Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

128Mb AGP + BF2 = bad

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 2, 2006 6:56:29 AM

OK, I messed up pretty badly when I bought my graphics card a couple of years ago... I got a Asus V9999. Looked pretty good since it's essentially a 6800GT but with just 128mb of memory (and who's gonna need more than that, I mean seriously...) :roll:

Worked a dream for me :D  ... Until BF2 came out... I've come to the conclusion that the bottleneck in my system is the video memory. Here's my specs, lets see if you agree:

Athlon64 3400+
MSI K8N-Neo Platium (AGP)
2Gb G.Skill DDR400 2-3-2-5
Asus V9999 (essentially a 6800GT except with only 128mb memory...)
Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
250Gb WD SATA

In BF2 I average about 20-25 frames on the 64 player version of Sharqi. I'm running 1024x768 with geometry and dynamic lighting on high, view distance max, everything else (including textures) on low. If I go to a 32 player map things get a lot better, typically averaging 50 frames

You can see the rest of my system specs are pretty good for this game, and I hear of plenty of people with 6800GTs playing with maxxed graphics, so I can only assume that the video memory is the killer here...?

Here are my questions:
1) Am I correct that video memory is my bottleneck? If not, what?
2) If yes, sticking with AGP and upgrading to a 6800GS or 7800GS would be cheap, but will I notice enough difference?
3) Would I be better off replacing mobo with a PCI-E variant and getting a 7800GT or 7900GT? Is 7900GT overkill for the rest of my system (and wallet?)

More about : 128mb agp bf2 bad

May 2, 2006 8:01:04 AM

Lower your textures from high to medium in BF2. It should do the trick.
I have 2 systems with 2 cards: A GF6800 128, GF6800GS 256.

People often overestimate the importance of RAM on the graphics card.
I know someone that bought the GF FX 5600 256 MB card which can't run oblivion at anything decent when my Gf6800 128mb can run it quite nicely. He was bragging about his 256 megs for a long time, but without pipelines shaders and without a 256bit bus his 256mb card is as good as memory stick without a USB slot.

I do agree however that 6800s should all have 256mb of ram, it kinda ruins the picture when you have to lower your textures when the card has the bus speed to easily handle 256mb.

PS: I only noticed serious problems in BF2. I HAD TO lower my textures to medium. Other games work fine. For now.

Cheers,
Gabor
May 2, 2006 11:45:37 AM

Quote:
Lower your textures from high to medium in BF2. It should do the trick.
I have 2 systems with 2 cards: A GF6800 128, GF6800GS 256.

People often overestimate the importance of RAM on the graphics card.
I know someone that bought the GF FX 5600 256 MB card which can't run oblivion at anything decent when my Gf6800 128mb can run it quite nicely. He was bragging about his 256 megs for a long time, but without pipelines shaders and without a 256bit bus his 256mb card is as good as memory stick without a USB slot.

I do agree however that 6800s should all have 256mb of ram, it kinda ruins the picture when you have to lower your textures when the card has the bus speed to easily handle 256mb.

PS: I only noticed serious problems in BF2. I HAD TO lower my textures to medium. Other games work fine. For now.

Cheers,
Gabor


Textures are *already* on low, as per original post. As far as I can see in my specs, the only weak spot is the video memory :/ 
Related resources
May 2, 2006 11:56:27 AM

What size have you got your AGP aperture size set to in the bios? If you have it set to anything less than 128meg then you need to raise it. I have a 128meg 5700 and on high detail @ 1024 my video memory is 100% used and my 128meg agp aperture is down to about 20 meg. I suggest you raise it to 256meg it should make a difference.
May 2, 2006 12:55:17 PM

Quote:
What size have you got your AGP aperture size set to in the bios? If you have it set to anything less than 128meg then you need to raise it. I have a 128meg 5700 and on high detail @ 1024 my video memory is 100% used and my 128meg agp aperture is down to about 20 meg. I suggest you raise it to 256meg it should make a difference.


Already on 256Mb aperture, unfortunately.

How can I observe the usage of my video memory?
May 2, 2006 1:04:39 PM

Hmm, just noticed in driver tool that my GPU clock speed and memory default to 350Mhz and 700Mhz (currently OC'ed to 369Mhz and 739Mhz)

700Mhz is slower than you'd expect from 6800GT... So not only is it a short memory version, but very slow memory to boot :/  (in the VGA roundup it shows 6800Gt with 1000Mhz memory) Perhaps this combo explains it?

