That's funny, because I play with 1GB and I don't see all this lag you speak of. In fact the game runs pretty smoothly for me. If the game ran that bad with 1GB I think there's be a lot of people up in arms asking for their money back. This is just another exaggeration.
That's funny, because I play with 1GB and I don't see all this lag you speak of. In fact the game runs pretty smoothly for me. If the game ran that bad with 1GB I think there's be a lot of people up in arms asking for their money back. This is just another exaggeration.
^^^
Here's the classic example of how people exaggerate this 1GB->2GB effect. This guy says he more than doubles his framerate :roll:
Sisq0kidd, you want me to take his testimony as credible??
m0rph, you spout out a lot for someone who has never tested it for himself. You claim that people blow this two gigs thing way out of proportion, but yet you have never even tested it yourself.
Anywho, you are going off on a tagent. Like I said earlier. The OP asked if going from a 6600gt to x800 is justified in BF2 at 1280x1024 res. I say no and that going from 1 gig to 2 gigs would yield better results. Either refute that or give it a rest. You stay in the video forums knocking peoples' credibility when you yourself have the least!
There is lots of stuttering in the game. even on 1gb. I've seen it. i dont care what video card you have, if you try it on high settings, you get stuttering.
basically, 512mb= low/medium settings (for no stuttering) 1gb=medium 2gb=high
that's how it basically goes.
basically, 512mb= low/medium settings (for no stuttering) 1gb=medium 2gb=high
that's how it basically goes.
what he said.
you need at least 1.5GB RAM to avoid stuttering altogether.
in the same token, that amount of RAM has to be paired with VGA with at least 256MB to run at all high settings/1280x1024/2xAA 8xAF/100% view distance.
without 1.5GB/256MB you are going to get hitching at the beginning of levels and occaisonally on 64player maps no matter what
but if you rename all the movies in the EAGames folder to '.backup' extensions, that will save you a little over 300MB RAM when the game loads, ALMOST alleviating the need for over 1.5GB RAM. (BF2 actually uses ~1.3+GB). but not quite.
I run a 6600GT@ 585/1120
1280x1024
all settings medium except:
dyn shadows->off
dyn lighting-> low
geometry->high
terrain-> high
view distance 100%
2xAA, 'medium'AF (8x?)
get hitching when maps load initially but not much after than point.
the best thing you can do to alleviate hitching in BF2 is to make the 'low priority BF2' .bat file (instructions over at Guru3D.com) and use it as your BF2 shortcut. Made a HUGE difference for me. Cut down on hitching, allows me to alt-tab easier and the program shuts down more quickly and hangs less.
FS benches in BF2 are out to lunch.
The X700pro = 6600GT in BF2 performance (with AF) ?
anand
The X700XT is faster than X700pro and the X800 is faster than a X700XT. So the X800 would be a good jump in performance over a 6600GT in BF2. Whether you think the additional cost is worth it, is another matter.
The X700pro = 6600GT in BF2 performance (with AF) ?
anand
The X700XT is faster than X700pro and the X800 is faster than a X700XT. So the X800 would be a good jump in performance over a 6600GT in BF2. Whether you think the additional cost is worth it, is another matter.
If you turn all the settings to High (especially Lighting), you will get massive lag in the first 5 minutes of the map, or until you go around the whole map to precache the materials.
Many tests have shown 2gb is not to be a huge performance over 1gb not neccesarily in bf2 but alot of games. It has been a popular argument recently because of new upcoming games (F.E.A.R in general) that require a much more powerful pc. As of now, ive probably mentioned this before but people questioning an upgrade to 2gb should think of just look to 1.5gb for an upgrade. I just bought another 512mb of ram to add to my existing gig and im pretty confident that it will handle upcoming games for a while. Anyways people who dont want to dish out another 100 bucks or more for memory should just add 512mb. Also who cares about dual channel it barely shows any increase in performance.
2GB on BF2 allows you to put on even more video options than before. Trust me I've tried it and well I admit, I thought 1GB would allow me to run things all on high, but 2 GB did it. 1GB will allow you to play the game BUT won't allow you to put on a lot of the settings at HIGH. So... in short:
1 - Stick with 1GB and enjoy the game with MEDIUM (and prolly 3 high settings, at most)
2 - Get 2GB and enjoy a majority of your video options to be on HIGH.
It works fellas, I am sorry to say, but 2GB allows more memory to put more video options on HIGH. BUT, 1GB still works fine. So for those still bickering about this either have 1GB to play the game or 2GB to play the game even better.
1 - Stick with 1GB and enjoy the game with MEDIUM (and prolly 3 high settings, at most)
2 - Get 2GB and enjoy a majority of your video options to be on HIGH.
It works fellas, I am sorry to say, but 2GB allows more memory to put more video options on HIGH. BUT, 1GB still works fine. So for those still bickering about this either have 1GB to play the game or 2GB to play the game even better.
Powermoloch
Lifer
- Jul 5, 2005
- 10,084
- 4
- 76
I used to run my comp w/ a normal 6600 256 mb vanilla. It went very nicely with settings high @ 1024 x 768
I just played for 3 hours. I set the graphics to the HIGH preset. Everything is on high except for two things, textures and something else (I forget). I also turned on 4xAA and the resolution is set to 1152x864.
The game ran smooth as can be, no problems whatsoever. I got 30-50 FPS and no significant hitches or anything like that. And guess how much memory I have? That's right, 1GB. So you guys that are saying that you need 2GB to play on high are just plain wrong.
