into the mid 60s.

3700+ San Diego@2500 10x250
EVGA NF41 SLI
7800GT @ 445 1070
2 Gig Corsair Valuselect.

 

[moonboy403]

if you're looking at higher minimum framerates, then going sli would benefit you the most, or even crossfire

but given that you already have a 7800 gt, then goin 7800 gt sli makes a lot of sense

or if you can step up to a 7900 gt, do so and get another for sli

 

[FckExtreme]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
What's wrong with getting 45~ FPS in firefights? Do you really demand a constant 60 FPS+ all the time?

who the fck pays a 550 dollar vid card and want to get 45 fps?.. any 1? come on some 1 raise their hands?

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
That CPU is WAY bottlenecking.
.

Bullsh!t. Tests over at FiringSquad show that as long as you have a latest gen CPU you are not CPU limited in modern games (they even tested FEAR). Besides, a 3800+ is about as high as you can go without buying a completely ridiculously-priced CPU like an FX or a higher-speed X2 which are also overpriced compared to the X2 3800+ or the Venice/SanDiego up to 3800+. In other words, since he already has a 3800+, he would see little improvement from an FX57 or FX60.

IF he were on a Venice 3000+ and went to an FX60, SURE of COURSE then he'd seem SOME improvement. But to tell someone who already owns a pretty high end consumer CPU that he's CPU-limited is rubbish.

I guarantee you going SLI would net him more FPS improvement than any current processor upgrade would.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: FckExtreme

Originally posted by: Extelleron
What's wrong with getting 45~ FPS in firefights? Do you really demand a constant 60 FPS+ all the time?

who the fck pays a 550 dollar vid card and want to get 45 fps?.. any 1? come on some 1 raise their hands?

What's wrong with 45FPS? Anything above 30FPS is smooth to me, and anything 40+ is perfect.

 

[FckExtreme]

Originally posted by: chilled
I really think it's because you're CPU limited...

I don't think so... 2.4 ghz is quite enough and is giving him very high 05 marks, thaz more than enough to handle a 1 1/2 year old game.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: FckExtreme

Originally posted by: chilled
I really think it's because you're CPU limited...

I don't think so... 2.4 ghz is quite enough and is giving him very high 05 marks, thaz more than enough to handle a 1 1/2 year old game.

Ummmm....... BF2 came out in June 2005. It's around 9 months old, not 1 1/2.

 

[moonboy403]

Originally posted by: FckExtreme

Originally posted by: Extelleron
What's wrong with getting 45~ FPS in firefights? Do you really demand a constant 60 FPS+ all the time?

who the fck pays a 550 dollar vid card and want to get 45 fps?.. any 1? come on some 1 raise their hands?

i can understand the pain, when i had my 7800 gt sli

i once encountered single digit framerate on one occasion :|

so it does happen even on high end stuff, but 45fps seems pretty reasonable to me

 

[moonboy403]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: compgeek89
That CPU is WAY bottlenecking.
.

Bullsh!t. Tests over at FiringSquad show that as long as you have a latest gen CPU you are not CPU limited in modern games (they even tested FEAR). Besides, a 3800+ is about as high as you can go without buying a completely ridiculously-priced CPU like an FX or a higher-speed X2 which are also overpriced compared to the X2 3800+ or the Venice/SanDiego up to 3800+. In other words, since he already has a 3800+, he would see little improvement from an FX57 or FX60.

IF he were on a Venice 3000+ and went to an FX60, SURE of COURSE then he'd seem SOME improvement. But to tell someone who already owns a pretty high end consumer CPU that he's CPU-limited is rubbish.

I guarantee you going SLI would net him more FPS improvement than any current processor upgrade would.

that's the reason why people love ocing so much
*hugs my a64 3000+*

people with opties are getting ridiculous oc also and they're not pay for much either

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Guys a 3800+ doesn't bottleneck a 7900GTX card. Even his 3dmark 05 score increased linearly. Not only that but BF2 doesn't even care for cpu speed to begin with beyond 3000+ rating.

BF2 cpu scaling
BF2 cpu scaling at 1280x1024 4AA

Also why are you playing at 4AF? Enable 16AF. The performance hit is minimal.

Try different Nvidia drivers. If you care about BF2 performance, might want to exchange that 7900GTX card for X1900XT. Save some $ while at it.
BF2 - ATI vs. NV

To check if you are being bottlenecked by CPU, remove AA altogether try at 1280x1024. If frames rise, then you are graphics card bottlenecked.

As long as XBit used a single player game and not a pre-recorded demo to get their CPU scaling numbers in BF2, then it's accurate. If they used a pre-recorded demo then the CPU didn't utilize realtime physics + AI and the numbers are wrong. Unfortunately the Xbit article doesn't mention which method they used. Personally I have noticed a difference in BF2 going from a Winchester 3000+@2.7 GHz to an X2 4400+@2.7GHz mainly due to the X2's L2 cache. That said though, if the OP wants the best image quality AND performance in BF2, he should return the 7900 gtx and get an X1900XT instead. With my X1900XTX I game at 1680x1050 4x Adaptive Antialiasing, 16x HQ (angle independent) AF with max settings and never drop below 50 fps no matter how intense the combat gets.

I wouldnt do that unless he wants blocky shadows in bf2.
7900gtx looks alittle better then the x1900xt. i should know. i owned both and saw the differnce.

Guess ATI has there new AEG lol.

Blocky shadows happens on both cards due to the game. :roll:

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56211&highlight=blocky+shadows
http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60810&highlight=blocky+shadows

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: moonboy403
that's the reason why people love ocing so much
*hugs my a64 3000+*

people with opties are getting ridiculous oc also and they're not pay for much either

Exactly why I'm running my 3200+ at 3800+ speeds.

 

[Madellga]

Waste of money. At 1280x1024, a 7800GT is enough.

Upgrade is worth only if you are running 1600x1200 or more.

I normally have slowdowns in WoW despite my good hardware. WoW is not demanding on hardware, but you get the game jerking when too much players are in the same place.

I would risk saying the issue with BF2 is similar, the problem is on the server side, not your side.

 

[CKXP]

Originally posted by: Madellga
Waste of money. At 1280x1024, a 7800GT is enough.

Upgrade is worth only if you are running 1600x1200 or more.

I normally have slowdowns in WoW despite my good hardware. WoW is not demanding on hardware, but you get the game jerking when too much players are in the same place.

I would risk saying the issue with BF2 is similar, the problem is on the server side, not your side.

 

[kingdomwinds]

dang so i should return this 7900 gtx and get a x1900xt? The reason i went with the 7900 GTX is because lower noise and heat and the benchmarks were pretty similar. I heard that the x1900xt has issues with noise and heat. Also heard that ati drivers are crap. But would going to a x1900xt show dramatic improvement?