4860 OCed to 4890 speeds having problems with Bad Company 2

[evolucion8]

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

Well, probably not, but I just modified the DXversion line in the settings.ini file forcing it to run in DX9.

Update: Now I get it, not being able to select anything than 1x FSAA, that would explain why my FPS skyrocketed in DX9 mode, I forced the FSAA in the CCC and no avail.

 

[Candymancan21]

Your resolution is the problem.

I can run the game on multiplayer DX10 with 1680x1050 all high settings, and 2xAA 4xAF with my system. The is on factory defaults too "it is an oc card so defaults are 900/1000. I get like 45-50fps average online which way way more intense then single player.

 

[AzN]

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.

It could be just AMD vid cards.

I still haven't played multiplayer yet but the single player campaign runs smooth for me with the computer in my sig. Beta on the other hand I had a huge problem dipping into the teens but than again I probably have problems when I get online especially with 32 players even with the retail version.

I run max settings including HBAO 16xAF 4xAA @ 1920x1080.

Hovering in the low to mid 40 fps. Explosion it dips to mid 25fps at best but mostly low's are in the low 30's.

 

[pmurgs]

It could be just AMD vid cards.

Its not. If you read through the ea bfbc2 beta forums, you'll see lots of nvidia and ati people struggling for fps in bfbc2.

I'll say it again, the game runs best with quad core. The game runs best with a 58XX ati card (not sure what level nvidia card you need). It's a heavy game.

 

[AzN]

Its not. If you read through the ea bfbc2 beta forums, you'll see lots of nvidia and ati people struggling for fps in bfbc2.

I'll say it again, the game runs best with quad core. The game runs best with a 58XX ati card (not sure what level nvidia card you need). It's a heavy game.

I have a dual core. With the beta it was running like crap. It could be the online players because when I went into a server with less than 16 players it was running mid 30 fps average but with 32 players it was running in the 20's.

The game is a lot more GPU intensive than you think it is. I swapped my GTX260 for a 8800gt. I had to turn off HBAO and AA to get slightly lower performance than my GTX260.

OP has a E8400 @ 3.4ghz with highly overclocked 4860. My E5200 @ 4ghz performs around his E8400 @ 3.4ghz. I have a GTX260 216SP in my sig running1080P max settings 4xAA 16xAF running mid 40fps average in single player. OP has a problem running the same resolution. Yeah it could be just his GPU!

 

[happy medium]

I have a dual core. With the beta it was running like crap. It could be the online players because when I went into a server with less than 16 players it was running mid 30 fps average but with 32 players it was running in the 20's.

The game is a lot more GPU intensive than you think it is. I swapped my GTX260 for a 8800gt. I had to turn off HBAO and AA to get slightly lower performance than my GTX260.

OP has a E8400 @ 3.4ghz with highly overclocked 4860. My E5200 @ 4ghz performs around his E8400 @ 3.4ghz. I have a GTX260 216SP in my sig running1080P max settings 4xAA 16xAF running mid 40fps average in single player. OP has a problem running the same resolution. Yeah it could be just his GPU!

AZN,
Like I stated it earlier his gpu is nothing more then a highly overclocked 4770.
Those 4860's are cut down 4890 cores. 640 sp's vs 800 sp's. 4770 has the same sp count and runs at 800 core. It does have more memory bandwidth with the 256 bit bus ,but mabe this game doesn't need memory bandwidth?

Your gtx 260 is about = to a gtx 285.

Thats the problem.

 

[Shmee]

I have a GTX 260, usually i play at stock, but I also have a hexcore. So far the game has been quite playable, but then, is there a console option or a way to tweak the game, like a config? I got the steam version btw. Also, how do I tell my FPS?

 

[AzN]

AZN,
Like I stated it earlier his gpu is nothing more then a highly overclocked 4770.
Those 4860's are cut down 4890 cores. 640 sp's vs 800 sp's. 4770 has the same sp count and runs at 800 core. It does have more memory bandwidth with the 256 bit bus ,but mabe this game doesn't need memory bandwidth?

Your gtx 260 is about = to a gtx 285.

Thats the problem.

I wish my GTX260 was like 285. It's more in lines of GTX280/275. At OP's overclock that 4860 can easily pass for 4870 level of performance which pretty much equate to GTX260 216SP.

I think it could just be AMD GPU's except for 5850 and 5870.