Any way I can confirm that the GFX is my bottleneck?
May 2, 2006 2:53:45 PM

1. In AGP, A 6800 GS is a BIG DOWNGRADE form a 6800 GT
The PCI express 6800 GS is a different card and is slightly superior to the 6800 GT, but in AGP this is not the case. AGP 6800 GS's are actually rebranded 6800's.

2. More video memory does not usually = more performance. This is a common misconception.
It is true in certain cases more memory can speed up performance a bit, and that if you're running with a higher texture-set than your card can handle you'd see a performance downgrade. But if you've set your textures low this isn't your problem.


Chances are something else is bottlenecking your system. What is your CPU? What res are you running? How much RAM do you have?
May 2, 2006 3:45:51 PM

Your system should be able to run BF2 on a 64 player map at 1024x768 with all settings on medium.

My ATI 9800 AIW 128MB did.

a 7800GS will allow you to run everything on high if you wanted too.
May 2, 2006 3:56:01 PM

Quote:

Here are my questions:
1) Am I correct that video memory is my bottleneck? If not, what?
2) If yes, sticking with AGP and upgrading to a 6800GS or 7800GS would be cheap, but will I notice enough difference?
3) Would I be better off replacing mobo with a PCI-E variant and getting a 7800GT or 7900GT? Is 7900GT overkill for the rest of my system (and wallet?)


1) Maybe you need to reinstall windows. Check things like DX version also maybe you have a debug version. The best thing to do is to run 3dMark 2005. Mine does 4800 marks I think on v1.0 with my athlon 64 3500+ and cheap AGP 6800 128MB o/c (GPU350mhz, mem 785mhz) and GT pipes enabled. My 6800GS PCI-E gets around 6000 marks without O/C

2) 7900GT is by far the best option, if you can afford it. If you play oblivion a lot then get one. BF2 is no reason to upgrade :lol: 
THE only reason i havent yet bought 7900 is DX10 is around the corner.

3) 7800GS would be maybe your best intermediate option. It should sort all lag out.

AH and most importantly. Check if you have a real GT card. One can flash the bios and it will say GT even if it isn't. Sound like you have a plain 6800 128mb non GT. The only way to make sure would be to check how many vertex (GT 6 vs Plain 5) or pixel shaders it has. You can use a tool called rivatuner for that.

Cheers,
Gabor
May 3, 2006 12:00:15 AM

Quote:
Chances are something else is bottlenecking your system. What is your CPU? What res are you running? How much RAM do you have?


Dude, thanks for your help, but the answers to ALL those questions are in my original post... Have another read, and if you can see potential for bottleneck in any of them let me know, thanks.
May 3, 2006 12:06:05 AM

Quote:
I would try googlin the Creative X-Fi & BF2.
I was going to get one as BF2 is one of the only games that supports it's "XRAM" thingie.

You'll find a post going over 90 pages relating to it's performance hit on BF2
http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=soundblaster&message.id=32566


Well, I've noticed a tiny performance *improvement* since I got mine (was running on low sound with AC'97, now I'm on extra high with the X-Fi and it still seems slightly faster (and far better sound.) Perhaps this is because I went straight for the latest drivers, and uninstalled and disabled the on-board sound. I'm also not using one of the 'XRAM' models, so perhaps thats an alternate explanation.

Either way, I had issues even with 'low' sound prior to the X-Fi, so this definately isn't my problem.
May 3, 2006 12:07:37 AM

Quote:
Your system should be able to run BF2 on a 64 player map at 1024x768 with all settings on medium.

My ATI 9800 AIW 128MB did.

a 7800GS will allow you to run everything on high if you wanted too.


Haha, I know it *should*, that's why I'm here :lol: 
May 3, 2006 12:23:41 AM

Quote:

Here are my questions:
1) Am I correct that video memory is my bottleneck? If not, what?
2) If yes, sticking with AGP and upgrading to a 6800GS or 7800GS would be cheap, but will I notice enough difference?
3) Would I be better off replacing mobo with a PCI-E variant and getting a 7800GT or 7900GT? Is 7900GT overkill for the rest of my system (and wallet?)


