Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Battlefield 2 Hardware Upgrade Guide

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:20:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

I saw this guide last week and its garbage. I'm running a 9700pro @
1024x768, all settings medium except for lighting and dynamic shadows
(low) and I'm getting ~40fps (on an Athlon64 3000+, 1gb ram). MORE than
adequate for this game.

Given that people with SLI 6800ultra configs can't run the game stable
with textures on 'high', i suspect there is alot of headroom with this
game. Seriously I think future patches will optimise the configuration
a bit.
Related resources
July 4, 2005 1:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>

The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
fps when it bogs down?
I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.

Lou
July 4, 2005 1:35:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:35:40 -0700, "Lou" <NospamLou@nospam.net> wrote:

>The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
>1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
>a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
>fps when it bogs down?
>I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.

I just went from 1GB to 1.5GB and it cured some minor choppiness I was
experiencing during play. It didn't affect load time much though.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
July 4, 2005 1:35:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lou" <NospamLou@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:11chf58nb5his78@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
> 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the
> game a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the
> min fps when it bogs down?
> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.

They're probably running the tests on a rig that has nothing installed on it
except a stripped OS and BF2. Add in some other common background tasks
that hold memory hostage such as antivirus (Nortons is a pig), software
firewall, DragToDisc, an IM app, etc., and I bet having some extra RAM makes
a difference.

For me, moving from 1GB to 2GB didn't help initially. But once I also
increased my AGP aperture from 64MB to 256, my choppiness problems went
away. But that aperature increase didn't work when I was at 1GB - in fact
it made things worse. The extra RAM I added allowed the AGP aperature to do
its thing.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:47:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lou" wrote:

> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you
> have 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped
> make the game a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max
> fps and not the min fps when it bogs down?
> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.

I wouldn't pay much attention, given that part of the introduction reads:

"Radeon 9700 and the GeForce FX barely make the cut"

Based on that, I guess I must have imagined the demo playing perfectly on
a Radeon 8500LE at 800x600.


higgy.
July 5, 2005 12:47:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:35:40 -0700, "Lou" <NospamLou@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>"Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
>The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
>1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
>a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
>fps when it bogs down?
>I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.
>
>Lou
>

Its been posted many times before, but whether or not you will benefit
from the upgrade depends on whether you are currently exceeding your
physical RAM while playing.

Adding RAM won't make the game "run faster" per se. But if you have
any disk swapping going on at all, it will make a tremendous,
immediate and dramatic improvement in both gameplay and map loading
time.

Whether or not you need more RAM depends on several things:

1. How many background apps you have running
2. What type of textures you've selected for the game (I run on High
and it makes a difference of requiring almost half a gig)
3. How long you play the game at a time (maybe its memory leaks or
whatever but it will slowly consume more RAM as you've played for a
while)
4. Whether you want to upgrade now or when more mods become
available.. Mods for the battlefield series typical involve textures
which require much more RAM than the game out of box. Desert Combat
was a huge RAM hog.


To see whether you will benefit from RAM, play the game for about an
hour then look at your Peak value under commit charge in the Task
Manager. If the peak commit charge exceeds the total physical RAM,
you should upgrade. If not, then your choppiness problems are
probably due to something else.
July 5, 2005 4:01:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0KqdnaSdo5wLjlTfRVn-qw@giganews.com...
>
> "Lou" <NospamLou@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:11chf58nb5his78@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>> http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>>
>>
>> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
>> 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the
>> game a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not
>> the min fps when it bogs down?
>> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.
>
> They're probably running the tests on a rig that has nothing installed on
> it except a stripped OS and BF2. Add in some other common background
> tasks that hold memory hostage such as antivirus (Nortons is a pig),
> software firewall, DragToDisc, an IM app, etc., and I bet having some
> extra RAM makes a difference.
>
> For me, moving from 1GB to 2GB didn't help initially. But once I also
> increased my AGP aperture from 64MB to 256, my choppiness problems went
> away. But that aperature increase didn't work when I was at 1GB - in fact
> it made things worse. The extra RAM I added allowed the AGP aperature to
> do its thing.
>

That's what I suspected. I have a 256mb graphics memory card and tried the
AGP aperture increase and it got worse so I think it only took away space
from the already maxed system memory. I might be able to borrow a stick of
RAM and try more memory.
Thanks,
Lou
July 5, 2005 12:06:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On 4 Jul 2005 07:20:56 -0700, burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:

>I saw this guide last week and its garbage. I'm running a 9700pro @
>1024x768, all settings medium except for lighting and dynamic shadows
>(low) and I'm getting ~40fps (on an Athlon64 3000+, 1gb ram). MORE than
>adequate for this game.
>
>Given that people with SLI 6800ultra configs can't run the game stable
>with textures on 'high', i suspect there is alot of headroom with this
>game. Seriously I think future patches will optimise the configuration
>a bit.

I run the game stable with single 6800 GTO (OEM Dell Geforce that
performs "almost" as good as a 6800 Ultra) with textures on high.

