Hardware help with Battlefield 1942...advice needed please

[bozack]

Well hello all, seems like I am having a bit of a dilemma with Battlefield 1942 and loading times....

A while back I upgraded my system to better pay this game, however after the upgrade I actually noticed that BF1942 played worse...I got xbl a weel later and just forgot about BF1942, well seems like a new and interesting update has come out for the game and I once again would like to get it to work, but the load times are stupidly long and I get alot of Lag, I believe because of the Maps....

My system is as follows:

ECS K7S5A
AMD Athlon XP 1600
256 2100 DDR Kingston
ATI Radeon 32mb DDR
Soundblaster Live Xgamer
Intel Nic 10/100 Pro
20x Western digital 7200 RPM drive
Windows XP Professional

Funny thing is it played much better on my Intel P3 650 Setup running windows 98 with 256 PC100 memory, a little choppy but at least I could play it.

I guess that it is a combo of the more memory intensive OS and the lack of an increase in system memory??

I know my video card sucks, but I don't think that is causing this problem? but then again it wouldn't be the first time I am wrong

I have tried this setup with 2x256 MB PC133 and the game seems to load a little faster, but for some reason this board is just not at all stable with 2 sticks of memory, I have yet to try it with two sticks of DDR but I figure the problem will remain. I am thinking of just buying one 512MB Stick of Kingston 2100 DDR and see if that alleviates my problem, but I would like to get other opinions before I bother with this...I would really like to get the demo running before I waste the money on the full game.

Thanks.

 

[Lord Evermore]

BF1942 is a massive memory hog. Most likely with your previous system, you weren't running at the same settings that you are now, so it seemed smoother. You need at least 512MB for smooth gameplay even at medium settings, and lots of people swear you should have 1GB but 512MB is completely acceptable.

 

[5LiterMustang]

I've got a couple suggestions, get a different board and get a 1700+ then overclock the snot out of it. By the time you sell your old stuff you'll end up coming outta pocket probably 75 to 100 bucks and you'll have a screamin' machine.

 

[bozack]

Hye 5 litre, thanks for the suggestion but I am really only looking to play this one game and that is about it....I don't think a faster cpu will help much, or at least not as much as a video card upgrade, but I do agree that this board blows. I just want to ride it out until I can deal with getting another Intel based system but since I am on a budget I have to watch the pennies.

 

[oldfart]

BF1942 needs lots of system ram. 256 Meg with XP is bad news. Another 256 would help load times a lot. Win98 does not use as much ram for the OS. That is why you saw a decrease in performance. That video card is also pretty weak for that game.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bozack
Hye 5 litre, thanks for the suggestion but I am really only looking to play this one game and that is about it....I don't think a faster cpu will help much, or at least not as much as a video card upgrade, but I do agree that this board blows. I just want to ride it out until I can deal with getting another Intel based system but since I am on a budget I have to watch the pennies.

You're right about the bottleneck, its more your video card than your CPU. Overclocking isn't really a viable option with that board (as it requires a bootleg BIOS and may cause even more problems like data corruption), and its also known to be picky with certain RAM as well as running more than 1 stick of RAM.

RAM will definitely help load times and will also make game play smoother, but you should definitely look at upgrading your video card. I'd take a look at a Ti4200 if you can find one of those $80 PNY deals or an 8500 for around the same price. I'm not sure if spending $150 or so is worth it for just BF1942 since you're on a budget, but thats another story..........


Chiz

 

[Goose77]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: bozack
Hye 5 litre, thanks for the suggestion but I am really only looking to play this one game and that is about it....I don't think a faster cpu will help much, or at least not as much as a video card upgrade, but I do agree that this board blows. I just want to ride it out until I can deal with getting another Intel based system but since I am on a budget I have to watch the pennies.

You're right about the bottleneck, its more your video card than your CPU. Overclocking isn't really a viable option with that board (as it requires a bootleg BIOS and may cause even more problems like data corruption), and its also known to be picky with certain RAM as well as running more than 1 stick of RAM.

RAM will definitely help load times and will also make game play smoother, but you should definitely look at upgrading your video card. I'd take a look at a Ti4200 if you can find one of those $80 PNY deals or an 8500 for around the same price. I'm not sure if spending $150 or so is worth it for just BF1942 since you're on a budget, but thats another story..........


Chiz

have to agree with chiz but the vid card upgrade aint gonna help your load times. best option is to focus on upgrading the board and/or memory, possibly ur hdd.. or use win98. use a dual boot 98 and XP. if you use win98 then only replace the board.. man that boad is such a bad choice, not to rub it in but doood! that is probably half of your problems right there.


i suggest to either get either an Asus A7S333-E for the $65, but id rather go with VIA A7V333 ($75)or the A7V333 X/L($85).

with the A7V333 just run the fsb at 133 till u can upgrade to ur memory to eitther 2700 or 3500. with this borad you can also do some FSB overclockin. and Asus makes one of the most stable boards... gl

 

[sandorski]

The mobo and cpu are fine. More Ram will dramatically improve your load times and a newer vidcard will dramatically improve video performance.

