High End System - Runs Like . . .

2006-10-20 11:14:49

#1

jnick: Member; +22|6789

ASS.

Settings:

All HIGH
4xaa/16xaf
1680x1050

Any ideas? Granted I have everything on high, 4xaa and 16xaf. I'm averaging 25fps. My system specs should be sufficient enough to avg 50-65 fps. My ram peaks at 53% and my CPU at 50%

I have tried running it on single core . . . It was worse.
I have tried turning off EAX like someone suggested - No change.
I have tried changing from X-Fi/ULTRA to Harware/High - No Change
I have defragged.

The beta didn't run this bad. The demo ran worse than the beta, but ran better than this.

I normally average 60FPS in BF2 with the same exact settings.

Specs
AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.5
7950GX2 - 91.47
2GB DDR500
WD Raptor
X-Fi Xtreme Music

Any ideas? I'm going to try a different driver, but I'm open to suggestions.

2006-10-20 11:42:17

#2

ZombieDog[p7]: Member; +0|6714

It isn't your machine. I am running Intel 650 (3.0ghz) and 7800gtx 2GB DDR2-667 X-Fi Elite-Pro. I played BF2 at 1600x1200 at 40-50fps. Tuesday when I installed BF2142, I setup 16x12 again and played the game fine at about 40fps. Wednesday night I got a few maps that dropped to 10-12fps. I dropped my resolution to 1024x768 to try to get acceptable framerates (have gotten 50-60fps on full servers with these settings) and I still get 10-12fps on some servers. I haven't figured it out yet, but I think it may be server/EA related.

2006-10-20 11:55:31

#3

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|6773|Cambridge (UK)

Yep, system specs are fine. I had similar problems in early days of playing BF2 and they just seemed to slowly get better over time.

jnick: stick with it for a while, try different servers, different times of the day - do you get the same poor performance on all servers or just some? also get 3DMark if you don't have it, give it a run and post your 3DMark score here - somebody should be able to tell you whether it's a good score for your system (if it isn't you've probably got a more serious problem, if it is, it shows it isn't your hardware)...

2006-10-20 12:32:26

#4

Buzerk1: Member; +44|6843

May be your card is justs too good, if you read the readme file, the supported Nvidia stop @ 7800 LFMAO

Seriously, do you try to lower some of settings (I know you want to play 100% high).

I play on 7800GTX Go, except for the light and shadow, I have everything set to high.

2006-10-20 15:27:14

#5

A.HACKER: Member; +0|6759

Dudes, this is just another example of poor coding by EA, I have a x1800xt overclocked above a x1900xtx and I tried running it at 1280x960 with everything and the damn screen kept blanking out everytime I switched between the squad screen and the game screen. When I run it at 1024x768 all is good, I have updated all of my drives so I konw it's not me. IT's just damn shitty, lazy, I don't give a crap about our customers EA!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-10-20 15:35:51

#6

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6475

Your resolution, the game is not supposed to support wide-screen.

2006-10-20 15:37:46

#7

vivadrunkvegas: Banned; +0|6406

buy a new computer

2006-10-20 15:50:00

#8

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6660

A.HACKER wrote:
Dudes, this is just another example of poor coding by EA

*headdeskbang*

2006-10-20 18:40:21

#9

jnick: Member; +22|6789

Well I did EXAHUSTING trials disabling certian settings, changing resolutions. NOTHING cvhanged. Seemed to be just the game.

I even droped the res to 1280x1024, 2xaa - same 40fps avg, highs in the 70s.

Poor coding ftw.

2006-10-20 18:41:12

#10

PspRpg-7: -; +961|6705

Runs like ass?

2006-10-20 18:43:59

#11

Toilet Sex: one love, one pig; +1,775|6579

PspRpg-7 wrote:
Runs like ass?

Drop it like it's hot.
Drop it like it's hot.

♥

2006-10-20 19:35:12

#12

kontrolcrimson: Get your body beat.; +183|6834|Australia

ZombieDog[p7] wrote:
Wednesday night I got a few maps that dropped to 10-12fps. I dropped my resolution to 1024x768 to try to get acceptable framerates (have gotten 50-60fps on full servers with these settings) and I still get 10-12fps on some servers. I haven't figured it out yet, but I think it may be server/EA related.

although my spec are not as high, some servers wont let me go above 15.0 fps, were others 40.

does it go like that for others after going to the main menue?

2006-10-20 20:00:47

#13

jihadarmadillo: Member; +0|6453

How do you consider a gaming rig with an Opteron as high end? An opteron is a server CPU and was never intended for the gaming community.
Whoever advised you to waste your money on one needs his head examined.

