Battlefield 2 Will need 2GB of ram.

[Seeruk]

Joint Ops with 150 players per server and 64 squarekm maps runs >60fps on all ultra high settings on my rig and BF2's graphics aint much better.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Thought I'd bring this one back from the dead since the demo is out.

I exited the game and checked my Task Manager Peak Memory. 1.62GB. I only have 1 GB. I'd say this game could do well with 2GB. And this is just the demo.

 

[Zenoth]

I can think of two games right now that are using almost as much RAM as you can throw at them, which are Star Wars: Galaxies, and Boiling Point (also known as Xenus).

 

[Krk3561]

Yea the game would benefit from 2GB. It was taking up almost 600MB of ram alone.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Thought I'd bring this one back from the dead since the demo is out.

I exited the game and checked my Task Manager Peak Memory. 1.62GB. I only have 1 GB. I'd say this game could do well with 2GB. And this is just the demo.

Agreed. Mine only reached 1.2GB but still. 2 GB would be helpful.

 

[Lord Evermore]

My system's Peak is 1.7GB and I haven't even played the game or done anything else that would have sucked up so much memory. Did you look at what your peak was before you played? Did you look at how much memory the game itself was taking up? (Does it support task-switching in Windows?)

Memory usage is just fricking ridiculous. These people should learn to optimize code one day. Having to double from 1GB to 2GB, just unbelievable. And it ain't like the old days when you could just add in another memory stick for a cost-effective upgrade. Now you risk losing performance/speed unless you pull everything out and replace it. Sure it's been like that for awhile now, but we've never been being forced to buy 1GB memory modules.

 

[ryanv12]

1GB modules are tricky though. Asking people to upgrade to them means losing nearly all overclockability, and to get stuff with better latency costs a fortune. I think I'm going to be stuck with 1GB valueram modules

 

[LocutusX]

OK, here's my input to BF2-Demo's memory usage:

Commit Charge (K) Peak

BEFORE: 221xxx

AFTER: 972xxx

I am NOT using all "high" settings since I only have a 9800 Pro.
I imagine that if I did, having 1.5-2.0GB of RAM would make a difference...

Time to start looking for RAM deals

BTW any thoughts on whether a game which uses as much RAM as this would benefit from being ported to the Win64 API (WinXP - x64)?

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: NeoV
Win2K and WinXP are 95% identical code anyway....

um...wrong

So youre saying the NTFS kernel in XP which is DIRECTLY based on the NTFS kernel in windows 2000, just with a ton of workstation/server features taken out, and dumbed down a couple hundred dozen grades for the Dell "users" is vastly different than win2k?

Can you explain why almost all XP drivers also work on 2k with identical code?

I'm not "NeoV"... but anyways, while there certainly is a lot of identical code between Win2K and WinXP, they most definitely did re-write significant parts of the kernel for WinXP.

And while they indeed took out some "server" features, they didn't really touch any "workstation" features since WinXP Professional is considered a workstation OS.

As an aside, Microsoft re-wrote the kernel AGAIN for Windows Server 2003. But to a much greater extent than the Win2K -> WinXP increment.
XP64 is using that kernel, and so will Longhorn probably.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Did you look at what your peak was before you played? Did you look at how much memory the game itself was taking up? (Does it support task-switching in Windows?)

Before I started it, it showed a Peak of 997MB. But, what I did not check was if anything else was running at the same time. My wife has been working with some photos and that might have been in Task at the same time I ran it. I don't know. Can't say I pay attention to that much anymore since I actually built a decent system.

So, to check for sure, I rebooted and took some before and during pics. Sure enough, not hitting that 1.6GB now. But, what is noteworthy is how much PageFile it hits. Why does it thrash the PF so much when it has real mem to use right there? Or am I reading that wrong?

edit: I just changed some video settings and then restarted the game. When you do that, it has to "optimize shaders" and whatnot when you start a new map. This caused a spike in memory usage. Peak now shows 1.36GB.

 

[luigi1]

to the above post, this seems to be an xp thing, it bloody insists to page memory while leaving ram alone. not having issues with 1gb 3500+ 6800gt, but havent checked setings, just running with defaults.

 

[pcmax]

Originally posted by: luigi1
to the above post, this seems to be an xp thing, it bloody insists to page memory while leaving ram alone. not having issues with 1gb 3500+ 6800gt, but havent checked setings, just running with defaults.

I think some of this has to do with the game. Far Cry for example WILL take up all the physical ram before going to page file.

 

[imaheadcase]

Just play the Demo for a bit with 64 players, alt tab out. I was using 760megs of ram according to Task Manager. Thats pretty standard for games now, especially MMORPG. I play Dark Age of Camelot and it uses around 500megs for example.

Btw I run a 9700 Pro at 1024x768 with all settings on High Except dynamic lighting is medium and it plays smooth at butter.

 

[Cobalt]

Running 1024x768 all settings high and 4xAA with a 6600GT and 1GB on my A64 3000+ and it's smooth as smooth can be, so I think this is proven false.

 

[alm4rr]

im runnning on all low with 512 pc133 and 128 8500le and it looks a lil better than HL1 =P
but it works (and I can get kills)

 

[LocutusX]

Just so you guys know, "PF Usage" in task manager does NOT mean "PageFile Usage".

Yes, a common misunderstanding among those not familiar with the internal workings of Win2K/WinXP...

 

[0roo0roo]

in the age of expensive sli systems whats a bit of ram for very high quality settings eh? glad they include such things. it works out as the game ages and the benifits spread to more users.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: LocutusX
Just so you guys know, "PF Usage" in task manager does NOT mean "PageFile Usage".