I had no problems running the game 1080P even with a 8800gt long as I turned off HBAO and AA. Hovering in the 40's. 8800gt does dip a bit harder than GTX260 though as it's probably the bandwidth at play there.

 

[MrK6]

Just throwing this out there in case it was overlooked, those of you that are having FPS issues, are you trying to run the game with ambient occlusion (HBAO) on? If so, turn it off.

 

[Candymancan21]

I have that HBAO on also, 1680x1050 all high, 4xAA 16xAF. I was using 2xAA 4xAF but it seems raising the AA and AF doesnt make my fps drop a single point. I get around 45-60fps average. Most of the time its around 45fps tho, it doesnt bother me tho.

The only settings that seem to affect fps are Level of Detail, and Shadows. The other 2 settings textures and Effects can be on low or high and fps stays the same. I also noticed that AF has no affect on fps either. You can be at 1 or 16 and fps wont drop or go up.

I tested this out on a 4850 and my 4890. Its wierd i know but whatever. If you want more FPS your going to have to turn shadows down. High to medium doesnt seem to increase fps. Medium to low tho gives you about 8fps more, and Level of detail each setting is around 5fps more. So if you go from high to low thats like 10 more fps.

So if you are getting 20-30fps its time to bite the nail and lower the shadow and level of detail.


One thing that makes me mad tho is how vysnc is broken just in every other god damn game. It works at first then it doesnt and i get alot of screen tearing and it gives me headache's.

 

[happy medium]

I wish my GTX260 was like 285. It's more in lines of GTX280/275. At OP's overclock that 4860 can easily pass for 4870 level of performance which pretty much equate to GTX260 216SP.

I think it could just be AMD GPU's except for 5850 and 5870.

I had no problems running the game 1080P even with a 8800gt long as I turned off HBAO and AA. Hovering in the 40's. 8800gt does dip a bit harder than GTX260 though as it's probably the bandwidth at play there.

His 640 sp 4860 couldn't even beat my 720 sp 5750 at those speeds.
I have 80 more sp's and the same clocks.

A 4870 would beat it easily with 800 sp's and the same memory bandwidth.

Bad Company 2 is a shader heavy game I guess.

 

[MrK6]

His 640 sp 4860 couldn't even beat my 720 sp 5750 at those speeds.
I have 80 more sp's and the same clocks.

A 4870 would beat it easily with 800 sp's and the same memory bandwidth.

Bad Company 2 is a shader heavy game I guess.

You're forgetting that clock-for-clock, the 4xxx series is faster than the 5xxx series.

 

[Shmee]

You're forgetting that clock-for-clock, the 4xxx series is faster than the 5xxx series.

surely this isnt true of the 5850 and above? I believe the 5970 and 5850 have similar clocks to a 4890, MB lower, and are much faster.

Or are you comparing 57xx to 48xx?

 

[tweakboy]

It looks like this game isn't as optimized for speed like the modern warefare 2 engine which runs like silk on a 88xx or 98xx

4890 is faster, you should be able to take all settings to max and 16x AF 0AA max res.

With MW2 at those settings its smooth as butter because its a better engine period imo. It is optimized, bad company is obviously badly programmed engine. Another reason to bybass badcompany and do mw2 instead...

 

[jtisgeek]

surely this isnt true of the 5850 and above? I believe the 5970 and 5850 have similar clocks to a 4890, MB lower, and are much faster.

Or are you comparing 57xx to 48xx?

Yes even on the higher end 5800 series , lots of people believe the shaders are not as powerful clock to clock with the 4800's series. The 5830 reviews seem to point to that being the case since the 4890 beats it in everything.

 

[Shmee]

It looks like this game isn't as optimized for speed like the modern warefare 2 engine which runs like silk on a 88xx or 98xx

4890 is faster, you should be able to take all settings to max and 16x AF 0AA max res.

With MW2 at those settings its smooth as butter because its a better engine period. It is optimized, bad company is obviously badly programmed engine. Another reason to bybass badcompany and do mw2 instead...

MW2 I actually enjoy a bit more, but believe me, it has problems of its own! IWnet= fail...Still, it is fun, I must admit, though when it came out I swore I would boycott it lol. Whats your steam?

oh, and jtisgeek, I see what you mean. I thought you meant core clock per core clock, not the shader power per processor. I guess that is why there are so many of them

 

[jtisgeek]

MW2 I actually enjoy a bit more, but believe me, it has problems of its own! IWnet= fail...Still, it is fun, I must admit, though when it came out I swore I would boycott it lol. Whats your steam?

oh, and jtisgeek, I see what you mean. I thought you meant core clock per core clock, not the shader power per processor. I guess that is why there are so many of them

Yeah there was a good article don't remember where now that talked about what they had to cut down on the 5800's to get the die size what they wanted . This affected the shader performance by adding others task to them.

