Bad Company 2 Beta Benchmark

[countcristo]

Haha me of one day ago, such a fool! Anyways, with this Fermi non-announcement and the lack of available 5970's I said 'fuck it' and used some of the money I'd saved for a Q9550 for $194 (including tax at micro center). I currently have it @ 3.2 and have definitely noticed a substantial increase in minimum frame rates with this game.

Dear Scooterlibby, you've answered my question since I also upgraded from a similar dual core (e8500, if not the same?) to a Q9550. I told my friend I would get the game, so now there's no reason not to other than if it's a terrible game. Oh and I noticed you OC-ed it, which I planned on doing also to get similar clock speeds as the e8400/e8500, but doesn't that void the warranty at (3.6 or 3.2 GHz)?

I registered on Anandtech forums just for you, just to tell you my thanks/gratefulness {eventhough I've been a longtime reader, first time quoter (Anandtech's LCD buyer's guide has helped me purchase the BenQ g2400WD long ago and I haven't regretted it.)}

Since I read this entire thread, I just have one thing to say about this game.

EA/DICE generally have crappy, unoptimized games at release, but after about 3 months (just like BF2 and BF2142), the game gets significantly smoother, less buggy, and "fairness" patches then occurs (TV missile's range in BF2 anyone?). Also, it's a trend that I've noticed with this company usually requiring people to upgrade both CPU and GPU in order to max settings/max res. and have playable frame rates. It's funny that this comes up as I just talked to another gamer buddy about this the other night.

With that said, and the help of scooterlibby confirming it, any dual-core cpu will not render you that lush 60 fps hardcore gamers strive for at least. (I know some people who want 300fps and can't play with anything but, even if they make the game look like mud, and even if it doesn't make sense to me). For this game, it's even recommended to have a quad-core (the first! I think.)

All in all, everyone stop fighting, stop starting fights, stop flaming, and let there be karate and friendship.

 

[scooterlibby]

Dear Scooterlibby, you've answered my question since I also upgraded from a similar dual core (e8500, if not the same?) to a Q9550. I told my friend I would get the game, so now there's no reason not to other than if it's a terrible game. Oh and I noticed you OC-ed it, which I planned on doing also to get similar clock speeds as the e8400/e8500, but doesn't that void the warranty at (3.6 or 3.2 GHz)?

I registered on Anandtech forums just for you, just to tell you my thanks/gratefulness {eventhough I've been a longtime reader, first time quoter (Anandtech's LCD buyer's guide has helped me purchase the BenQ g2400WD long ago and I haven't regretted it.)}

Since I read this entire thread, I just have one thing to say about this game.

EA/DICE generally have crappy, unoptimized games at release, but after about 3 months (just like BF2 and BF2142), the game gets significantly smoother, less buggy, and "fairness" patches then occurs (TV missile's range in BF2 anyone?). Also, it's a trend that I've noticed with this company usually requiring people to upgrade both CPU and GPU in order to max settings/max res. and have playable frame rates. It's funny that this comes up as I just talked to another gamer buddy about this the other night.

With that said, and the help of scooterlibby confirming it, any dual-core cpu will not render you that lush 60 fps hardcore gamers strive for at least. (I know some people who want 300fps and can't play with anything but, even if they make the game look like mud, and even if it doesn't make sense to me). For this game, it's even recommended to have a quad-core (the first! I think.)

All in all, everyone stop fighting, stop starting fights, stop flaming, and let there be karate and friendship.

Glad to have provided some insight. Yes I believe OC'ing it voids the warranty, but I've yet to have an OC'd CPU crap out on me, so it ha snot been an issue. I always make sure to have great cooling.

I think with patches, that a solid dual may in the future be able to handle BC2 much better. I know that some of my issues also stemmed from SLI. When I switched it off and then back on again my FPS went way up. SLI is annoying that way.

 

[zerocool84]

How did this thing get so horribly off topic?

 

[scooterlibby]

As far as I could tell this was about the performance of BFBC2 and the variables that influence that performance. Pretty on topic I think.

 

[Phil1977]

It's good to see that they tweaked dual core performance...

But my AMD Athlon II 250 still struggled with this game, even after the patch...

So I got a Lynnfield quadcore now.

If you have a very fast dual core, I am sure you will be fine. But if you have a slow dual core, I wouldn't recommend to invest into another dual core anymore. A fast wolfdale costs the same as a i5 750...

Full game is out next week then we will have some more benchmarks available very soon.

 

[Apocalypse23]

Can someone post the Full version benches? I think we have yet to see a formal benchmark of this game, now that it's out. Is there a major difference in Maximum graphics settings than from the Beta? How does it look and run on 1920x1080 with 4xAA,16xAF ? Are there any screenshots?

Also, what is the max player limit? Is it 48 players as in COD4 ? If it's less, that will piss me off.. (loves spamming and going all out fragging!)

