Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BF2 with 512 RAM

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 25, 2005 2:51:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

My system is an Athlon 64 3200 (939) with 512k of PC3200, I just replaced my
GF4400 with a plain vanilla GF6800. I load up the BF2 demo last night and it
runs fine on the default 800x600@60, all details on low. Well, I turn it up
to 1024x768@75 and put the details on high, and it is as choppy as hell.
I was just a bit disappointed after having put in a 6800. Alt-Tab to desktop
and my task manager shows that the page file use is in 700+ range and I'm
getting a warning that the system is low on memory.
Will another stick of 512k solve the problem? It would seem so.

More about : bf2 512 ram

Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:51:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> My system is an Athlon 64 3200 (939) with 512k of PC3200, I just replaced my
> GF4400 with a plain vanilla GF6800. I load up the BF2 demo last night and it
> runs fine on the default 800x600@60, all details on low. Well, I turn it up
> to 1024x768@75 and put the details on high, and it is as choppy as hell.
> I was just a bit disappointed after having put in a 6800. Alt-Tab to desktop
> and my task manager shows that the page file use is in 700+ range and I'm
> getting a warning that the system is low on memory.
> Will another stick of 512k solve the problem? It would seem so.
>
>
I would recommend a couple things:

-When you have a chance I'd definitely recommend another 512..this can
make a big difference with stuttering.
-Video wise, start by lowering lowering all settings to medium. You can
try selectively upping things but dynamic shadows/lights have a decent
impact on performance as does texture quality (don't even attempt to set
this to high unless you have at least 256MB on your card). On your
system you could probably run very well at 1120 x <whatever that res
is>, medium, 4xAA and probably can even increase things a bit beyond
this (I am currently running that very setting on a A64 3400+/GF6600+
128MB and it runs VERY smoothly and looks damn good imho)


Bob
June 25, 2005 7:06:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:51:31 -0400, "Bill" <willat0660@dogmail.com>
wrote:

>My system is an Athlon 64 3200 (939) with 512k of PC3200, I just replaced my
>GF4400 with a plain vanilla GF6800. I load up the BF2 demo last night and it
>runs fine on the default 800x600@60, all details on low. Well, I turn it up
>to 1024x768@75 and put the details on high, and it is as choppy as hell.
>I was just a bit disappointed after having put in a 6800. Alt-Tab to desktop
>and my task manager shows that the page file use is in 700+ range and I'm
>getting a warning that the system is low on memory.
>Will another stick of 512k solve the problem? It would seem so.

As a rule of thumb, RAM is 10,000 times faster than a hard disk. Your
CPU and video card are completely wasted by that amount of RAM. BF2
needs at least 1GB and probably more if you want to run at high
textures.
--
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.
Related resources
June 25, 2005 7:53:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Bill" <willat0660@dogmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sbeve.10332$ik5.5525@fe12.lga...
> My system is an Athlon 64 3200 (939) with 512k of PC3200, I just replaced
> my GF4400 with a plain vanilla GF6800. I load up the BF2 demo last night
> and it runs fine on the default 800x600@60, all details on low. Well, I
> turn it up to 1024x768@75 and put the details on high, and it is as choppy
> as hell.
> I was just a bit disappointed after having put in a 6800. Alt-Tab to
> desktop and my task manager shows that the page file use is in 700+ range
> and I'm getting a warning that the system is low on memory.
> Will another stick of 512k solve the problem? It would seem so.

It's gotta be 1 Gig, don't waste anymore time, go order some :o )


--
Rocky
GhostRecon.net | AGR-S.com | Tactical-Elite.net

__
June 26, 2005 2:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> -When you have a chance I'd definitely recommend another 512..this can
> make a big difference with stuttering.
> -Video wise, start by lowering lowering all settings to medium. You can
> try selectively upping things but dynamic shadows/lights have a decent
> impact on performance as does texture quality (don't even attempt to set
> this to high unless you have at least 256MB on your card). On your system
> you could probably run very well at 1120 x <whatever that res is>, medium,
> 4xAA and probably can even increase things a bit beyond this (I am
> currently running that very setting on a A64 3400+/GF6600+ 128MB and it
> runs VERY smoothly and looks damn good imho)
>
>
> Bob

Another thing I'm noticing is that other games seem to use more system
memory with this card vs my GF4400. I loaded up Silent Storm and it was
slightly choppy with the new card, same as it was with the old card. I guess
my RAM was limiting me the entire time and I just thought it was because I
had an old card. When I turned some of the settings up, it got really
choppy. I was running it 1024x768 16, I changed that to 32 bit and it took a
hit. Man, 512 megs of RAM just ain't what it used to be!
June 26, 2005 6:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Bill wrote:
>>-When you have a chance I'd definitely recommend another 512..this can
>>make a big difference with stuttering.
>>-Video wise, start by lowering lowering all settings to medium. You can
>>try selectively upping things but dynamic shadows/lights have a decent
>>impact on performance as does texture quality (don't even attempt to set
>>this to high unless you have at least 256MB on your card). On your system
>>you could probably run very well at 1120 x <whatever that res is>, medium,
>>4xAA and probably can even increase things a bit beyond this (I am
>>currently running that very setting on a A64 3400+/GF6600+ 128MB and it
>>runs VERY smoothly and looks damn good imho)
>>
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> Another thing I'm noticing is that other games seem to use more system
> memory with this card vs my GF4400. I loaded up Silent Storm and it was
> slightly choppy with the new card, same as it was with the old card. I guess
> my RAM was limiting me the entire time and I just thought it was because I
> had an old card. When I turned some of the settings up, it got really
> choppy. I was running it 1024x768 16, I changed that to 32 bit and it took a
> hit. Man, 512 megs of RAM just ain't what it used to be!
>
>

I still remember getting a 20 meg hard-disk, boy was I happy.
!