Yes, a common misunderstanding among those not familiar with the internal workings of Win2K/WinXP...

What does it mean?

 

[bjc112]

I peaked @ 1100megs which is actually pretty high..

HL2 and doom max around 800 and 900..

None the less, I ran everything at max with 4xAA and it ran the demo no problems whatsoever..

2GB still isn't needed IMO.

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: LocutusX
Just so you guys know, "PF Usage" in task manager does NOT mean "PageFile Usage".

Yes, a common misunderstanding among those not familiar with the internal workings of Win2K/WinXP...

What does it mean?

From: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar04/articles/pcnotes.htm

---

If you select the Task Manager's Performance page you'll see four graphs at the top for CPU Usage, CPU Usage History, Page File Usage, and Page File Usage History, while underneath are four sections labeled 'Totals', 'Physical Memory (K)', 'Commit Charge (K)', and 'Kernel Memory (K)'. What you're seeing in graphic form as PF Usage is in fact identical to the figure labelled 'Total' in the Commit Charge section ? and this is not page file usage, but the maximum possible page file usage in a worst-case situation, a sort of 'reserved space for potential usage' (it's exactly the same figure that Cacheman displays less confusingly as 'Paging File Allocation') The only way you can measure the 'actual' page file usage is as previously explained.

---

*Actual* Page File Usage?

Try running the VBScript file located here:
http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/

WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip

 

[Lord Evermore]

I think "worst case scenario" is another poor way to describe it, as is even Page File Allocation. When I think of "allocated" I think of the actual size assigned, which for me particularly would be 1GB static page file size.

The "commit charge" Limit would in fact be the total maximum that your system has in both physical and virtual memory. PF Usage or Commit Charge Total would be equal to what the system would use if it were to page the contents of physical memory right that minute; essentially it's the total memory usage. Peak is still of course the maximum that your system has used, however I don't know over what period - it doesn't appear to be during the current session only.

Useful VBScript there, although it does naturally still show just how stupid Windows can be. 1GB of memory and yet it still pages 114MB to disk out of a total commit of only 228MB.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: holycpu

Regarding Battlefield 2: if someone can find the link, there's an interview with an EA designer who admits that in order to run the game on HIGH settings you're going to need 2GBs of RAM.

According to this guy from our forum, he said BF2 will need 2GB of ram.

If this is true, it will be a beginning of 2GB ram ERA for gaming world.

If you can prove this true, give us a link?

If you think, HELL NO, 1 gb is doing 100% fine ! no need 2 GB, then, plz feel free to tell us ---------------------> w-h-y.

It plays fine on my PC, I am suprised though!

Pentium III(s version!) Tualatin Core 512k Full Speed Cache 1.4GHz on 133mhz bus
1 Stick 512MB Crucial CAS2 PC133
Crucial ATI 9700 PRO 128mb 256BIT.
Hitachi 7k250 PATA

 

[Pollock]

It plays fine with everything at max (except textures at medium, as it seems to perform horrible no matter what when set to high) and 4xAA at 1280x1024. My system has an A64 3000+ at 2.5GHz, 1GB of ram, and a 6600GT. Hopefully 1GB will be plenty for games for a while now...

 

[eno]

I too agree with the need of more then 1gb of memory. I know for a fact it runs better with at least 1.5gbs. I have tested it. Wish people would stop saying "I have everything maxed out, 1600, 4x 8x and it runs perfectly smooth on some 2600+,512mb 9800pro system. I just wonder what your screen really looks like.

I had 1gb of HyperX crap memory in each of my systems, I recently put all of that into my MediaCenter for a total of 2gbs and just ordered Corsair XMS 2x1024mb from newegg. My peak memory usuage shows usually around 1.4gbs. I run a X850XT,AMD64 OC 2.5ghz with now 2gbs and I notice it doesn't skip as much anymore since I have more then enough memory. Since my system was hitting peaks of 1.4gbs that meant that 1.5gbs wouldn't cut it, I used to think as long as my memory usage was below my total ammount by at least a couple mbs that I was fine but performance testing my games showed different. Not sure the exact math but usually if my system is using more then 900mbs of memory my 1024mbs just doesn't cut it, same thing with using 1.4gbs, 1.5 doesn't cut it.

I run 1280x960 with a mixture of high and medium levels while at 4xAA/ High Filtering. It runs smooth 90% of the time and only on the most intense scenes will it skip due to FPS lag. My 2cents.





PS Running lower settings like 1152 2x4x medium levels gives great quality picture while running usually within means for 1gb of memory. My friends 9800pro system runs great with that and looks damn good. I upgraded just so I could go a bit higher then those settings since I had the horsepower to do so with my CPU/GPU.

 

[angstsoldat]

Battlefield 2 only supports the following video cards:
Radeon X700 (PCIe)
Radeon X600 (PCIe)
GeForce 6600 (PCIe)
GeForce PCX 5900 (PCIe)
GeForce 5800 Series (AGP)
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
ATI Radeon 9800 Series
ATI Radeon 9600 Series
ATI Radeon 9550 (RV350LX)
ATI Radeon 9500 / 9700 Series
ATI Radeon 8500 Series
ATI Radeon X300 Series
NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVidia GeForce 6800 GT
NVidia GeForce 6800
NVidia GeForce FX 5950 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5900 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5700 Series

Does this mean that it doesnt support the X800 XL? All I see is X800Pro and X800XT