The thing with high textures is you need RAM. See my various other
posts on this topic. Trust me it makes all the difference in the
world. Last night I peaked out at 1.6gb peak commit charge (the most
yet). And that was after playing only about 45 mins.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lou wrote:
> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
>
> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
> 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
> a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
> fps when it bogs down?
> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.

I don't think they tried to raise the AGP aperture size, as part of
their review. When you do that, some of the system memory is hogged by
the card.

regards,

Achtung Ecco
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 7:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

left a note on my windscreen which said:

> Given that people with SLI 6800ultra configs can't run the game stable
> with textures on 'high', i suspect there is alot of headroom with this
> game. Seriously I think future patches will optimise the configuration
> a bit.

Although I agree that the article isn't very accurate I must say that if
folks with SLI 6800 Ultras can't run the game well with everything maxed
then there is something up with their machine.

I use a dual 6800GT setup and my BF2 runs fine with everything,
including textures set to high, maxed at 1280x1024.

This also assumes that the aforementioned SLI ultra owners also have
sufficient RAM - ie. 2GB.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
July 5, 2005 7:46:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lou wrote:
> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
>
> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
> 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
> a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
> fps when it bogs down?
> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.
>
> Lou
>
>
I've been paying a lot of attention lately to my memory usage to see if
adding to my current 1G would really help. Before, after and sometimes
during the game I look at the commit charge values in task manager.
Playing 16 or 32 player games with most settings on medium, AA and
dynamics on off the peak doesn't go above 950M or so. That indicates
that I'm not using the pagefile at all. Yet I'm lucky to get a
consistent 20-30 FPS.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:03:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lou wrote:
> "Roger Barnell" <roger.barnell1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tpZxe.22622$%O1.13242@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2147-x-x-x
>>
>
>
> The review says memory upgrade does not make much difference if you have
> 1gb. I thought there was a lot of posts saying that it helped make the game
> a lot smoother? Maybe they are just measuring the max fps and not the min
> fps when it bogs down?
> I was ready to upgrade my memory from 1gb , but now I don't know.
>
> Lou
>
>
I have 4 Gigs of pc3200, and when I run the game with different ram
configs there is a difference between 1gb, 2gb, and 4gb configurations.
This is also shown by benchmarks taken with the different amounts of
ram. If you were to upgrade from 1gb to 2gb you would notice a
difference. When going from 2gb to 4gb there is a less noticable
difference.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:08:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Stoneskin wrote:
> left a note on my windscreen which said:
>
>
>>Given that people with SLI 6800ultra configs can't run the game stable
>>with textures on 'high', i suspect there is alot of headroom with this
>>game. Seriously I think future patches will optimise the configuration
>>a bit.
>
>
> Although I agree that the article isn't very accurate I must say that if
> folks with SLI 6800 Ultras can't run the game well with everything maxed
> then there is something up with their machine.
>
So you're saying that if someone has an SLI config with 6800s, and say,
512mb of ram then they should be able to run the game well? From your
post it sounds like dual 6800s is all that is required to run this game
well. I would disagree with that. I can go into config files and set
all graphics options to "ultra high" and I get 100+ fps at all times, so
I'm in a position to add and remove hardware to determine which
components affect the game the most. Your post is misleading.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:31:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

non.sequitur left a note on my windscreen which said:

> > Although I agree that the article isn't very accurate I must say that if
> > folks with SLI 6800 Ultras can't run the game well with everything maxed
> > then there is something up with their machine.
> >
> So you're saying that if someone has an SLI config with 6800s, and say,
> 512mb of ram then they should be able to run the game well? From your
> post it sounds like dual 6800s is all that is required to run this game
> well. I would disagree with that. I can go into config files and set
> all graphics options to "ultra high" and I get 100+ fps at all times, so
> I'm in a position to add and remove hardware to determine which
> components affect the game the most. Your post is misleading.

Allow me to re-insert the bit of my post you snipped out.

"I use a dual 6800GT setup and my BF2 runs fine with everything,
including textures set to high, maxed at 1280x1024.
This also assumes that the aforementioned SLI ultra owners also have
sufficient RAM - ie. 2GB."

You do know that the 'Ultra High' settings don't actually affect the
game at all and that 'getting 100+ fps at all times' doesn't qualify you
to 'determine which components affect the game the most' anymore than
someone who gets 50+ fps. In fact since you obviously don't run
standard settings I would say this makes you less qualified to assess
the game's performance on hardware. Even more so for the (assuming)
overclocking and other tweaking you have done to achieve 100+ fps.

Not even a FX-55, dual 7800GTX system with standard components will run
at 100fps at *all* times due to the basic fact that the CPU will become
too much of a bottleneck in busy sessions and the FPS *will* drop.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Bob left a note on my windscreen which said:

> I've been paying a lot of attention lately to my memory usage to see if
> adding to my current 1G would really help. Before, after and sometimes
> during the game I look at the commit charge values in task manager.
> Playing 16 or 32 player games with most settings on medium, AA and
> dynamics on off the peak doesn't go above 950M or so. That indicates
> that I'm not using the pagefile at all. Yet I'm lucky to get a
> consistent 20-30 FPS.

What are your full system specs?
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
!