Get at least 512mb of ram and a Radeon 8500LE/GeForce 3 or greater(perferably) video card.

 

[bgeh]

try adding more RAM and change your proc to a 1700+ and oc it like crazy

 

[bozack]

I am surprised that everyone is saying this motherboard is a bad choice as it was the one which was recommended to me when I posted here a while back....

I have had no real stability issues with it ouside of the memory thing, and I am not an overclocker...overall my system seems fine.

I guess I could do a dual boot, but I would almost rather just up my memory if that would fix the problem in XP, also I guess I could opt for a new Hard Drive but I don't see how that would help matters much, I don't need the extra space ad the only thing I would get is a slightly faster data transder rate which I don't think would help load times much.

 

[Insidious]

first of all, the load times (before and between maps) on BF1942 is going to be ridiculously long no matter what system you are using. It's just the way the game runs.

unless you go SCSI Raid with some killer HDs, have a rocket of a system loaded with RAM and a TOL video card, you just have to be patient.

secondly, your video card, if less than a GF4 is going to hold that game back no matter what CPU/RAM/MoBo you use. Anything less on the Video side, and you are just going to have to accept that shadows need to be turned off, detail needs to be lowered and you will probably need to be at
800 x 600 resolution if you don't want stuttering in the game.

I realize this is not what you hoped to read, but that game is one of the biggest resource hogs available. You aren't going to get it to run seamlessly without hardware that is nearing the top end of what is available.

-Sid

This is my system which is borderline for good BF1942 play

 

[bozack]

I guess I don't want seamlessly, just playable...I will try upping the memory and see if that helps, if not I will take it from there. Thanks again.

 

[FluxCap]

I have to disagree about load times being "long" no matter what you do. I had an Athlon 700, my current Radeon 9000 and 320mb PC100 ram. Load times were about 1.25 minutes and the game was virtually unplayable. Check my rig below and to see what I play BF on now. It is a very modest system in my opinion and I now can run at 1152, full detail and hit 100fps occasionally. I was going to upgrade my video card but there is no need since I mainly play BF. I think the ram is what did it for me mostly, my load time per map is about 25 second avg on about 10 timings. I do have an ata133 hard drive but not sure how much that is helping, I would say 15% boost.

 

[0roo0roo]

256mb of ram? you must be joking.

i have an ecs/2000+ xp combo too. but i have 1gb of 2100ddr. load times are spiffy

1942 along with simcity 4 are games that love 1gb.

256? ack!!! memory is cheap now, take advantage of it. even your windows wil run better.

problem #2, radeon 32ddr? too slow if thats radeon 1. u'd have to run 640x480 with lowest everything from what i remember to get acceptable framerates.. or worse. i just remember my radeon 32ddr could barely pull off mohaa.

the xp is much faster then the p3. but with 256mb of ram your screwed. windows xp probably eats up most of the 256mb by itself, xp is beyond ram hungry. xp with 256mb is not a gaming machine. the only reason you half got away with it was in 98.





and get desert combat mod, its amazing

 

[thraxes]

The Mainboard is OK (have 1 myself, check the cookiemonster in my rigs), just get more RAM and a newer Graphics card... Especially RAM since it is not that expensive at the moment!



until recently I was playing BF1942 on a 4 year old P2B-F board... what kept it going was 512MB PC133 RAM and a Rad. 8500 (and it still loaded quicker and ran better than on a friends KT333 board with 256 MB)

 

[bozack]

Anyone know how much memory this mainboard can support and if two sticks of pc2100 are different for it than two of Pc133?? I have only had a chance to try two PC133 sticks and it did not like that at all, if I can only use on stick of memory in this board at a time I would rather get the most that I can..eg a 1gb stick instead of a 512. I know I have to upgrade my video card, I have some old equip that I was going to build into another system but now I think it is a waste as I got a laptop for next to nothing (~150 for a 750 P3 Tecra 8200). I am looking at that new Radeon card but I have to see if it will play nice with this board.

any info on the memory this board will take would be great, like I said I just want to milk this a little longer until I can move back to an intel setup but right now with a wedding comming up and the fact that I just blew out a tire in my fiancees car money is tight.

Thanks.

 

[AtomicDude512]

No offense man but your whole system needs rehauled to play that monster of a game.

 

[BoberFett]

Hope this isn't thread crapping, but figured since there's already a BF1942 thread I'd post here.

I'm running the demo, with the demo patch. I recently built an 8RDA+, 1700+ @ 10x166, 512 MB PC2700, Radeon 9100 64MB.

