How high can i run Bf2?

[videogames101]

Well I have a gig of valueram, 3700+, asrock duel-sata2, onboard sound, and will soon have a EVGA 7800gt. Might get another stick or 2 of ram(512)Monitor can only support up to 12x10, what settings will I be BF2 running at? (no oc on the 3700, but i can try on the evga with their awesome warrenty)

 

[tuteja1986]

1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

 

[videogames101]

I'm talking 12x10 though, can i do any higher the 4xAA?

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Well I have a gig of valueram, 3700+, asrock duel-sata2, onboard sound, and will soon have a EVGA 7800gt. Might get another stick or 2 of ram(512)Monitor can only support up to 12x10, what settings will I be BF2 running at? (no oc on the 3700, but i can try on the evga with their awesome warrenty)

You'll be able to run it with max settings, with all the eye-candy turned on at 16x12. At 12x10...what do you think! You will enjoy your GT very much. I'll play almost anygame at 12x10 with max settings, let alone bf2

 

[videogames101]

Newb question, how high can you put AA?

 

[TheRyuu]

On Nvidia it goes up to 4xAA and on ATI it goes up to 6xAA. However, there are different types of AA. There is also Super Sampling which is better than MS. Nvidia has an 8xSS option, but it drags performance down a lot. However, there is also Tranparancy AA too. That is what really makes the game look better. You won't notice much of a performance hit when you use 4xTRMSAA (look at all those pretty letters) but it really won't imoprove IQ that much, but to really get the benifit from TRAA, you would need to use 4xTRSSAA, but you'll take a performance hit too. (ATI has similar options, but names them differently.)
Following me?

EDITed for content

 

[Ackmed]

Download the demo, and try it.

 

[videogames101]

I have the game, just not the card.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
On Nvidia it goes up to 4xAA and on ATI it goes up to 6xAA. However, there are different types of AA. There is also Super Sampling which is better than MS. Nvidia has an 8xSS option, but it drags performance down a lot. However, there is also Tranparancy AA too. That is what really makes the game look better. You won't notice much of a performance hit when you use 4xTRMSAA (look at all those pretty letters) but it really won't imoprove IQ that much, but to really get the benifit from TRAA, you would need to use 4xTRSSAA, but you'll take a performance hit too. (ATI has similar options, but names them differently.)
Following me?

EDITed for content

I'm lost... Explain a little bit more? I can't tell the difference between all the letters...


(I'm a senior member now!)

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: wizboy11
On Nvidia it goes up to 4xAA and on ATI it goes up to 6xAA. However, there are different types of AA. There is also Super Sampling which is better than MS. Nvidia has an 8xSS option, but it drags performance down a lot. However, there is also Tranparancy AA too. That is what really makes the game look better. You won't notice much of a performance hit when you use 4xTRMSAA (look at all those pretty letters) but it really won't imoprove IQ that much, but to really get the benifit from TRAA, you would need to use 4xTRSSAA, but you'll take a performance hit too. (ATI has similar options, but names them differently.)
Following me?

EDITed for content

I'm lost... Explain a little bit more? I can't tell the difference between all the letters...


(I'm a senior member now!)

Look here for some info.
And look here for some more. We are on the same page, only I get it and you don't.

 

[TheRyuu]

Found another page on HardOCP.

That page and the next page pretty much explain everything. Also just look through the article and you might learn some stuff.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

What world do you live in? He has 1gb of RAM...he'll never put textures on high and get out alive...esp with the newest 1.2 patch....

I have a eVGA 7800GT OC'ed a bit, and now that I have 2gb of RAM, I can do all full...but until I got that second gig, I couldn't hit everything on high...don't even know what a 9800 can do...but I imagine not much in BF2.

I run a 12x10 as well...all full...rig is in my signature.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

What world do you live in? He has 1gb of RAM...he'll never put textures on high and get out alive...esp with the newest 1.2 patch....

I have a eVGA 7800GT OC'ed a bit, and now that I have 2gb of RAM, I can do all full...but until I got that second gig, I couldn't hit everything on high...don't even know what a 9800 can do...but I imagine not much in BF2.

I run a 12x10 as well...all full...rig is in my signature.

If you read my first post I said was getting another gig soon...

 

[RampantAndroid]

Yes, I was aware of that...but even so, running all full at 16x12 will not be very likely to heppen...I get some framerate drops at 1280x1024 sometimes...I'd have to se 16x12 at all full on a single non-OC'ed 7800gt.

The reason I reacted to the post like I did is becuase you said you "might" get the second gig of RAM....

His post had no real body to it, just you can run it all on high...no explanation...

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

NFW he can do 1600x1200 with everything on high unless he wants a slide show. Look at my machine specs in my sig. No offense to the OP, but my PC is obviously going to be quite a bit faster (not overclocked) than his, especially since BF2 is very GPU intensive.