Just my 3 cents

2006-10-20 20:07:23

#14

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6723

Funny, my system with a 3.4ghz oced E6600 cpu, a 7900gt gpu and 2gb of ddr2 800mhz ram runs at 80fps average on 1280X1024 all high 4X AA 8X AF...

To poster above:

Opteron cpus are better then your average amd 64... Since they can overclock higher... And the smart people buy opty's...

Last edited by cyborg_ninja-117 (2006-10-20 20:08:16)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-10-20 20:09:06

#15

joemah: Member; +6|6749

You have an opteron, designed for workstations/servers, not gaming.

2006-10-20 20:11:35

#16

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6723

joemah wrote:
You have an opteron, designed for workstations/servers, not gaming.

OMFG, I cannot believe how ignorant people are, there is no difference in performance between opteron's and general AMD 64 cpu's... DO some research before you post.

2006-10-20 20:15:39

#17

joemah: Member; +6|6749

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
joemah wrote:
You have an opteron, designed for workstations/servers, not gaming.
OMFG, I cannot believe how ignorant people are, there is no difference in performance between opteron's and general AMD 64 cpu's... DO some research before you post.

*cough*

2006-10-20 20:19:36

#18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6723

joemah wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
joemah wrote:
You have an opteron, designed for workstations/servers, not gaming.
OMFG, I cannot believe how ignorant people are, there is no difference in performance between opteron's and general AMD 64 cpu's... DO some research before you post.
*cough*

Err.. thats socket 940 their talking about... there are socket 939 opty's which are the same shit as an AMD 64... Opty's are made for servers right? need more stability right? Then they would go to higher oc temps... It's the same fucking architecture, the same fucking clock speeds, same fucking cache, whats the difference? NOTHING. And that article is one year ago. Opty's are better since theyre supposed to be much more stabler, so that means higher OC.

2006-10-20 20:32:35

#19

joemah: Member; +6|6749

my stats are better than your, and thats all that matters.

2006-10-20 20:33:51

#20

ShadowFoX: I Hate Claymores; +109|6538

The BF2 engine is horribly unoptimized. It runs badly for its appearences. Source engine has better graphics and yet it runs a whole lot better. Dice and EA really didnt bother doing any optimizations therefore both engines run relatively badly.

2006-10-20 20:49:20

#21

A.HACKER: Member; +0|6759

jihadarmadillo wrote:
How do you consider a gaming rig with an Opteron as high end? An opteron is a server CPU and was never intended for the gaming community.
Whoever advised you to waste your money on one needs his head examined.

Just my 3 cents

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about , the opteron is the exact same chip as a gaming chip, the only reason it is a server chip is because it goes through more validation because it is going into a sever. Also, you can get more bang for your buck with an opteron because it is very overclockable, I have an opteron 170 with a stock of 2000mhz overclocked to 2800mhz. So I am running a fx-62 for half the cost.

Last edited by A.HACKER (2006-10-21 09:14:31)

2006-10-20 21:01:33

#22

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6723

ShadowFoX wrote:
The BF2 engine is horribly unoptimized. It runs badly for its appearences. Source engine has better graphics and yet it runs a whole lot better. Dice and EA really didnt bother doing any optimizations therefore both engines run relatively badly.

How many players are there on bf2? I'm thinking BF2 is more of a cpu bottleneck then a GFX card one.

2006-10-20 21:07:47

#23

ShadowFoX: I Hate Claymores; +109|6538

BF2 is a bottleneck on everything. CPU, Vid Card and Ram. Any of those things that you have not so great will fuck you over. Source engine had horrible loading times at first too. Half Life 2 used to load for like 5 min atleast when it came out. Now its a matter of seconds.

And yes there are a lot of players in BF2 everyone knows that. Source is also capable of running 64 players. Point is EA and Dice could have spent more time on optimization.

2006-10-20 21:16:09

#24

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6723

It's only cpu bottleneck... I got 99fps after i switched from a p4 to conroe... The maps in BF2 are huge compared to source games... The maps also power...

2006-10-20 21:38:10

#25

link52787: Member; +29|6528

On high settings 1024*768,4XAA on my desktop I get about 45-70 depending on the map in BF2 with 2142 I only get a high of 45 and sometimes dip to 12

BF2S Forums High End System - Runs Like . . .

A.HACKER wrote:

PspRpg-7 wrote:

ZombieDog[p7] wrote:

joemah wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

joemah wrote:

joemah wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

joemah wrote:

jihadarmadillo wrote:

ShadowFoX wrote:

Board footer