 

[Zargon]

32.

 

[zerocool84]

Can someone post the Full version benches? I think we have yet to see a formal benchmark of this game, now that it's out. Is there a major difference in Maximum graphics settings than from the Beta? How does it look and run on 1920x1080 with 4xAA,16xAF ? Are there any screenshots?

Also, what is the max player limit? Is it 48 players as in COD4 ? If it's less, that will piss me off.. (loves spamming and going all out fragging!)

Player limit??? Umm you can get that info anywhere. It's 32.

And no it's not like CoD in which you can sit somewhere and just camp all day. You have objectives and will die and fail without help of your teammates.

 

[testeure]

I just started the game in single player:

spec:

vista 64 bit
intel core i7 920 2,7 ghz (no overclock)
radeon hd 4850 1 gb of memory (no overclock)
12 Gb of cheep ram (don't ask plz, it came with the pc lol) (no overclock)
1440*900 59 hz

everything on high
I added -dx9 in shortcut (directx 9) cuz directx 10 is useless
AAx1
ASx12

FPS varies from 50 to 80... average is 60. Explosion and dust puts the fps sometimes to 40 but goes up very fast after that

with AAx8 I get 35 fps ... 15 fps for explosion (ouch), the crosshair/weapon movement has like 1 second of delay. First time I see that fps affects the weapons movements in a fps game, usally the game has ''mouse lag'' instead of ''mouse movement delay''

to be honest, it's not worth playing it with AA, you can't really feel the difference like in Crysis for example...

 

[evolucion8]

DX10 cuts your FPS in half, I found with ATT that with ATi cards, the game at default will switch to DX10.1. The difference in image quality is so subtle, it only looks more clearer, less foggy, I have it On anyways, it always runs between 40fps and 65fps, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[zerocool84]

Here you go everyone. GPU and even CPU performance benchmarked.

http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/

 

[tvdang7]

damn look at the cpu graph.

 

[edplayer]

wish they would have also used no AA to see the difference

 

[Apocalypse23]

Here you go everyone. GPU and even CPU performance benchmarked.

http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/

roger that, thanks!

 

[edplayer]

anyone know of any other GPU or CPU benchmarks?


here is one from xbitlabs:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/battlefield-bad-company-2.html



I am thinking of upgrading to a 5770 but that Xbit review also lists minimum fps and the 5770 doesn't look too good. I will be using 1920x1080 but don't need AA.

 

[Jodiuh]

Bump from oblivion!

http://www.overclock.net/8628662-post15.html

So...yeah, I'll be happy w/ my recently ordered Q9550 upgrade? Any other dual to quad core upgraders notice a significant bump in performance and playability? Currently, my GTX 260 216, 4GB RAM, and E8400 @ 4.0Ghz like to sit around 40 to 50 w/ dips in the 30's when things get nasty. It's ugly! That's @ 1680x1050 w/ high settings and DX10 BTW.

 

[Triglet]

I went from an E8400 to a Q9550, and noticed a huge improvement in BC2. Everything was much smoother. I've got the 9550 at 4.0 Ghz, and it drives the 480 very nicely -- I can get GPU useage up to 99% in game depending on what settings I'm running at 1920X1200 so I don't think there's a huge bottleneck there.

You'll be happy with the upgrade, and it should last you till Intel's next platform comes out in late 2011.

 

[Jodiuh]

Thanks, that's exactly what I want to hear. I should have mine by the end of the week.

 

[T2k]

STALKER Call of Prypiat uses one of my 4 cores at full 100% all the time, that's the usage I found monitoring the CPU usage with Rivatuner, so Windows 7 not all the time spreads the thread across all the cores.

I agree though keep in mind that STALKER's X-Ray v1.6 is a very well-designed engine when it comes to multicores, it was way ahead of its times.

Here the benchmarks shows that Nehalem is barely faster than the C2Q and Phenom II in terms of gaming performance, in everything else, the biggest difference is only 50%, which shows that talking out of context, Nehalem is simply a rehashed C2Q with a True Quad design, IMC, minor tweaks for better threading performance, server oriented performance tweaks and a redesigned cache. At the execution engine level, they're not too different. But there's no reason to dump the design since it is a very good one which dates from the P6 design and its first incarnation, the Pentium M.

Errr, Nehalem got QPI and (finally!) integrated memory controller so it's certainly NOT a rehashed C2 chip; OTOH the cores inside are largely similar hence the little gain in real performance from the faster memory and interconnection buses but I think next-gen architecture, building on these thing should offer at least 20-30% jump ahead.

As for BC2 I can barely see any difference between my C2Q@3.xGHz and my i7-860 w/ Turbo, 4GB and 5870 and 8GB and 5850 respectively (though I use stronger AA on the first.)