4860 OCed to 4890 speeds having problems with Bad Company 2

[superHARD]

I have a nice OC'ed 4860 900 cpu / 975 ram.

E8400 at 3.4Ghz

4 gig ddr2 ram

2x 300gig Raptor's in raid yes that's right 600 gb raptor raid


But when I play BFBC2 single player, I have to turn it down to min settings to run it at 1920 x 1080...but even then, I get system lag sometimes.

What is my problem? Why can't I run this at medium, or even high settings?

 

[pmurgs]

Quad (or even tri) cores work at lot better with BFBC2 than dual cores. Thats why the game doesnt seem to run as well on your machine, as other games. DX10 also doesn't seem to run as well as DX11 or DX9 for BFBC2.

 

[vj8usa]

Quad (or even tri) cores work at lot better with BFBC2 than dual cores. Thats why the game doesnt seem to run as well on your machine, as other games. DX10 also doesn't seem to run as well as DX11 or DX9 for BFBC2.

While I'm sure a quad would improve his framerates a bit, something's really wrong if he has to drop to min settings on his rig. My setup (in sig) was running the game at 1680x1050, max settings except with no AA, and it was very playable for me (30+ FPS). There were a few spots where framerates dropped (large explosions for instance), but that was only for a few seconds at a time.

 

[vshah]

just a thought here...have you tried stock clockspeeds? your card could be throttling.

 

[superHARD]

Could it be throttling at no more than 65C?

 

[jtisgeek]

Make sure you don't have anything else running in the back ground I know it seems stupid now days but since this game is so hard on dual it made a big difference to me.

I can run high on everything but I keep the shadows down on low to help the drops this gets me 40 to 60 fps with my 4890 at 1650 by 1200.

 

[MrK6]

Why can't you run it on high? Is it a framerate issue, stuttering issue, or what? What Catalyst version are you running?

 

[happy medium]

The 4860 has 640 sp's. My 5750 has 720. I can clock my 5750 to 900 core just like your 4860. I can barely run above 30fps @ 1600x1200 high settings with my overclocked quad core cpu.

The 4860 with 640 sp's is nothing more then a highly overclocked 4770 with more memory bandwidth.

To me @ 1900x1080 you should be running at med settings at best,especially with a dual core cpu.

Thats your problem.

 

[jtisgeek]

The 4860 has 640 sp's. My 5750 has 720. I can clock my 5750 to 900 core just like your 4860. I can barely run above 30fps @ 1600x1200 high settings with my overclocked quad core cpu.

The 4860 with 640 sp's is nothing more then a highly overclocked 4770 with more memory bandwidth.

To me @ 1900x1080 you should be running at med settings at best,especially with a dual core cpu.

Thats your problem.

I agree I think sometimes it just hard to exempt that you can't run everything turned all the way up.
Bad company so far is rough on pc's looks good and all but I think they need some more tweaking on the performance side maybe it will get better with some more patches I'd say.

 

[Rezist]

ATi performs poorly in the title across the board almost. Could be drivers.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

ATi performs poorly in the title across the board almost. Could be drivers.

That's funny, the exact same thing was said about nVidia hardware during the PC beta test.

I ran the beta with zero fps problems at maxed settings and 1920x1080 on the rig in my signature. With your set up, I think you should be thrilled with medium settings at the same resolution. High seems an unattainable goal. If it's stuttering on low, drop your resolution a notch and see what happens.

 

[zerocool84]

ATi performs poorly in the title across the board almost. Could be drivers.

lol ok sure there bob

 

[Schmide]

Quad (or even tri) cores work at lot better with BFBC2 than dual cores. Thats why the game doesnt seem to run as well on your machine, as other games. DX10 also doesn't seem to run as well as DX11 or DX9 for BFBC2.

+1. I have a quad, but many of my clan mates have dual cores and they notice extreme slow downs with the physics effects. I wonder if you go into settings advanced and turn the effects down it would be less noticeable.

BTW I'm running ATI 1920x1200. (xfired 4870s)

 

[v8envy]

If all new games ran flawlessly at 19x12 in high settings with FSAA (I suspect that's the cause of the problem, FSAA is on) using a $100 video card and $80 CPU (amd equivalent, I know the E8400 is still big $), who on earth would fork over for a gaming rig?

I think your expectations are a bit high for a budget gaming machine.

 

[tweakboy]

A lot has to do with the engine and how it's optimized.

For example the Unreal 3 Engine

Gears or UT look better then bad company and run many many times faster... thx

 

[Attic]

I run the game with a 5770 and a Q6600@3ghz. It runs very well at high settings. My quad shows 80-90% usage across all 4 cores so the game wants a lot of CPU power and >2cores.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Would a 4830 @ 710/900 and a Q8200 (3ghz) struggle @ 1680x1050?

Games that list a quad core as recommended kinda spook me about my system.

 

[Attic]

Would a 4830 @ 710/900 and a Q8200 (3ghz) struggle @ 1680x1050?

Games that list a quad core as recommended kinda spook me about my system.

From what i've seen, i'd think you could get away with medium details at that res (not sure how the 512mb VRAM would affect performance). The Q8200 a big factor in giving you good perfromance.

 

[Udgnim]

not playing at 1920*1080, but here is my PC's performance (at 1680*1050) on the first mission going from getting on to the beach to getting on to the sub. does your 4860 have 512 or 1 GB VID RAM?

Resolution: 1680*1050
DirectX 9, XP
AA: Off
AF: 16X
HBAO: On
Everything Else: High

CPU: E8500 @ 4.1
Video Card: 4870 512, 815 core / 900 mem, Cat 10.2

MIN: 35 MAX: 99 AVG: 62.188

 

[evolucion8]

ATi performs poorly in the title across the board almost. Could be drivers.

The game runs perfectly fine with my setup, that's pure bs.

I run the game with a 5770 and a Q6600@3ghz. It runs very well at high settings. My quad shows 80-90% usage across all 4 cores so the game wants a lot of CPU power and >2cores.

That's odd, during game, my Quad only showed an average of utilization of 25% across all 4 cores, Minimum usage of 9% and maximum usage of 36%, and only for a second, the first core pegged at 90% during the first 2 seconds of the game and then came back to 19%.

I was able to max it at my weak native resolution of 1280x1024 with everything on highest plus 4x FSAA and DX10.1. DX9 data path at 4xFSAA runs twice faster ( Between 90fps and 130fps) and looks almost the same, while with 4x in DX10.1 runs between 56fps and 69fps. With 8x FSAA in DX10.1 makes the game run between 33fps and 45fps, and the game doesn't look that great compared to other tittles, there's a bottleneck somewhere between the GPU and the CPU, increasing the image quality with 8x Anti Aliasing caused a drop in performance and running the DX9 path increased the performance considerably, so the game in my case tends to be more GPU limited than CPU limited.

 

[happy medium]

not playing at 1920*1080, but here is my PC's performance (at 1680*1050) on the first mission going from getting on to the beach to getting on to the sub. does your 4860 have 512 or 1 GB VID RAM?

Resolution: 1680*1050
DirectX 9, XP
AA: Off
AF: 16X
HBAO: On
Everything Else: High

CPU: E8500 @ 4.1
Video Card: 4870 512, 815 core / 900 mem, Cat 10.2

MIN: 35 MAX: 99 AVG: 62.188

What did you use to monitor this?

You one core is pegged at 100%? wow

 

[happy medium]

The game runs perfectly fine with my setup, that's pure bs.



That's odd, during game, my Quad only showed an average of utilization of 25% across all 4 cores, Minimum usage of 9% and maximum usage of 36%, and only for a second, the first core pegged at 90% during the first 2 seconds of the game and then came back to 19%.

I was able to max it at my weak native resolution of 1280x1024 with everything on highest plus 4x FSAA and DX10.1. DX9 data path at 4xFSAA runs twice faster ( Between 90fps and 130fps) and looks almost the same, while with 4x in DX10.1 runs between 56fps and 69fps. With 8x FSAA in DX10.1 makes the game run between 33fps and 45fps, and the game doesn't look that great compared to other tittles, there's a bottleneck somewhere between the GPU and the CPU, increasing the image quality with 8x Anti Aliasing caused a drop in performance and running the DX9 path increased the performance considerably, so the game in my case tends to be more GPU limited than CPU limited.

Remember with the extra cache and overclock your cpu is about 25% faster.
Might be why you seem to be using less % of cpu power.

 

[Udgnim]

What did you use to monitor this?

You one core is pegged at 100%? wow

Hardware Monitoring program in RivaTuner

 

[happy medium]

Hardware Monitoring program in RivaTuner

Shit, I forgot about riva tuner.
Last I checked it wasn't playing well with the 5 series.

Thank you

Edit: is that gpu memory usage on the bottom?
If so ,you were only using about 400mb? I guess 512 mb cards will do fine with this game.

 

[Udgnim]

DX9 data path at 4xFSAA runs twice faster ( Between 90fps and 130fps) and looks almost the same, while with 4x in DX10.1 runs between 56fps and 69fps.

AA does not work in DX9 unless there is some magic method I'm not aware of.