1) Maybe you need to reinstall windows. Check things like DX version also maybe you have a debug version. The best thing to do is to run 3dMark 2005. Mine does 4800 marks I think on v1.0 with my athlon 64 3500+ and cheap AGP 6800 128MB o/c (GPU350mhz, mem 785mhz) and GT pipes enabled. My 6800GS PCI-E gets around 6000 marks without O/C

2) 7900GT is by far the best option, if you can afford it. If you play oblivion a lot then get one. BF2 is no reason to upgrade :lol: 
THE only reason i havent yet bought 7900 is DX10 is around the corner.

3) 7800GS would be maybe your best intermediate option. It should sort all lag out.

AH and most importantly. Check if you have a real GT card. One can flash the bios and it will say GT even if it isn't. Sound like you have a plain 6800 128mb non GT. The only way to make sure would be to check how many vertex (GT 6 vs Plain 5) or pixel shaders it has. You can use a tool called rivatuner for that.

Cheers,
Gabor

OK, this is more like it.

1) OK, I guess a reinstall is overdue anyway... I will try this before I spend more money. Let's see how BF2 runs with a clean installation with Windows, drivers, DX, BF2 only. Will let you know how I go.

2) Yeah... DX10 is still a while away though, right? As I understand it it won't appear on XP at all?

3) 7800GS AGP, PCI-E or either?

I'll check with rivatuner for the details... The memory is nerfed, but I think it really is a GT core though, going by the OEM specs here: http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=25... (note my card is the 128mb variant on this page, with the 350mhz / 700Mhz clocks)
a c 363 U Graphics card
May 3, 2006 1:02:01 AM

Don't feel too bad.

Just recently I responded to someone's post over at forumplanet that he just wasted his money buying Oblivion. He thought that his laptop's Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 was powerful enough to run the game.

D'oh!!!
May 3, 2006 1:17:27 AM

Try lowering your dynamic lighting to low or off. Lower tertures to medium and back off your viewing distance a bit. See if this makes any difference.
May 3, 2006 1:19:51 AM

Quote:
Don't feel too bad.

Just recently I responded to someone's post over at forumplanet that he just wasted his money buying Oblivion. He thought that his laptop's Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 was powerful enough to run the game.

D'oh!!!


Lol. It's ok, you win some, you lose some. I want to make sure I get things right this time though, with minimum outlay. Main part of that for me is confirming why my current spec isn't adequate.

I THINK it's the GFX card, but I'm just not sure enough to shell out the megabucks yet, given that if I'm wrong the improvement will be very small indeed :( 
May 3, 2006 1:27:22 AM

Quote:
Try lowering your dynamic lighting to low or off. Lower tertures to medium and back off your viewing distance a bit. See if this makes any difference.


My current settings are what I consider to be the 'minimum playable' at competition level. If I can't get these with my current hardware I need to upgrade - dynamic lighting is required to pick out targets at a distance (muzzle flash). Max viewing distance is essential. Textures are already on LOW (see original post.)

The kicker for me, is that with a 6800GT (256mb), most people report playing on high detail settings with no problems, but my settings are closer to low. Since the rest of my system appears to be specced nicely (see original post) then all I can see as a source of the problem is my under specced 6800GT (only 128mb, memory clocks look slow for a GT.)

I'm gonna do a Windows reinstall, in case something is messed up there. If that doesn't help, I'm going to see how far I can overclock the memory... If that doesn't help it's upgrade time. PCI-E 7800 / 7900 and bye bye wallet.
May 3, 2006 2:03:11 AM

Umm, I looked up this card on the net in a short Google search, and I found this. ASUS V9999

It seems your card is the toned down version of the other v9999's. There also exists cards like the v9999 Ultra (here) and the v9999 Gamer's Edition (here)

Anywho, the sites say that even the Ultra and GE cards have only 12 pipelines activated, compared to the 16 on any 6800GT.
May 3, 2006 2:22:02 AM

Quote:
Umm, I looked up this card on the net in a short Google search, and I found this. ASUS V9999

It seems your card is the toned down version of the other v9999's. There also exists cards like the v9999 Ultra (here) and the v9999 Gamer's Edition (here)

Anywho, the sites say that even the Ultra and GE cards have only 12 pipelines activated, compared to the 16 on any 6800GT.


Yeah... It's badged as a GT... But it doesn't seem to be specced as one :/  I think Asus marketing is full of it, basically. I don't think I'll buy Asus again. It did seem a little too good to be true at the time, thought I'd found a genuine bargain. Did me well for a while though, 100+ FPS out of DC etc.

