Battlefield 2 Memory Usage *Results Updated*

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Since ive heard a lot of debate about whether or not BF2 will use more than 1GB of memory, i plan to do some extensive testing with 1 and 2GB at various settings and resolutions to show real world performance differences between the 2.

All tests done on a 64 player server with at least 60 players in game

1024x768 4xSSAA max AF, all settings high.

1GB: Avg: 43 - Min: 0 - Max: 79

2GB: Avg: 77 - Min: 35 - Max: 99

Overall gameplay - 1GB was hitching terribly thorought the entire round, the only way i could keep things smooth was to stay in the same area all the time, travelling anywhere else on the map caused recaching that made it run like total ass, caused at least 4 of my deaths. 2GB ran much better, obviously much more playable frams for competitve FPS play.

Memory usage at the end of round: 1136MB memory, 1120MB pagefile @ 1024x768 4xAA all settings high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1600x1200 4xSSAA max AF, all settings high

1GB: Unplayable, hitching too bad. 0-36fps Round quit early.

2GB: Avg: 31 - Min: 17 - Max: 36

Overall gameplay - 1GB was unplayable. 2GB was playable but noticibly choppy, still far and away better than the hitching.

Memory usage at the end of round: N/A (quit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:

1. The task manager is not properly reporting memory usage. (win2k)
2. Battlefield 2 does utilize more than 1GB of memory.
3. At current ram prices, 2GB for this and future games is a no brainer.
4. The game overall improves with the memory upgrade, including moving through menus and load times.

Other notes:

Load times:

@ 1024 i saw a ~60% decrease in load times, they went from 61 seconds to 25 seconds from the memory upgrade alone.

A special thank you to xtknight for his memory monitoring program, Windows Task Manager was definately not reporting correctly.

*UPDATE*

Full Retail Memory usage #s:

Rig in sig, 1600x1200, all settings on high, No Antialiasing.

Peak memory usage by map:

Mashtuur City : 1088MB
Kubra Dam: 1145MB
Strike at Kakand: 1129MB
Shogua Stalemate: 1100MB
Zatar Wetlands: 1049MB
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Thanks a lot. My PC takes a hit during the first two minutes of BF2 demo gameplay, probably due to memory swapping. I'm considering buying another gig of RAM. Though after that 2 minutes that I've moved around in some places, it's generally smooth. Every time I uncover a new area, though, my system briefly hitches again and it's annoying. BTW, don't use FRAPS for your testing. Use the "renderer.drawFps 1" command in the console (tilde). It displays current/average FPS in red near the top-left corner. FRAPS lags some games due to how it operates.

I'm not sure how resolutions would affect the system memory. It depends on how the game changes resolution (whether it also increases texture size or not). So first the texture is on the hard disk somewhere, and is loaded into system RAM, but is it not then kept in video RAM for the remainder of the time? Is video RAM just for at-the-moment calculations like doing FSAA? It does actually store the textures, correct? I know you're around here somewhere, Pete. ;)
 

QurazyQuisp

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2003
2,554
0
76
Well, I have this:
AMD XP 1800+
512 MB RAM
Radeon 9800 SE softmodded to 9800, oced to 9800 Pro

and at 800*600 with high setting, it runs pretty stable through out the game, I only notice a spike in the gaming when the round ends.

I've played it on my fathers 3000+ XP with 1.5 GB of RAM, at those same settings, and it seems to load just as fast, and has the same problems as my computer, but with 1 GB more of RAM.

I'm not sure if this means anything or not, but I'd like to see what your findings result in.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,128
6
81
I remember back when UT2K4 came out. That game pretty much made 1GB of RAM standard for gaming PCs. Could BF2 be the game that makes 2GB standard? I'm bookmarking this thread. :thumbsup:
 

jrphoenix

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,295
2
81
Maybe my investment I made last July will finally payoff :p I game at 1600 x 1200 and have 4 512Mb dimms of OCZ.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Memory is shipped, should have it by wednesday and results by thursday, will bump and edit OP with results.

Doing to do 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200, 2048x1536 and No AA, 4xAA (probably 2xAA for 2048)

Ill post fraps averages for a few rounds at each setting, and describe the overall feel of the game (especially if theres those jerky freezes at the beginning of the round im experiencing now at 1GB)

Edit: Spelling
 

JBDan

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,333
0
0
Originally posted by: Megatomic
I remember back when UT2K4 came out. That game pretty much made 1GB of RAM standard for gaming PCs. Could BF2 be the game that makes 2GB standard? I'm bookmarking this thread. :thumbsup:
I believe so. After ending a BF2 game and going back to desktop it is SLOW to load. Obviously virtual memory is being used for a moment then my pc is back to norm within 20 seconds. I have a64 3500+ / 1G 2-2-2-5 RAM / 6800gt / 74G raptor. I BF2 @ 1152x864 all settings on highest and no AF or AA w/ V-sync ON. No other games have ever done this to me. 2G's might just be beneficial for BF2 IMO. Will watch this thread :)
 

Spacecomber

Senior member
Apr 21, 2000
268
0
0
I ran the game in a 800x600 window; so, I could see several System Monitor windows running at the same time. I had them monitoring Available Physical Memory, Percent of Swap File Used, Hard Drive Reads and Writes, and Page Faults. This is on an Athlon XP system with a Geforce 6800GT and 1GB of RAM.

Even at this low resolution, once the game loaded a single player level, all the physical memory is basically in use (about 25mb free). There is a gradual process of slowly adding data to the swap file, though it is only reaches about 12% of the swap file being used, even after playing for an hour. The main thing is that none of the page faults seem to be associated with any disk reads. If the page faults did require reading off of the hard drive, the game would stutter. But game play remains smooth; so, whatever is filling up the RAM and spilling over to the page file doesn't seem to be critical during the game play.

I guess I should try this again, but run the game at higher resolution. I could have the system monitors running in the background and alt-tab out to see what they look like after playing for a while. (They may be eating up some resources, but I don't think this is much compared to what the game draws.)

Space
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Can you look at 1.5 gigs as well? If I have to I can add another stick of ram, but I'd like to have acceptable timings. So could you see where the optimal celeing(SP) is?
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Looking at these comments here, I'm going to skip BF2. I find it ridiculous for any game to require 2GB just to run smoothly.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,128
6
81
I might skip the game also but it won't be due to an increase in system requirements. We all upgrade our video cards and CPUs, why not RAM?
 

Killrose

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,230
8
81
I don't really have any problems as long as I keep most settings at medium. When I set everything to High, it is unplayable with major stuttering. This is only a demo, I bet they will come out with a fix for mem usage. I cannot play for the first 20sec of the first game that loads due to stuttering, after that only a 2-3sec delay in any other game with system spec below.

BartonM @2.4gig
512mb HyperX 2.0-2-2-7 @200MHz
6800 Ultra 1280x960
4xAA with Medium/High settings mix (mostly Medium)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,326
4,660
126
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Looking at these comments here, I'm going to skip BF2. I find it ridiculous for any game to require 2GB just to run smoothly.
You only need 2gb for High settings. Running the demo fine with 1gb and Medium settings. It's a great game, at least try the demo before deciding. ;)
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: slash196
Can you look at 1.5 gigs as well? If I have to I can add another stick of ram, but I'd like to have acceptable timings. So could you see where the optimal celeing(SP) is?
I will only have 1gig and 512meg memory modules available, so i cannot run 1.5GB as it will disable dual channel and hurt performance.

I will show memory usage in the task manager though, so if its over 1GB and under 1.5GB for memory usage you should fall into the same performance area as 2GB.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: Killrose
I don't really have any problems as long as I keep most settings at medium. When I set everything to High, it is unplayable with major stuttering. This is only a demo, I bet they will come out with a fix for mem usage. I cannot play for the first 20sec of the first game that loads due to stuttering, after that only a 2-3sec delay in any other game with system spec below.

BartonM @2.4gig
512mb HyperX 2.0-2-2-7 @200MHz
6800 Ultra 1280x960
4xAA with Medium/High settings mix (mostly Medium)
1942 and vietnam both use more than 512MB as well... it just the way the game has to run. Its a large, high detailed outdoor environment, with a LOT of players and vehicles. So theres a ton of textures and models to swap in and out of memory.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,422
439
126
The overall frames are going to be virtually the same. The difference is in the smoothness of the gameplay. Loading times, and going to options time, etc.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,029
1,144
126
You're wasting your time doing FPS tests with system RAM as they'll seldom show a difference. You should be testing things like level load/reload times and hitching during gameplay.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: BFG10K
You're wasting your time doing FPS tests with system RAM as they'll seldom show a difference. You should be testing things like level load/reload times and hitching during gameplay.
I will be posting all the details.

The FPS at high settings on 1GB is unplayably low, it is "hitching" but its literraly 1FPS or less, it will show on a fps counter.

I plan to show minfps, maxfps, average, then describe the gaming experience as well.
 

Stinkfinger

Senior member
Apr 12, 2005
230
0
0
You only need 2gb for High settings. Running the demo fine with 1gb and Medium settings. It's a great game, at least try the demo before deciding. ;)
I disagree. I only have a gig and run everything on high @ 1280x1024 with 4xAA on and everything runs nice and smooth (when its not crashing that it) on my X800 XL.
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
I just ordered 2GB of PC3200 (2x1GB dimms) from newegg today.

Since ive heard a lot of debate about whether or not BF2 will use more than 1GB of memory, i plan to do some extensive testing with 1 and 2GB at various settings and resolutions to show real world performance differences between the 2.

Watch this space for an update this week!

cheers dude....have a virtual beer on me :beer:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY