Would Battlefield run on this system?

[Hard Ball]

I just finished getting together a system for my house. A couple people here would like to run a game called Battlefield 2 or Bad Company 2, or something similar; it's a very recent game, as it seems. I'm the system administrator, but I'm not familiar with this game or what type of requirements would there be for the game to run well, especially the graphics subsystem. So I told them to wait until I clear that up; and I thought that if anywhere, AT would have someone with this game on a similar system.

Does anyone in the forum happen to have played this game? Some information about system requirements would be helpful.

The system we have to run on that is:
-Phenom II X4 945
-3GB DDR2 800
-Radeon HD 4850
-rest probably won't make much of a difference.

Let me know if you are familiar with this game

Thanks in advance
-HB

 

[sandorski]

Both should run fine. BF2 for sure, as it's 3-4 years old now. BC2 is quite new, but should work well enough.

 

[edplayer]

you didn't mention what resolution

that 4850 might not give you good results with higher resolutions. The rest seems OK

 

[Hard Ball]

Thanks for the quick replies;

I think the resolution on the display would be 1440 x 900 at the moment.

They would also like to play with relatively high image quality.

 

[bryanW1995]

at 1440x900 you should be able to crank all details to max with that 4850.

 

[Hard Ball]

at 1440x900 you should be able to crank all details to max with that 4850.

Thanks; I guess a 2008 card is still good for a 2010 game then.

I also found this article:
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page4.html

It seems to suggest that anything less than a 4870 is unplayable in the conclusion. Although, the review asserts that a smooth FPS for the game would be at 60, which seems awfully high to me. With vsync, it's impossible to go above 60 fps on a standard LCD anyways, isn't it?

But what do I know, I don't usually play shooter games, and haven't even seen Bad Company 2 in person yet. Anyone has more enlightening thoughts?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Thanks; I guess a 2008 card is still good for a 2010 game then.

I also found this article:
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/page4.html

It seems to suggest that anything less than a 4870 is unplayable in the conclusion. Although, the review asserts that a smooth FPS for the game would be at 60, which seems awfully high to me. With vsync, it's impossible to go above 60 fps on a standard LCD anyways, isn't it?

But what do I know, I don't usually play shooter games, and haven't even seen Bad Company 2 in person yet. Anyone has more enlightening thoughts?

Anything 30 FPS and up is acceptably smooth and definitely playable. Console games run at 30 FPS. 60 FPS looks nicer, but it isn't necessary.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

For first person shooters I prefer a bare minimum of 40 to have a smooth experience. I start to notice choppiness when things drop in the 30s. Below 30 and my concentration has to refocus for lag compensation. I think there are a lot of different personal preferences, and these can definitely change from game to game. There are nuances to pick up and these seem to be most noticeable with first person shooters - like input lag and mouse/movement control in relation to framerate, AA settings, V-sync, and the game engine.

But as for your rig, it will be fine for Bad Company 2. You won't be able to completely max out the settings, but the game will look good and run well for you and your buddies.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

That system can run all current Battlefield games just fine.

If you want to be absolutely sure, just buy Battlefield 1942. :awe:

 

[Hard Ball]

Hey, thanks guys for clearing this up. Looks like BC2 is indeed a good game, going by the reviews that I just read.

That system can run all current Battlefield games just fine.

If you want to be absolutely sure, just buy Battlefield 1942. :awe:

lol; or perhaps a version of Battlefield made in 1942.

 

[taltamir]

not only will it run it, it will be significantly better visual quality than an xbox360 or PS3

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yeah the only thing potentially holding you back is the video card

I'd probably run it at medium settings or a mix of medium and high, but I prefer really high frame rates (I try to keep my minimum at 60fps) but for players less sensitive than I in that regard would be perfectly fine with that system.

 

[Hard Ball]

That's what I wanted to hear.

Hopefully, it will run OK; I'll turn off the AA and probably texture down to medium. The achilles' heel of this card is mem bandwidth, otherwise, it has really served us superbly.

By the way, is BC2 a quality game, worth playing through once even if you are not an avid FPS player?

 

[happy medium]

BC2 is one of the best games out there.

 

[Skurge]

Make sure you run the game in DX9, I get crazy framerates at 1920x1080 in dx9, but you get AA or soft shadows though.

 

[RussianSensation]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/battlefield-bad-company-2_8.html

"As for the less pricey products, the GeForce GTX 260 turns the tide and outperforms Radeon HD 5770 graphics card. Nonetheless both cards are slow even at 1280x1024 and we can't really recommend them for the Eye Candy addicted players."

"Although 30 fps may seem enough for a casual gamer, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 somehow does not feel right at such level of performance. It is quite hard to score a headshot and picking up assault helicopters with your RPG from the sky is a challenge, too."

Considering 5750 = 4850 and GTX260 is a lot faster than 5750, the answer is clear - NO, a 4850 will not play this game at High settings + 4AA. Also, CPU performance is important in BF:BC2. The benchmarks linked above are running Core i7 975 3.33ghz processor, which is far faster than the system you have.

Luckily, the visual difference between High and Medium is slight: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/battlefield-bad-company-2_8.html#sect0

At Medium Quality you should be good to go.

 

[tweakboy]

It would have helped on the newer games if it was a 4870 but stick with your 4850 just play lower res, and wait to see whats gonna happen in industry. Soo far nVidias best is a 480 and ATI is 5970 dual gpu eats 480 in benchmarks. I think and hope nVidia will throw a vicious strike and release themeselves a dual gpu 500 GTS hmm

 

[tweakboy]

For now your safe with a 5870 if you wanna go all out. Cuz 5970 is 700 to 800 dollars. thanks,,

 

[toyota]

Make sure you run the game in DX9, I get crazy framerates at 1920x1080 in dx9, but you get AA or soft shadows though.

running in DX9 screws up some textures in random places for me. I ran the game just fine on my gtx260 and E8500@3.8 on all high DX10 settings with 2x AA at 1920x1080 with vsync forced on. 35-45fps during heavy action and usually pegged at 50-60fps walking around.

 

[Skurge]

running in DX9 screws up some textures in random places for me. I ran the game just fine on my gtx260 and E8500@3.8 on all high DX10 settings with 2x AA at 1920x1080 with vsync forced on. 35-45fps during heavy action and usually pegged at 50-60fps walking around.

I just thought he might need the extra FPS wit his 4850.

I haven't even played single player yet, so I like to keep my FPS above 60fps at all times. I'll try out DX10.

What happened to your GTX470 anyway? I remember you bought one.

 

[toyota]

I just thought he might need the extra FPS wit his 4850.

I haven't even played single player yet, so I like to keep my FPS above 60fps at all times. I'll try out DX10.

What happened to your GTX470 anyway? I remember you bought one.

the gtx470 just wasnt worth the heat and noise for me. also in a few games like GTA 4 I really need a decent quad to make a $300+ video card purchase fully worth it. so I am just going to sit tight for now and play through my huge backlog of games instead of worrying so much about upgrading.