So...

If my card is effectively a 6800 vanilla, 128mb, 12 pipes... Does that explain my performance issues? Is it reasonable for me to assume with confidence, that THIS is my bottleneck? If so I'll stop messing around, write it off as a loss, curse Asus :wink: and upgrade.
May 3, 2006 2:27:28 AM

I havent read any of the replies to this thread, because there's no need to.

I ran a 3000+ socket-A, with a 9800 non Pro @ 1280x960/medium textures/ and 2x AA with no problems.....all over 30+FPS.

Overclocked everything.

If that isnt the bare minimum requirement for enjoying this game, then I dont know what is.
May 3, 2006 2:45:42 AM

Quote:
I havent read any of the replies to this thread, because there's no need to.

I ran a 3000+ socket-A, with a 9800 non Pro @ 1280x960/medium textures/ and 2x AA with no problems.....all over 30+FPS.

Overclocked everything.

If that isnt the bare minimum requirement for enjoying this game, then I dont know what is.


Dude, no offense, but you post is worthless. I don't know why you feel you don't need skim the thread first, when others did.

If you gave an adequate comparison of a (nerfed) NVIDIA 6800GT 128Mb, and a ATI 9800 then your post *might* have some small value.

A standard ATI 9800 comes up in most benchmarks as inferior to a vanilla NIVIDIA 6800 (not even a GT.) So if you are suggesting that I get a 9800, then you are suggesting a DOWNGRADE.

30+ FPS is not good enough unless you mean that is your MINIMUM FPS under worst conditions, but you've given no indication of whether this is your min or avg FPS.

I *know* there's something up with my system. This thread is about finding out where. My original assumption was purely video memory. The discussion has gone a little further. You'd know that if you had read on a little.
May 3, 2006 3:04:14 AM

Quote:
I havent read any of the replies to this thread, because there's no need to.

I ran a 3000+ socket-A, with a 9800 non Pro @ 1280x960/medium textures/ and 2x AA with no problems.....all over 30+FPS.

Overclocked everything.

If that isnt the bare minimum requirement for enjoying this game, then I dont know what is.


Dude, no offense, but you post is worthless.
Dude, no offence, but you're a fucking moron for not understanding the basics of computer hardware and in-game graphics settings.

I wasnt recommending a 9800 to you, I was simply stating that an inferior system to your own can play the game well, at an enjoyable framerate/graphics setting.

Perhaps you should pick up remote control airplanes as a hobby, I hear they're becoming quite popular.

Fucking fuck :roll:
May 3, 2006 3:17:38 AM

Quote:
I havent read any of the replies to this thread, because there's no need to.

I ran a 3000+ socket-A, with a 9800 non Pro @ 1280x960/medium textures/ and 2x AA with no problems.....all over 30+FPS.

Overclocked everything.

If that isnt the bare minimum requirement for enjoying this game, then I dont know what is.


Dude, no offense, but you post is worthless.
Dude, no offence, but you're a ****** moron for not understanding the basics of computer hardware and in-game graphics settings.

I wasnt recommending a 9800 to you, I was simply stating that an inferior system to your own can play the game well, at an enjoyable framerate/graphics setting.

Perhaps you should pick up remote control airplanes as a hobby, I hear they're becoming quite popular.

****** **** :roll:

lol, mate, didn't mean to cause that reaction, I apologise. I just wish you'd read more of the thread before you posted. You see, your post didn't give any information that hadn't already been said.

As you say, on paper at least my hardware appears superior. I'm also running at significantly lower in game settings than you. So there's my problem... Do you still get 30+ minimum FPS on 64 player maps?

I'm trying to get advice on what might be the problem... I'm having to use settings way below what my hardware *should* be capable of. Right now it's looking like the GFX card is significantly inferior to what it was badged at, or perhaps I've just got a messed up windows install (which seems unlikely to me - I keep it clean, I'm a senior support tech at Microsoft (sorry) so I DO know what I'm doing on the OS / software side of things (but weak on hardware.))

I think I'd crash the airplanes. :wink:

Any advice on how I can isolate the bottleneck is greatly appreciated...
May 3, 2006 3:29:49 AM

Quote:
[ Do you still get 30+ minimum FPS on 64 player maps?


64 player maps are online gameplay, and online gameplay is the easiest for your card to render(the server you play on serves the task of donating CPU cycles freeing up your own computer).