 

[happy medium]

You're forgetting that clock-for-clock, the 4xxx series is faster than the 5xxx series.

Which should put him on par with my 5750 with 80 more sp's at the same clocks.
Correct?
Remember his 4860 has only 640 sp's. which is a 4770 at 900 core. A stock 4770 is @ 750 core. So a 4770 with a 150 core overclock can beat a 4870?
I don't think a 4770 at 900 core can best a 4870 at stock(750 core).

A 4780 has 800 shaders and close to the same clocks as him.
AZN said it would put his 4860 above the performance of a 4870.
I don't think so.

 

[jtisgeek]

Which should put him on par with my 5750 with 80 more sp's at the same clocks.
Correct?
Remember his 4860 has only 640 sp's. which is a 4770 at 900 core. A stock 4770 is @ 750 core. So a 4770 with a 150 core overclock can beat a 4870?
I don't think a 4770 at 900 core can best a 4870 at stock(750 core).

A 4780 has 800 shaders and close to the same clocks as him.
AZN said it would put his 4860 above the performance of a 4870.
I don't think so.

I agree I got off topic a little it's called a 4860 for a reason would have to really push clocks to beat a 4870. It's much better than a overclocked 4770 because it has the 256 bit bus like a 4870. These 4860 are just better clocked 4830's I think it's great amd can do all these naming games lol.

 

[happy medium]

I agree I got off topic a little it's called a 4860 for a reason would have to really push clocks to beat a 4870. It's much better than a overclocked 4770 because it has the 256 bit bus like a 4870. These 4860 are just better clocked 4830's I think it's great amd can do all these naming games lol.

The OP was posting about Bad Company 2 ,and it seems its a shader heavy game.
The 4860 having only 640 shaders seems to matter more here. The memory bandwidth requirements of the game don't seem too steep.

 

[felang]

I think it would probably help a great deal to oc your cpu to at least 3.8 ghz, IMO you would probably see an improvement in minimum framerate. My q6600 at 3.4 is usually at around 75% load across all cores.

And HBAO does lower framerates a good deal, at least in my 4850 512mb crossfire config. In order to get a steady 60fps at 1900x1200 (forcing vsync with D3D overrider as ingame setting doesn´t seem to work) I have to run with no AA and no HBAO.

 

[happy medium]

My q9550 @ 3.6 uses about 50% cpu at most, across all 4 cores.

 

[felang]

My q9550 @ 3.6 uses about 50% cpu at most, across all 4 cores.

Interesting, maybe this game is cache hungry???

 

[jtisgeek]

The OP was posting about Bad Company 2 ,and it seems its a shader heavy game.
The 4860 having only 640 shaders seems to matter more here. The memory bandwidth requirements of the game don't seem too steep.

I agree I was just saying that everyone has been comparing it to the 4770 when it is much more like the 4830.

 

[evolucion8]

surely this isnt true of the 5850 and above? I believe the 5970 and 5850 have similar clocks to a 4890, MB lower, and are much faster.

Or are you comparing 57xx to 48xx?

The HD 5x00 architecture got so big in terms of die size that they had to cut some stuff related to optimizations (It could be optimization path, some stuff in the Command Queue processor etc) and that would explain why the HD 5870 with double of everything failed to double the performance of the HD 4870, and that's why it is usually slower than the HD 4870X2 which has the same specs.

Yes even on the higher end 5800 series , lots of people believe the shaders are not as powerful clock to clock with the 4800's series. The 5830 reviews seem to point to that being the case since the 4890 beats it in everything.

The same thing happens with the HD 5450 vs the HD 4550, both shares the exact specs, but the difference is that the HD 5450 has more texture fillrate and runs 50MHz higher at the core, and yet it looses against the HD 4550, odd eh?

Interesting, maybe this game is cache hungry???

Don't know for sure, but it never uses more than 39% across all four cores with an average usage of 19%. Considering that my CPU is identical to the happy medium's Q9550, but I have a higher overclock, shows that the CPU usage got lower thanks to the additional computing power, so it would mean that it isn't computational bound, but cache/architecture bound. So probably overclocking an i7 will yield better results than overclocking a C2Q or Phenom II.