Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Battlefield 2 System Specs - Dell Dimension 8200

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:02:42 AM

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

Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:

Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
512MB PC800 RDRAM
GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x

He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on buying
a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide him over
until then.

I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield 2
runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?

Thanks!
August 11, 2005 7:07:09 AM

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

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>
> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>
> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
> 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on buying
> a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide him over
> until then.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield 2
> runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
add memory NOW!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:13:23 PM

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

jOhN wrote:
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>
>> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to
>> play online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System
>> Specs are:
>>
>> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
>> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
>> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>>
>> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce
>> 6600GT 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but
>> plans on buying a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs
>> something to tide him over until then.
>>
>> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well
>> Battlefield 2 runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> add memory NOW!

Agreed, 1 gig should be the MINIMUM, prices on rambus ram should be semi-affordable now,
that is if you can find it...
Related resources
August 11, 2005 9:39:44 PM

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

"jOhN" <us271934SPAMNYET@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xhzKe.1483$A86.1040@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
>> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>>
>> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
>> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
>> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>>
>> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce
>> 6600GT 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans
>> on buying a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to
>> tide him over until then.
>>
>> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield
>> 2 runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>>
>> Thanks!
> add memory NOW!

Don't bother, RD-RAM costs a fortune. 6600GT is the best bet for now. Only
add more RAM if you find a bargain.
August 11, 2005 9:52:24 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:39:44 +0100, "TonyC" <no@spam.com> wrote:

>Don't bother, RD-RAM costs a fortune. 6600GT is the best bet for now. Only
>add more RAM if you find a bargain.

And if your system is paging to buggery as it will be on 512MB, you
may as well have a TNT graphics card because a decent graphics card
will be sitting around twiddling its virtual thumbs.
--
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.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:58:49 PM

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

Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:39:44 +0100, "TonyC" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't bother, RD-RAM costs a fortune. 6600GT is the best bet for now. Only
>>add more RAM if you find a bargain.
>
>
> And if your system is paging to buggery as it will be on 512MB, you
> may as well have a TNT graphics card because a decent graphics card
> will be sitting around twiddling its virtual thumbs.

Agreed, the fastest vid card doesn't do much good if your bottleneck is lack of ram that
causes your system to use swap on your hard disk.
August 12, 2005 1:07:55 PM

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

"ace72ace" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h-idnaa8VL6RV2bfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Agreed, the fastest vid card doesn't do much good if your bottleneck is
> lack of ram that causes your system to use swap on your hard disk.

Hang on, have you guys actually tried to run it with 512? Or are you just
regurgitating hackneyed advice?

I have 512 and there's no paging. My system's rubbish generally too
(XP2000+, FX5200, 512 DDR2100-266Mhz). Battlefield 2 is extremely
scaleable - my copy runs as smooth as silk all the time, but the graphics
aren't, obviously top notch (Not far from it though). It'll even set it all
for you. If you just want to play the game, then go ahead. Admittedly you
*will* need to plonk a new gfx card in there, but don't take a second
mortgage.

Neil
August 12, 2005 1:11:07 PM

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:07:55 +0100, "Neil" <noway@hosay.com> wrote:

>I have 512 and there's no paging. My system's rubbish generally too
>(XP2000+, FX5200, 512 DDR2100-266Mhz). Battlefield 2 is extremely
>scaleable - my copy runs as smooth as silk all the time, but the graphics
>aren't, obviously top notch (Not far from it though). It'll even set it all
>for you. If you just want to play the game, then go ahead. Admittedly you
>*will* need to plonk a new gfx card in there, but don't take a second
>mortgage.

Maybe that works if you are running at low details, but running with
medium textures caused paging for me when I had 1GB, I had to upgrade
to 1.5GB to get it running smoothly. A decent graphics card would be
completely wasted with 512MB.
--
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.
August 12, 2005 2:55:09 PM

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

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:j9mof1tm5dpscn2oan6t3lsbu70te22ila@4ax.com...
> Maybe that works if you are running at low details, but running with
> medium textures caused paging for me when I had 1GB, I had to upgrade
> to 1.5GB to get it running smoothly. A decent graphics card would be
> completely wasted with 512MB.

Did it now.. What's your commit charge at? I got mine down to 80MB, use
Cacheman, NTREGOPT, ccleaner and a bit of savvy with the services plus no
startup programs. Saves cash boys, saves cash. Defragging is overrated, as
if you're not paging the hard drive, then it's not an issue. Only really
helps with loading times on a well optimised system.

I sometimes wonder where all the money comes from for these endless
upgrades..

Neil
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:55:10 PM

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

Neil wrote:
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:j9mof1tm5dpscn2oan6t3lsbu70te22ila@4ax.com...
>
>>Maybe that works if you are running at low details, but running with
>>medium textures caused paging for me when I had 1GB, I had to upgrade
>>to 1.5GB to get it running smoothly. A decent graphics card would be
>>completely wasted with 512MB.
>
>
> Did it now.. What's your commit charge at? I got mine down to 80MB, use
> Cacheman, NTREGOPT, ccleaner and a bit of savvy with the services plus no
> startup programs. Saves cash boys, saves cash. Defragging is overrated, as
> if you're not paging the hard drive, then it's not an issue. Only really
> helps with loading times on a well optimised system.
>
> I sometimes wonder where all the money comes from for these endless
> upgrades..
>
> Neil
>
>
>
I just watch the stats in windows performance meter from the task manager and I see the
display on my 2nd monitor in my dual head setup while the game is playing. I have 2g of
ram and 6800gt card, so I run at 1600x1200 max quality. Sure I get some occasional
choppiness here and there, but I didn't spend 350$ on a vid card to play at lower
resolutions and textures.

My memory use seems to be steady at about 800meg in game, but your mileage may vary...

I understand the tough choice you have to make on a limited budget, but you should
consider upgrading both the vid card and the ram. The FX5200 series is at the bottom of
the performance charts for FPS performance and has the fewest pixel pipes and all that
other fancy stuff that distinguishes the low end cards from the highest models. Perhaps
your system isn't hitting swap simply because the vid card isn't capable of demanding it?

Have a look at this article (note the FX5200 performance on the benchmark chart...), and
then see if you would rather upgrade your vid card first, tweak your settings, and then
decide if you need more ram.
August 12, 2005 10:01:02 PM

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

"ace72ace" <nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n4mdne6ZaKhZ6mHfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> Neil wrote:
>> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
>> news:j9mof1tm5dpscn2oan6t3lsbu70te22ila@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Maybe that works if you are running at low details, but running with
>>>medium textures caused paging for me when I had 1GB, I had to upgrade
>>>to 1.5GB to get it running smoothly. A decent graphics card would be
>>>completely wasted with 512MB.
>>
>>
>> Did it now.. What's your commit charge at? I got mine down to 80MB, use
>> Cacheman, NTREGOPT, ccleaner and a bit of savvy with the services plus no
>> startup programs. Saves cash boys, saves cash. Defragging is overrated,
>> as if you're not paging the hard drive, then it's not an issue. Only
>> really helps with loading times on a well optimised system.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder where all the money comes from for these endless
>> upgrades..
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
> I just watch the stats in windows performance meter from the task manager
> and I see the display on my 2nd monitor in my dual head setup while the
> game is playing. I have 2g of ram and 6800gt card, so I run at 1600x1200
> max quality. Sure I get some occasional choppiness here and there, but I
> didn't spend 350$ on a vid card to play at lower resolutions and textures.
>
> My memory use seems to be steady at about 800meg in game, but your mileage
> may vary...
>
> I understand the tough choice you have to make on a limited budget, but
> you should consider upgrading both the vid card and the ram. The FX5200
> series is at the bottom of the performance charts for FPS performance and
> has the fewest pixel pipes and all that other fancy stuff that
> distinguishes the low end cards from the highest models. Perhaps your
> system isn't hitting swap simply because the vid card isn't capable of
> demanding it?
>
> Have a look at this article (note the FX5200 performance on the benchmark
> chart...), and then see if you would rather upgrade your vid card first,
> tweak your settings, and then decide if you need more ram.