Are you sure you're not simply experiencing lag?......what are your pings?......how fast is your internet connection?
May 3, 2006 3:30:46 AM

**edit**

Double fucking post :roll:
May 3, 2006 3:41:04 AM

Quote:
[ Do you still get 30+ minimum FPS on 64 player maps?


64 player maps are online gameplay, and online gameplay is the easiest for your card to render(the server you play on serves the task of donating CPU cycles freeing up your own computer).

Are you sure you're not simply experiencing lag?......what are your pings?......how fast is your internet connection?

Internet connection is ADSL 1.5mbps up 256kbps down. [edit] doh, thats 1.5mbps down, 256kbps up :lol:  [/edit]
Pings around 30 to 70 depending on the specific server. Spikes are rare.
All my gameplay is online.
I'm using FRAPs to watch the FPS.
BF2 is set to cable/adsl connection speed (only other choice is LAN.)

If the server itself is laggy / overloaded, can that affect my local frame rate? I know if the server is laggy you can expect to see skipping etc. of objects in the game world, but the frame rate itself should be unaffected... Am I correct or wrong on that?

I do find it markedly better on 32player maps/servers, with 50+ FPS. I could test with 64 bots on a 64 player map (you can trick the game into doing this) and would expect to see much worse performance, but if it came out better then I'd know to examine my net connection.

Does the game run fine for you on 64 player? Or have you only played it single player?
May 3, 2006 4:14:14 AM

Hey Dog,

I've got the plain vanilla 6800(XFX brand) and the thing pretty much cant handle the game on high. I've had to tweak the settings till i found a good mix. I have most set on low. Here's my setup.
Med
Med
Low<--Geometry*VERY IMPORTANT* If this is higher than low game Freezes (for me anyway)
Med
Low
Off
Off
AAX2
Low
Off

It's a shame that i have to play this low. I turned everything to low just to see and it's ugly. Maybe you can try the above settings.

Just make sure to exit out of that nvidia program that runs in the tray. Make sure your graphics card's AA is set to Application controlled, and Turn OFF AF (asentrophic filtering <--sp?) I messed with those things for a bit and it would Crash Instantly.

p.s. I'm running:
P4 3.2 gHz w/HT, 2.0 Gigs Ram (Hyper-X) and 6800 plain

You think that's bad, i used to have a 5700 LE. Bleach....
May 3, 2006 4:31:15 AM

Quote:
Hey Dog,

I've got the plain vanilla 6800(XFX brand) and the thing pretty much cant handle the game on high. I've had to tweak the settings till i found a good mix. I have most set on low. Here's my setup.
Med
Med
Low<--Geometry*VERY IMPORTANT* If this is higher than low game Freezes (for me anyway)
Med
Low
Off
Off
AAX2
Low
Off

It's a shame that i have to play this low. I turned everything to low just to see and it's ugly. Maybe you can try the above settings.

Just make sure to exit out of that nvidia program that runs in the tray. Make sure your graphics card's AA is set to Application controlled, and Turn OFF AF (asentrophic filtering <--sp?) I messed with those things for a bit and it would Crash Instantly.

p.s. I'm running:
P4 3.2 gHz w/HT, 2.0 Gigs Ram (Hyper-X) and 6800 plain

You think that's bad, i used to have a 5700 LE. Bleach....


Thanks Squeal. It's nice (sorry :wink: ) to see you are having performance issues too. Perhaps this game just doesn't run well with the low specced editions of the 6800...? Radeon 9800 people are saying it's ok for them, and in most benchmarks it comes out under a stock 6800, but then I haven't seen any comparison charts with BF2.

I've already got AA app controlled and OFF in BF2. I'll check Ansitropic Filtering when I'm at home. I think it's off already though. Yes, I do kill off the tray apps.

BTW, I haven't been getting any of the freezes you describe, I think you may have a hardware issue there. RE: the BF2 geometry setting - I've found that changing this setting between low/med has very little effect on my frame rate, so I left it on med as it looks far better. I can run it on high though, without issues, but with a marginal performance hit.

Also, a tip for you - if you turn off AA then you should be able to turn some of your other settings up a bit. I think AA is not worth it in this case.