BF2 automatically sets your system up for best overall quality and performance. My system defaults to all SETTINGS ON HIGH AT 1024X768, so there is NFW he can run 1600x1200 with a 3700+ and a 7800GT.

videogames101 I would ditch that Valueram and get a decent 2GB (1024MBx2) dual channel kit, or else you 512MBx4 will default to DDR333, probably at 2T. DDR333 is bad enough, but adding 2T Command Rate on top of DDR333 will slow down your system too much.

 

[the cobbler]

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

NFW he can do 1600x1200 with everything on high unless he wants a slide show. Look at my machine specs in my sig. No offense to the OP, but my PC is obviously going to be quite a bit faster (not overclocked) than his, especially since BF2 is very GPU intensive.

BF2 automatically sets your system up for best overall quality and performance. My system defaults to all SETTINGS ON HIGH AT 1024X768, so there is NFW he can run 1600x1200 with a 3700+ and a 7800GT.

videogames101 I would ditch that Valueram and get a decent 2GB (1024MBx2) dual channel kit, or else you 512MBx4 will default to DDR333, probably at 2T. DDR333 is bad enough, but adding 2T Command Rate on top of DDR333 will slow down your system too much.

have to call B.S. on most of of this post.

1) 16x12 NO PROBLEM. My OCd 7800GT runs 12x10, everything at high...near the frame rate cap. Averages 85-95fps on full 64-player maps.

2) BF2 is not CPU intensive. FEAR is.

3) memory controller on a San Diego has no problem whatsoever running 4x512 at DDR400. It will default to 2T, and the performance hit is generally 1-3%. Negligible. And although it's harder to OC 4 sticks, the performance hit can actually be overcome because 4x512 allows you to use lower latency RAM than 2x1gb.

 

[Rogue 2]

Spending the extra $$ to get up to 2GB RAM is DEFINITELY worth it. I just went from 1GB to 2GB and it's night and day. NO STUTTERING.. which really irked me.. so now I'm much happier in BF2. This is ESPECIALLY true for the SF expansion pack, it sucks up RAM like crazy. I could tolerate 1GB with the original maps, but SF... no way.. drove me nuts. Doesn't matter what video card you have.

 

[BassBomb]

i wouldnt be surprised if you could do super sample anti aliasing which would apply AA onto textures .. id expect even 8x ??? O_O

and mad AF

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: the cobbler

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

NFW he can do 1600x1200 with everything on high unless he wants a slide show. Look at my machine specs in my sig. No offense to the OP, but my PC is obviously going to be quite a bit faster (not overclocked) than his, especially since BF2 is very GPU intensive.

BF2 automatically sets your system up for best overall quality and performance. My system defaults to all SETTINGS ON HIGH AT 1024X768, so there is NFW he can run 1600x1200 with a 3700+ and a 7800GT.

videogames101 I would ditch that Valueram and get a decent 2GB (1024MBx2) dual channel kit, or else you 512MBx4 will default to DDR333, probably at 2T. DDR333 is bad enough, but adding 2T Command Rate on top of DDR333 will slow down your system too much.

have to call B.S. on most of of this post.

1) 16x12 NO PROBLEM.

16x12 with everything on high no problem? Now that is BS. Why don't you get an LCD or CRT that can run 1600x1200 and try it? Talk is cheap, isn't it?

My OCd 7800GT runs 12x10, everything at high...near the frame rate cap. Averages 85-95fps on full 64-player maps. Whatever. We are talking about 1600x1200. Theres' a big difference between 16x12 and 12x10. Like I said, get a higher res monitor and try 16x12. Ignorance is bliss, eh Cobbler?

2) BF2 is not CPU intensive. FEAR is. How about the fact that in order to get the most out of a high-end videocard you need a fast processor? So STFU.

3) memory controller on a San Diego has no problem whatsoever running 4x512 at DDR400. It will default to 2T, and the performance hit is generally 1-3%. Negligible. And although it's harder to OC 4 sticks, the performance hit can actually be overcome because 4x512 allows you to use lower latency RAM than 2x1gb.

cobbler, why don't you try reading up on the NF4 mobos besides the DFI LP? Here on Anandtech and over at Extreme Systems. If you do you will see that many people cannot run 512MBx4 DDR400 at 2T without having to OC the RAM up from a default of DDR333.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: the cobbler

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

NFW he can do 1600x1200 with everything on high unless he wants a slide show. Look at my machine specs in my sig. No offense to the OP, but my PC is obviously going to be quite a bit faster (not overclocked) than his, especially since BF2 is very GPU intensive.

BF2 automatically sets your system up for best overall quality and performance. My system defaults to all SETTINGS ON HIGH AT 1024X768, so there is NFW he can run 1600x1200 with a 3700+ and a 7800GT.

videogames101 I would ditch that Valueram and get a decent 2GB (1024MBx2) dual channel kit, or else you 512MBx4 will default to DDR333, probably at 2T. DDR333 is bad enough, but adding 2T Command Rate on top of DDR333 will slow down your system too much.

have to call B.S. on most of of this post.

1) 16x12 NO PROBLEM. My OCd 7800GT runs 12x10, everything at high...near the frame rate cap. Averages 85-95fps on full 64-player maps.