OP pointed out his friend is using a system with RD-RAM, whats the point in
adding more RAM when it's so expensive!?! just to sell his PC on at some
future point. Get the 6600GT and make do for now, my bro plays it fine on
512Mb RAM, 9600Pro, XP2000+ and he hasn't complained to me yet.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:32:42 AM

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

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
news:6--dnSUYYOGMLWffRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>
> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>
> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
> 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on
> buying a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide
> him over until then.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield
> 2 runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>
> Thanks!
>
I'm running BF2 on a Dell Dimension 4550, P4 2.0 GHz, 512MB PC2700 RAM. My
64MB video card couldn't cut it, so I upgraded to a GeForce FX5700VE video
card with 256MB DDR. $79 at Fry's after a $20 rebate.

I run on all low res settings, and maps are slow to load, other than that I
seem to run pretty good. Looking to upgrade to 1 GB RAM though.

P.S. how do I know if I'm disk swapping during the game?

MAX
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 3:01:51 PM

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

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>
> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>
> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
> 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on buying
> a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide him over
> until then.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield 2
> runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
I run BF2 on a sys with a AMD 2400+ (2.1Ghz), 1Gb SDRam, R9800Pro@xt.
It runs fine, most settings at high some at medium @ 1152x864

I guess the RDRam is to expensive but with a beter VGAcard u should be
able to play at an acceptale resolution and detail.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 5:33:51 PM

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

Hopefully you can see your machine while you are playing, assuming it's not stuffed
under a desk, the IDE activity light would be a good indication that you are hitting
swap. Another thing that impacts performance on this game tremendously is the speed of
your hard drive and its cache size. If you have an older 5400 rpm drive you would see a
good improvement upgrading to a 7200 rpm drive with 8meg cache, and dramatic results if
you could afford one of the newer 10k SATA Western Digital Raptor drives.

I have a 36g raptor and 2 15k U160 scsi drives and the raptor easlily outperforms the
scsi drives.

Here's my system specs as shown by BF2 EasyInfo utility;

http://192.156.204.114/ace/EasyInfo.htm
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:08:02 PM

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

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
news:6--dnSUYYOGMLWffRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>
> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>
> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
> 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on
> buying a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide
> him over until then.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield
> 2 runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>
> Thanks!
>

Thank you all! Sorting through the responses, it looks as though it will be
playable with the new video card. This should hold him over until middle of
next year when he plans on upgrading. He wasn't going to bother even getting
the graphics card or BF2 if it wouldn't run reliably. I and he know that
graphics won't be top notch, but he's fine playing at 800x600 with medium
quality. He's not like me. I need 1600x1200 all the time high settings :) 
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:19:00 PM

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

>"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
>news:6--dnSUYYOGMLWffRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>> Hello all. A buddy of mine is considering getting Battlefield 2 to play
>> online with me. He currently has a Dell Dimension 8200. System Specs are:
>>
>> Pentium 4 2.0 GHz
>> 512MB PC800 RDRAM
>> GeForce Ti4200 64MB AGP 4x
>>
>> He needs a new video card, and will probably get either the GeForce 6600GT
>> 128MB or Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB. He can't spend much now, but plans on
>> buying a whole new PC in about a year, so he just needs something to tide
>> him over until then.
>>
>> I was just wondering if anyone has similar specs and how well Battlefield
>> 2 runs on your machine, and at what resolution/features?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>I'm running BF2 on a Dell Dimension 4550, P4 2.0 GHz, 512MB PC2700 RAM. My
>64MB video card couldn't cut it, so I upgraded to a GeForce FX5700VE video
>card with 256MB DDR. $79 at Fry's after a $20 rebate.
>
>I run on all low res settings, and maps are slow to load, other than that I
>seem to run pretty good. Looking to upgrade to 1 GB RAM though.
>
>P.S. how do I know if I'm disk swapping during the game?
>
>MAX
>

You'd do much better with 1.5 of ram or 2


Arguing on usenet is like competing in the special
olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.
!