One of the big hassles with optimising BF2 is that there isn't an easy way to compare your changes, since there isn't a rolling demo you can launch up and benchmark (that I'm aware of) :/  I'm not sure if changing geometry from high to med has any effect at all. I think it does but its too close to be confident and comparisons are in a live server...
May 3, 2006 4:40:11 AM

Oooh, regarding that last little comment of mine... Look what I just found...
http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384179

Tools to record a demo script for camera movement in a battlerecorder file, and then to run a timedemo onto it...

Now I can benchmark config changes properly. With a few hours work (ouch) I should be able to quantify the effect of various config changes, and hopefully from that imply whether the bottleneck is GFX, CPU, net, or something else... Or at least, that's the theory...
May 3, 2006 5:45:26 AM



Unfortunately I've been through this guide already. It helped a little, but I'm still not getting the performance I'd expect from my specs. There are certainly some nice tips in there though.



Cool, this is a updated version of the demo tools I just linked to, with a sample benchmark demo already included. I'll take a look at this in more detail when I'm at home. Nice find, thanks.

edit: fixed quotes
May 3, 2006 6:48:51 AM

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Very much so. The 7900 would be overkill on your wallet.
May 3, 2006 9:19:04 AM

Hi,

Answers to your question regarding my post:

2) 7800GS AGP should be the cheapest safest intermediate upgrade that would pretty much guarantee major results.

3) 7900GT PCI-E would be real nice to have if you can get it cheap. It will run anything pretty well.

You would pay a big premium for option 3 because of the need to change motherboard and perhaps your cpu has the wrong pincount aswell which you must check. If you can source a 7800GS for cheap, I recon buy it. In my country they cost more than the 7900GT for some reason, probably because they are rare. It's the best card there is for AGP and will keep you going for another year or two.

Btw, What is your 3dmark 2005 score? Check version of 3dmark aswell. 1.2 is latest.

Gabor
May 3, 2006 9:34:31 AM

Quote:
Hi,

Answers to your question regarding my post:

2) 7800GS AGP should be the cheapest safest intermediate upgrade that would pretty much guarantee major results.

3) 7900GT PCI-E would be real nice to have if you can get it cheap. It will run anything pretty well.

You would pay a big premium for option 3 because of the need to change motherboard and perhaps your cpu has the wrong pincount aswell which you must check. If you can source a 7800GS for cheap, I recon buy it. In my country they cost more than the 7900GT for some reason, probably because they are rare. It's the best card there is for AGP and will keep you going for another year or two.

Btw, What is your 3dmark 2005 score? Check version of 3dmark aswell. 1.2 is latest.

Gabor


Yeah, 7800 series AGP seems more expensive than 7900 series PCI-E here too... Cost of a 754pin PCI-E capable motherboard is a bit more than the difference, but not all that much more... Another plus for that option is that it means that I've later go the option to SLI, or upgrade CPU without obseleting a 7800 series AGP card.
May 4, 2006 1:39:00 AM

No way! I switched the 6800 out with the 5700/out AA and i've decided that i will never play BF2 w/out AA. That's where the Bleach comes from. Sorry my info didn't help Embarassed but fyi, i will experience a freeze on Gulf of Oman, almost everytime. All others seem to run fine with the crappy settings you read about above. Good Luck and if you ever go to the 24/7 Kaboom maps, look for me: GAr Drudown
May 4, 2006 2:18:04 AM

Ok, I did a bit of research on BF2 and general system specs - Gamespot did a moderately complete comparison (not everything is very well compared) but there were some important conclusions that were well illustrated - two things that affect the performance of BF2 most drastically are dynamic lighting and shadows. Even the most steroid-enhanced PC drops framrate by 30% when these two settings are maxed. You could set everything else on med or high and turn these down and you would probably see an improvement in framerate They do a marginal job comparing settings and resolution effects on framerate for a small variety of cards. Link is here: Gamespot BF2 Hardware Guide

The game is definitely not CPU bottlenecked. I'd say the primary culprit is the video card. I have a 7800GT-256 and it works pretty good - never clocked the frames tho - i'll have to give that a try and see what I get.
Unfortunately with AGP you won't find an inexpensive solution as the only AGP card worth the upgrade would be the 7800GS wich is still 300 bucks.

My $.02

J. Keller
May 4, 2006 3:42:23 AM

Google video memory watcher or vidmem watcher or something to that extent and download the prog. Then all you have to do is run it while your playin a game or 3d marking and it will show a graph of your video memory.
May 16, 2006 2:31:33 AM

Hi, thanks for those that gave advice.

I eventually bought a Xpertvision 7900GT 512Mb (550/1400 1.2ns.) Xpertvision don't have much reputation, but Gainward do, and it's been demonstrated to my statisfaction in forums here in australia that they are literally the same card, from the same factory, just with a different sticker. I replaced the motherboard with a cheap Foxconn NF4K8AB-6LRS (cost about 30USD) which is pretty bad, but will keep me going while I wait for socket AM2.

Performace issues were DEFINATELY gfx - I'm now running BF2 on 1600x1200 with all settings maxxed and 4xAA. Frame rate varies around 50-100fps depending on what is going on. Worst I've seen it is 40fps. But more to the point, it feels a LOT smoother, no jerking.

CPU is most definately now my bottleneck. ;) 
May 16, 2006 3:23:40 AM

Quote:
Hi, thanks for those that gave advice.

I eventually bought a Xpertvision 7900GT 512Mb (550/1400 1.2ns.) Xpertvision don't have much reputation, but Gainward do, and it's been demonstrated to my statisfaction in forums here in australia that they are literally the same card, from the same factory, just with a different sticker. I replaced the motherboard with a cheap Foxconn NF4K8AB-6LRS (cost about 30USD) which is pretty bad, but will keep me going while I wait for socket AM2.

Performace issues were DEFINATELY gfx - I'm now running BF2 on 1600x1200 with all settings maxxed and 4xAA. Frame rate varies around 50-100fps depending on what is going on. Worst I've seen it is 40fps. But more to the point, it feels a LOT smoother, no jerking.

CPU is most definately now my bottleneck. ;) 



hmm all that pickering and Then u buy a new card

seems like a bad thread to me, all this help and u end up buying a new card


mehh i least u tryed .........
May 16, 2006 4:25:56 AM

Quote:

hmm all that pickering and Then u buy a new card

seems like a bad thread to me, all this help and u end up buying a new card


mehh i least u tryed .........


lol, dude, I opened the thread to try to confirm if the card was the problem. It turned out it was, so I upgraded. I did all the tips, even did a new install of windows. They helped a little but performance just wasn't consistent enough. The info here helped me to confirm where the bottleneck was.

From my point of view, this was a good thread - gave me all the info I needed. Thanks to all those that helped.
May 16, 2006 5:18:59 AM

-waste



:/ 


and u play BF2, u know the hardware recommendations

Recommended Specification:
CPU: 2.4 Ghz
RAM: 1 Gb
Video Card with at least 256 Mb of RAM <----- u should of looked into that

since u have .. my bad "had" a videocard with 128mb of memory its going to have a hard time loading all the textures

a plain 6800 is about the same as a 6600gt

but i guess you didnt know any of that



but hey u got a new card so u have no worries.....






my name is one_conz , see u in the battlefield :D 
May 16, 2006 5:38:23 AM

Quote:
and u play BF2, u know the hardware recommendations

Recommended Specification:
CPU: 2.4 Ghz
RAM: 1 Gb
Video Card with at least 256 Mb of RAM <----- u should of looked into that

since u have .. my bad "had" a videocard with 128mb of memory its going to have a hard time loading all the textures

a plain 6800 is about the same as a 6600gt

but i guess you didnt know any of that


Yeah, if I'd bought the old Asus card for BF2 I'd be looking pretty stupid for getting one under the recommended spec. But I got it about 9 months before the game came out, in fact before I even knew that BF2 was being made. :D  Back then most people seemed to think 256mb was overkill (just like many people think 512mb is overkill now) so I jumped at the chance to get a 6800GT with only 128mb - bargain! Hmmm, maybe I still look stupid :wink:

The thread was about confirming if 128mb on the card (or anything else about the card) was my problem, because obviously I didn't want to upgrade the wrong thing. :wink: A few people around seemed to think it shouldn't be a problem, but now it seems they were wrong.

I'm in OZ, if you ever drop by the servers in our region ("Gamearena" "Internode" "Iconz") then look out for Dogthinker.
May 16, 2006 5:45:43 AM

yeah , we all make mistakes

thats why i love/hate computers -have so many options on what to get


its compulsive =/




oh i kinda came off bad, i = srry

just got mad at soo many posts on this Forum thats talk about "problems" when it can be easily solved, either by reading other people threads or just maybe Pm someone who would know about that kinda of "problem"




live long and Frag

-jesus Loves
!