2) BF2 is not CPU intensive. FEAR is.

3) memory controller on a San Diego has no problem whatsoever running 4x512 at DDR400. It will default to 2T, and the performance hit is generally 1-3%. Negligible. And although it's harder to OC 4 sticks, the performance hit can actually be overcome because 4x512 allows you to use lower latency RAM than 2x1gb.

For the most part youre right, except for the latency part, my sticks were dirt cheap and 2-3-2-5 is pretty damn good.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: the cobbler

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
1600x1200 all high 4x aa easy

NFW he can do 1600x1200 with everything on high unless he wants a slide show. Look at my machine specs in my sig. No offense to the OP, but my PC is obviously going to be quite a bit faster (not overclocked) than his, especially since BF2 is very GPU intensive.

BF2 automatically sets your system up for best overall quality and performance. My system defaults to all SETTINGS ON HIGH AT 1024X768, so there is NFW he can run 1600x1200 with a 3700+ and a 7800GT.

videogames101 I would ditch that Valueram and get a decent 2GB (1024MBx2) dual channel kit, or else you 512MBx4 will default to DDR333, probably at 2T. DDR333 is bad enough, but adding 2T Command Rate on top of DDR333 will slow down your system too much.

have to call B.S. on most of of this post.

1) 16x12 NO PROBLEM.

16x12 with everything on high no problem? Now that is BS. Why don't you get an LCD or CRT that can run 1600x1200 and try it? Talk is cheap, isn't it?

My OCd 7800GT runs 12x10, everything at high...near the frame rate cap. Averages 85-95fps on full 64-player maps. Whatever. We are talking about 1600x1200. Theres' a big difference between 16x12 and 12x10. Like I said, get a higher res monitor and try 16x12. Ignorance is bliss, eh Cobbler?

2) BF2 is not CPU intensive. FEAR is. How about the fact that in order to get the most out of a high-end videocard you need a fast processor? So STFU.

3) memory controller on a San Diego has no problem whatsoever running 4x512 at DDR400. It will default to 2T, and the performance hit is generally 1-3%. Negligible. And although it's harder to OC 4 sticks, the performance hit can actually be overcome because 4x512 allows you to use lower latency RAM than 2x1gb.

cobbler, why don't you try reading up on the NF4 mobos besides the DFI LP? Here on Anandtech and over at Extreme Systems. If you do you will see that many people cannot run 512MBx4 DDR400 at 2T without having to OC the RAM up from a default of DDR333.

In most cases a sempron 3100+ with a 7800GT would slaughter a FX57 with a 6800GS...

CPU makes very little difference when comparing video cards. Always upgrade graphics 1st.

and yeah, many motherboards have serious issues with running 4 double sided sticks of memory.

Edit: checking THGs CPU charts...

Doom 3 @ 1280 (the difference would be even less at 16x12) A64-FX57 vs Sempron 3100+ 12.35% or an average of 9.3fps

Its the only real relevant data on the site though, they dont even list the graphics card, or the resoultion for most of the tests, and no one cares about Q3A anymore.

I know from experience that CPU makes very little difference though, unless you have an absolutely awful CPU.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Well I have a gig of valueram, 3700+, asrock duel-sata2, onboard sound, and will soon have a EVGA 7800gt. Might get another stick or 2 of ram(512)Monitor can only support up to 12x10, what settings will I be BF2 running at? (no oc on the 3700, but i can try on the evga with their awesome warrenty)

It depends on the eye-candy level you want. BF2 is very RAM dependent for such things. If you have 512 you're going to have a hard time with just about any settings you use. Based on personal experience I was able to play "okay" with a 3700, a 6800gt and a gig of extra LL RAM at 1280x1024. With my new box and a gig things were much better, but I still got some studder and music playing for minutes after I'd leave the game. When I went to 2gig all problems cleared up and I'm now playing max settings at 1600x1200. Onboard sound is going to steal some performance too, BTW.

 

[Extelleron]

I think w/ 1GB of RAM, a 3700+, and a 7800GT, you should aim for 1280x1024, 2x AA/4x AF, on a game like BF2 it's better to be conservative and go for slightly worse graphics than be getting bad framerates, especially if you play competitively. I'm sure you could go for 12x10, 4x AA/16xAF.

 

[Acanthus]

If i remember correctly from our conclusions in the massive battlefield 2 thread.

Change Textures to medium and sounds to medium (yes reducing this does effect the memory footprint significantly), and you should stay under 1GB.

Everything else can be cranked to the ceiling.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
If i remember correctly from our conclusions in the massive battlefield 2 thread.

Change Textures to medium and sounds to medium (yes reducing this does effect the memory footprint significantly), and you should stay under 1GB.

Everything else can be cranked to the ceiling.

I think it would be a better idea to just get 2GB of RAM rather than reduce the settings, it will be needed soon anyway and come on, you can get a GOOD GB of ram for $60-70 now, and good 2GB for $150 or so.