The game ran smooth as can be, no problems whatsoever. I got 30-50 FPS and no significant hitches or anything like that. And guess how much memory I have? That's right, 1GB. So you guys that are saying that you need 2GB to play on high are just plain wrong.
great, now set the resolution to 1280x1024 like half the rest of us use and turn to "high" both textures and "something else" and see what happens
since textures are more taxing on system memory than any other setting, putting it to anything except High doesn't really help your argument here.
Well like I said, I used the "high" setting. So I guess EA/DICE considers that high quality, even though a couple things are left on medium. If you guys are talking about cranking every single setting to it's maximum, then you should specify that. Anyway my graphics card is not gonna handle cranking up every setting. However, my bet is someone with a 7800GTX is not gonna have any trouble cranking it all up, regardless whether he has 1 or 2 GB RAM. It's much more about the graphics card than it is about 2 GB system memory.
You still have not tested 2gb. You go on and on, but still do not make a solid argument against what the rest of us are saying. All you do is speculate and assume that adding another gig will not do anything for you. Where the hell did you get that information? Seriously... WHERE?
And you still have not refuted my point. The OP asked if going from a 6600gt to x800 in BF2 will make a significant difference. He said:
"I would like to know if this is enough to play BF2 at 1280 (my 19"lcd's optimal resolution) with max setting? Would I see significant difference if I upgrade to X800 256mb (connect3d, $45 more than 6600gt) "
He mentions maxed settings. I answered his question about max settings. Going from 1gb to 2gb yields better results than going from 6600gt to x800 in bf2 at 1280x1024 res.
You elluded to me being under the placebo effect. Well, you're under the "i have no evidence for what I am saying, but all I know is that my cousin's sister's friend's dog told me 2gb does nothing" effect.
I wonder if even 7800GTX stutter at the "max" setting and 1600x1200 with 1GB.
By the way, M0rph I would like to know which server you are using. Maybe I can show you the difference between 1GB and 2GB practically.:evil:
By the way, M0rph I would like to know which server you are using. Maybe I can show you the difference between 1GB and 2GB practically.:evil:
The original discussion was about graphics cards and instead of telling him which card he needs for BF2, you tried to tell him to upgrade to 2GB RAM. You apparently want people to believe that going from 1 to 2GB RAM is a more important consideration for BF2 than choise of graphics card, Well I'm here to tell people that's bunk. Take that $80 that you would have spent on another gig of RAM and buy a better graphics card. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it until someone can prove me wrong. I believe that people are exaggerating the importance of 2GB RAM in BF2, and that's based upon my own experience with the game, since I have no trouble with my 1G RAM system. You can believe what you want based on your own experience. I'm done arguing about it.
Edit: Also, since the OP is shopping for a mid range card like the 6600GT/X800, he's not gonna be cranking up every graphic option to the absolute maximum, so if that's the only case where 2GB RAm is important then it's really a mute point here.
Here's where I have a problem with your argument though. I have tested 1gb. You have not tested 2gb. Even with your testimony, you say you left textures at medium settings. That's where the hogging starts. Crank that up to high and tell me your 1gb can handle the load.
He plays at 1280x1024 res in BF2 on max settings. I answered his question straight about what would yield the best results. You are merely side stepping and saying the obvious that a better video card is a better video card. Maybe next time you can answer the OP's question instead of arguing something you have no clue about.
$70 to upgrade ram is the price you pay to upgrade from a 6600gt to x800. Which ever is the smartest move in real life is up to the user. However, to answer the OP's question again, 2 gigs would yield better results.
From all the things mentioned above, I can only see the things I have stated as obective. Twist my words and arguments all you like, but everything above still stands.
Here's the thing, though. With a 6600GT he's not gonna be able to play at 1280x1024 with everything maxed out. Not unless he likes to play at 10FPS. He will be playing at about the same settings that I play at, since his system will be about on par with mine. People here are saying that it's at 1280x1024 and up, with all maxed settings where you really start feeling the need for 2GB. I guess I can accept that, but it doesn't really apply to the guy who started this thread. It only applies to people with high end video cards that can actually run with those settings.
As for the comparison between 6600GT and X800, I've seen deals on both of these recently for about $130, so there isn't much of a price difference. That's why I recommended he get the X800 because in my book it's the better card.
Fair enough. I still want to know for sure if a 6600gt can handle max settings with 2 gigs of ram on that res though.
what good is a high end video card when you can't use the max setting because your ram is holding you back. At least with 2GB you get less load time and smoother game exprience. Now back to the op question. All I can say is that if 6600GT be enough for max settings you need 2GB for sure. If not you have to play at med setting and it seems 1GB works fine at medium settings.
I'm still waiting for the server name M0rph. :brokenheart:
Q: how do you play at 1280x1024? I don't have it in my video options! it's 1280x9xx then it jumps to 1600x1200.
I'm still waiting for the server name M0rph. :brokenheart:
Q: how do you play at 1280x1024? I don't have it in my video options! it's 1280x9xx then it jumps to 1600x1200.
1280x1024, all settings to 'high', including textures
2xAA, probably not 4xAA because the 6600GT needs more pipes and memory
but the fast DDR3 VRAM should allow you to use 'medium' or 'high' AF
100% view distance of course
dynamic lights & shadows you may not be able to turn up past 'medium', GPU limitation
that being said, heck yeah 2GB will allow those settings. At that point the limitation will strictly be the 8-pipe GPU and only 128mb VRAM.
i am using exactly those settings above except:
dyn shadows->off
dyn lighting-->low
textures-->medium
lighting--->medium
effects--->medium
with 1GB and no stuttering for the most part
but increasing any one of those and it really gets into system memory and the stuttering starts
those are all things added system memory will help with temendously, but the 128mb vram is still going to limits some things like dyn. lights&shadows and AA.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter