I put together a quick web page with the results of using the Windows Performance Graph to look at Available Physical Memory, Percentage of Swap File Used, Page Faults, and Disk Reads while playing BF2 online.
I think the results are consistent with what others are reporting. 1GB of RAM is enough to run this game fairly smoothly, but it is only just enough. I played on a 32 person server and was using just the demo, which may not have fully revealed how much memory this game can suck up. I can easily imagine that it wouldn't take much to increase the memory load on the system and push things in the direction of more stutter. For example, I wasn't using the voice communication program or running anything else in the background (other than the performance logging and Norton's AV). And, of course, playing the Demo means that there was no switching to additional maps or dealing with servers tracking players' stats.
Just as an aside, I can't help recalling how it was Battlefield 1942 that led me to abandon my 32 MB video card for one with more memory, and it was Desert Combat Final that led to my increasing my system memory from 512MB to 1GB. Now, I'm faced with Battlefield 2, which has already required me to upgrade my video card just to play the Demo (bye bye Geforce4), and it may require me to buy more RAM before I'm done.
Space
I think the results are consistent with what others are reporting. 1GB of RAM is enough to run this game fairly smoothly, but it is only just enough. I played on a 32 person server and was using just the demo, which may not have fully revealed how much memory this game can suck up. I can easily imagine that it wouldn't take much to increase the memory load on the system and push things in the direction of more stutter. For example, I wasn't using the voice communication program or running anything else in the background (other than the performance logging and Norton's AV). And, of course, playing the Demo means that there was no switching to additional maps or dealing with servers tracking players' stats.
Just as an aside, I can't help recalling how it was Battlefield 1942 that led me to abandon my 32 MB video card for one with more memory, and it was Desert Combat Final that led to my increasing my system memory from 512MB to 1GB. Now, I'm faced with Battlefield 2, which has already required me to upgrade my video card just to play the Demo (bye bye Geforce4), and it may require me to buy more RAM before I'm done.
Space
This game at a great time for me, as the 512 stick of pc3200 I bought off Ebay three or so years ago just shot craps. Bought my 2 gigs of Dual Channel Corsair XMS off Newegg on Saturday, I'm eagerly awaiting its arrival - however, Battlefield 2 is playable at 512 megs of RAM, although I do have an X800 Pro backing it up - I'm sure that helps a great deal.
Unfortunately the game isn't more CPU bound. This seems to be turning into another Doom 3 were all of the load is dumped onto the GPU.
This thing is weird, because even though I only have 512mb mem, and it stutters terribly on my first spawn, seems kinda OK after that. I usually always play on 64 player servers. I have my video settings on a mix of Medium/High. Setting all on High absolutely kills my system even though I have a 6800 Ultra. I still think this game is not properly using video card mem, but instead loading textures in main mem improperly.
Originally posted by: xtknight
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.
How do I turn it off? turn it to 0 (im at work cant test)
OK 2 GIGS Solved everything...
running 1280 res with 2&q AA and 8x af and its smooth as glass
ZERO Hitching at load in!
Even the Crappy GUI doesn't lock up anymore.
I 100% reccommend spending 80$ and everybody getting a gig of ram for this game to bring you up to 2 gigs total.
Very Happy now
running 1280 res with 2&q AA and 8x af and its smooth as glass
ZERO Hitching at load in!
Even the Crappy GUI doesn't lock up anymore.
I 100% reccommend spending 80$ and everybody getting a gig of ram for this game to bring you up to 2 gigs total.
Very Happy now
Ugh, 2gigs needed? I guess I'll just play the demo and wait and see what COD2 has going for it first. I prefere WWII shooters anyway's.
FYI, I threw an extra 512MB stick into my system for a total of 1.5GB and the difference (with 1600x1200, maximum settings) was huge. Even a 256MB stick might've been enough. So, if you aren't using dual-channel memory and have an extra stick laying around, regardless of the size, throw it in. I don't think the full 2GB is necessary. People just recommend, I think, because it's the next-highest dual-channel configuration after 1GB.
Chopper Gold: Do you have 4 512mb sticks? are they running ok in your mobo at DDR 400? I think my A8N will defauly to DDR333 if I use all memory slots.
Just to clarify:
If you read the settings we are using, you need 2GB for MAXIMUM SETTINGS, turning down graphics features makes the game perfectly playable with 1GB.
If you read the settings we are using, you need 2GB for MAXIMUM SETTINGS, turning down graphics features makes the game perfectly playable with 1GB.
drifter106
Golden Member
- Mar 14, 2004
- 1,261
- 57
- 91
Great info, thanks. Anyone ever due a similar test w/HL2, D3, & general Windows performance? RAM is dirt cheap and I might pick up another 1GB stick if its worth it
yes 4x 512 confirmed ddr400 but only @ 2T..wouldn't post at 1T which it was set at when i was noly 1 gig.
Of course i spent 45 min wondering WTF was wrong..thought I had bad ram...heh
Cpuz confirms dual channel...But I think the fact that I have Venice is what allows it to run at 400...
I am using maximum settings (1600x1200, everything High, 4x AA) and 1.5GB is quite playable, a whole lot moreso than 1GB was. My point is that suggesting that 2GB is necessary for maximum settings is a little misleading, since 1.5GB seems to be just fine. I understand that 2GB is the best number to shoot for when buying memory for a variety of reasons, but, for those like me who are just looking to patch up their system as cheaply as possible, adding any amount of memory over 1GB that you can will greatly improve playability at max settings. If you can steal a stick from another system (even if it's only 128 or 256MB, but especially if it's 512MB), do it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter