Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help! Low Frame Rates in BF2 with new Custom Build

Last response: in Systems
Share
July 30, 2006 3:37:19 AM

Yesterday I put together my first homebuilt system. I have a Conroe processor on order but right now here is the configuration:

Processor: Celeron D 326 Socket 776 2.5Ghz 533Mhz FSB. Stock Cooling.
Memory: 2 Gigs of OCZ DDR2 1000 PC8000 Dual Channel Gold Series
Video: X1800XT w/ Arctic Cooling Accelero
Case: Silverstone TJ07
Power: Antec True Power 550 Watt
Motherboard: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

So I ran BF2 for the first time today and at 1024 x 768 resolution w/ 4x aa and medium texture filtering, with all settings on high except lighting, dynamic light, and dynamic shadows which are set at medium, the frame rate counter reports 20-40 fps. The thing is, the game doesn't feel all that laggy but it certainly doesn't feel as responsive as it should be with the X1800XT. A lot of people report 60-70 fps for that videocard with those settings. I can't figure it out.

Can anyone help?
July 30, 2006 3:47:13 AM

Quote:
Yesterday I put together my first homebuilt system. I have a Conroe processor on order but right now here is the configuration:

Processor: Celeron D 326 Socket 776 2.5Ghz 533Mhz FSB. Stock Cooling.
Memory: OCZ DDR2 1000 PC8000 Dual Channel Gold Series
Video: X1800XT w/ Arctic Cooling Accelero
Case: Silverstone TJ07
Power: Antec True Power 550 Watt
Motherboard: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

So I ran BF2 for the first time today and at 1024 x 768 resolution w/ 4x aa and medium texture filtering, with all settings on high except lighting, dynamic light, and dynamic shadows which are set at medium, the frame rate counter reports 20-40 fps. The thing is, the game doesn't feel all that laggy but it certainly doesn't feel as responsive as it should be with the X1800XT. A lot of people report 60-70 fps for that videocard with those settings. I can't figure it out.

Can anyone help?


Celeron might be the cause? Crippled FSB and low cache?
July 30, 2006 3:53:33 AM

Do you have only 1024mb of ram? Battlefield 2 pretty much requires 2 gigs of ram to be run at the highest settings.

I can only run it on medium myself.
Related resources
July 30, 2006 4:33:56 AM

It's probably the celeron coz I get around 40fps in bf2 with my 9800pro at similar settings. I'm using 1gb ram and an a64 3000+ and i'm not sure what the performance difference is between that and the celeron but my guess is that the celeron is slower. It does only have a 256kb cache and that might be starving it of information.
July 30, 2006 4:52:02 AM

Agreed, that 256 cache is bringing the downfall. Upgrade to a decent PD 905 socket if you want something cheap, or even a P4.
July 30, 2006 5:52:15 AM

Everyone is bashing the CPU, and yeah its not the best CPU and its cache blows, but I think the problem is combination of things.

1) Yeah your CPU isnt up to par for gaming...

2) My old roommate bought one of those intel boards that said "AGP and PCI-X" and he thought it was such a good idea... yeah definatly read the fine print on that, the PCI-X 9 out of 10 times is going to only be 4x. So that COULD be your problem but I doubt it i looked up your MB and your far from that problem. But you should always check your boot settings and make sure your PCI-X slots are all running how they should.

3) Make sure your video drivers and MB drivers are all up to date, its amazing what that can do for you. Also make sure your up to date on the BF2 drivers.

4) You are a bit low on memory for BF2, BF2 is one of the few games that actually benefits for 2 gigs of ram or more.

Final Conclusion:
CPU seems to be your main bottleneck, but you would definatly see your FPS go up if you add more memory, or if you update your drivers(if they are in-fact out of date). Either way goodluck with your problem and get yourself the right CPU for that motherboard, I understand you were probably on a budget and I would have done the same thing and spent my money on the videocard and skimped on a cpu... but.... you were a little bit too cheap with the cpu and the celeron is killing you, definatly upgrade if you have the money... if you dont have any money all is not lost. Spend 30 bucks on a good CPU heatsink and try to overclock that celeron to 3.0ghz! That wont fix the crappy cache but it will give you a little bit of an edge over stock and maybe get you closer to that smooth frame rate and impressive graphics you so desire. Good luck!
July 30, 2006 6:24:44 AM

Bottleneck?
I would blame the celery chip. GPU is strong enough to go all of the way.
BUT... Though 2 gigs is optimal for games like BF2, I wouldn't think that memory (running at those speeds no less) would be holding you back.

BF2 has been known to require a 3.2 ghz (or 3200+ equivelent) for optimanl play experience online...
July 30, 2006 7:00:45 AM

I have the exact same problem.

Asus P5W DH Deluxe
2GB Corsair XMS DDR2-800
Asus X1900XT
Celeron 331 2.66GHz

I played at 800x600 with all low settings and I played at 1680x1050 with all max settings. There was no noticable difference in framerates between the two. I overclocked the celeron to 3.8GHz on air and it's now playable, but far from desirable.

I would definately point my finger at the CPU. I sure hope my E6600 gets here quickly.
July 30, 2006 7:16:04 AM

Quote:
2) My old roommate bought one of those intel boards that said "AGP and PCI-X"

I know I'm getting too technical here and I'm not trying to annoy anyone but don't get confused between PCI-X (extended) and PCI-E (express). They are two different things. Ignore me however if the motherboard does actually have a PCI-X slot but not many do.
July 30, 2006 7:48:00 AM

I'm the original poster.

Ok guys, yeah the motherboard is brand new for Conroe and supports ATI crossfire. So I'm guessing the PCI slots are not the problem. This is the board to have for Conroe. Check anandtech.

I preordered an E6600 Conroe so that will probably solve all my problems. I shouldn't have spent the money on this stupid Celeron but I wanted to get my rig going because EVERYTHING is new, and I especially wanted to get the 1800XT running.

Also an update--the system is great at 2x aa. There is a bottleneck somewhere that prevents 4x aa from being playable. Another week or so and I'll have a Conroe so I'll just leave it at 2x aa for now.

Thanks all!
July 30, 2006 8:14:40 AM

You are being held back by the cpu. If running it at 800x600 or 1680x1050 makes no difference your cpu is holding you back.
!