The performance is pretty darn good, even on high quality. But I run into a lot of missing textures. Sometimes I can see right through the aircraft carrier or the ground.

 

[bozack]

Hey Bober I got that from time to time too with the demo, I can only hope that it is resolved with the full...I think it might be attributed to the ATI video card but I have not played the game on another system yet, though my brother has a NVIDIA and does not report the same problems and his system is considerably slower though he is running XP home edition.

Atmoic, I really don't see how I need a whole system upgrade for the game, my brother runs a 1.3 celeron with a MX videocard and he plays it fine at a slightly lower resolution...I am not a game nut and I do not need the best graphics out there I just want the game to look decent and play well. A memory and video card upgrade I can understand but I fail to see how a mobo, hard drive, cpu, dvd rom, cd burner, nic and sound card upgrade will greatly improve my in game performance since as it stands now my system is well above the minimum sys requirements with the exception of video and memory...heck even my memory is more than the minimum. My problem is level load times plain and simple, my main question was if a memory upgrade would resolve the issue or if I was looking at something more serious, 99% of the posts I have read on the BF forums indicate that anything under 512 = really long load times (like in the minutes) whereas 512 and up you see load times under a minute. I just wanted confirmation from here...maybe there would be some people with on hand experience with a similar setup and the same game.

Thanks

 

[Lord Evermore]

The system overall is perfectly fine for playing this game, it just needs more memory. My roommate has a T-bird 1GHz, on a K7S5A, WinXP Pro, 512MB PC2100, and a GF2 GTS 32MB and is able to play smoothly at 1024x768 with medium detail settings and I think shadows and other stuff turned on. He can even play it at 1600x1200 with all the settings maxed out and it's a bit low on the frame-rates but is actually still playable (he wanted to see just how well it would run with everything cranked up).

The K7S5A's main issues are with the initial setup. Once you get the board working fine, it's an awesome board, and when it first came out was a total steal given the low price compared to anything else. The A7N266-VM is certainly a better buy nowadays due to low price and features and reliability though, but there's no need to replace the board.

I'm not a programmer or anything, so I don't know WHY BF1942 loads so much faster with more memory, other than that the OS must need to swap out more data from the memory to hard drive in order to make room for the game. My roommate's brother had a 256MB module fail, leaving him with only 256MB active in his system, and we noticed the game running slower in every way until we found what had happened. Replacing the module brought the performance in-game and in loading times back up to acceptable levels.

I've had Task Manager running while playing the game (dual-monitor), and BF1942 itself took up about 300MB of memory most of the time, with the total memory usage at 450MB or so. Assuming that Windows is trying to reserve some open memory, I'd assume that adding more memory would result in total usage going higher even though the game itself wouldn't use any more, because Windows wouldn't need to page as much memory out.

 

[FluxCap]

Hate to break it to you Bober but I have the full version, Road to Rome, 2 mods, latest patch and get the texture problems. It is related to cat 3.2 drivers..... in my testing at least. I install the 3.1s and no texture problems.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: FluxCap
Hate to break it to you Bober but I have the full version, Road to Rome, 2 mods, latest patch and get the texture problems. It is related to cat 3.2 drivers..... in my testing at least. I install the 3.1s and no texture problems.

Doh, thought that might be it. When are we supposed to see 3.3?

 

[bozack]

Hey Lord, thanks for the info, I figured for the most part the system should be fine just lacking in the memory and video department...just placed an order for 512mb Stick of Crucial PC2700 DDR from Googlegear and hope it will play nice with my 256mb Stick of PC2100 Kingston Value ram....I would have gone for kingston memory but Kingston did not recommend their 2700 for this board even after emailed them on it...knowing how this board is with memory I would rather get something that the manuf recommends than chance it...the Kingston 2100 and the Crucial 2700 I just ordered are both recommended by their respective manufacturers...and I have been reading some posts on the ECS board at OCworkbench where people have not had any issues with Kingston and Crucial mem working in the same system....either way I can yank and sell the 256mb stick as I feel 512 should be ok....or upgrade my PS as I should have a long time ago as I don't think it puts out enough volatage for my mobo...

I noticed that when I do let the game run after exiting a session I get paging file size errors where windows needs to increase the size, that alone told me the game is a hog....I can play UT 2003 fine though only thing is that game likes to heat up the CPU a bit....


thanks again.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Just make sure you don't try to run the memory at 333MHz. You'll get better performance with the FSB and memory at matched speeds.

 

[0roo0roo]

that ecs m/b hates pc100/133 ram, if u stick different ram of that typ in it has a chance of not working.. it doesn't have thata problem with ddr.


you canonly use one type of ram at a time though.


get some decent 2100 or 2700 and run it at fast timings