Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => Community Polls => Topic started by: Knitschi on 19-08-2010, 20:08:19
-
I am interested in the average graphics-hardware of the community members. If it turns out that we have a high average one could think about increasing minimum specifications and increase the details/view distance of the maps.
How to vote:
You have two votes. First pick your hardware series. Then choose how much memory your graphic card has. If you don't have exactly the given amount of memory, round to the nearest one that is given.
I know that this is only a rough survey, but it should be enough.
Cheers Knitschi!
-
HD 4570 512MB
-
Palit GTS 250, 512 MB
-
Duel 6800's with 256MB.
-
ati5870 1GB, bring on the bigger textures and everlasting wreckages littered around the battlefield ;D
@Lainer
Must be hard having your videocards duelling each other ;)
-
GF 8600 GT 512 MB
-
HD 4870 w/ 1GB
-
GF 9300m GS 256MB
-
GF 9300m GS 512mb
-
GF 8800 GTX, 768MB
-
Man I'm alone in the 200/300 series. :(
-
Nvida GTS 280, 1024 MB
-
WEEEY I'm not alone :)
-
HD4850 1Gb (both computers)
-
8600GT with 128 megs, and still runs FH2 on high :D
-
Should be based on high end, low end, and mid end. Because an ATi 3800 will easily out perform an ATi 4200.
-
8600GT with 128 megs, and still runs FH2 on high :D
I had the 8600 GT, it broke on me last month, after 3 years. Had to buy a new one.
-
ATI 5770 - 1024Mb Ram
since my GF 8800 GT - 512 Mb Ram died :(
But even if the ATI is newer and much faster in most games, it performs much worse than my GF 8800 GT with the FH2 shader effects (especially smoke). I played with both cards in 1920x1080. But maybe I had no AA enabled with the GF card, but come on..
Crappy BF2 Engine is hoplessly optimized for Nvidia GeForce Cards It seems.
-
Ah the good ol' GF 8800 GT. Lord amongst the GPU's.
-
But even if the ATI is newer and much faster in most games, it performs much worse than my GF 8800 GT with the FH2 shader effects (especially smoke). I played with both cards in 1920x1080. But maybe I had no AA enabled with the GF card, but come on..
Crappy BF2 Engine is hoplessly optimized for Nvidia GeForce Cards It seems.
... Or maybe there are still some rests of the Nvidia drivers that mess up everything, if you didn't reinstall Windows between the graphic cards switch.
Because well, the HD5770 is a tad faster than the HD4850, and I run the game perfectly smooth in 1600*1200, all details maximum, AA 4x. And there is absolutely no quality or performance loss when smoke or effects are displayed. ;)
-
... Or maybe there are still some rests of the Nvidia drivers that mess up everything, if you didn't reinstall Windows between the graphic cards switch.
Because well, the HD5770 is a tad faster than the HD4850, and I run the game perfectly smooth in 1600*1200, all details maximum, AA 4x. And there is absolutely no quality or performance loss when smoke or effects are displayed. ;)
Nope, I use a fresh installed Windows 7 since I have the HD5770.
Good to know that it should work. Maybe I try to change some of the driver settings.
-
GeForce 9600GT Superclock 512MB.
-
GF 6800
-
GF 6800 and 2GB.
2 GB of VRAM on a GF6800? Oh, nononono, you lie.
-
GF 9800, 1024mb :>
-
GeForce 9600GT Superclock 512MB.
Same here.
-
GF 6800 and 2GB.
2 GB of VRAM on a GF6800? Oh, nononono, you lie.
Ack! I put Ram down, scheisse!
-
GTS 250 1GB
-
GTX 260 768mb
-
What's the best GPU for BF2?
-
What's the best GPU for BF2?
Whatever is best on the market but a 7900 GS should run it just fine with 60 FPS and it was released at about the same time BF2 was.
-
What's the best GPU for BF2?
I'm not sure. I remember back on my 8800 GTS 320MB I had back in the day, if you looked closely at polygon intersections, they would flicker. My ATI 4870 doesn't do so, but it has bad problems with shadows.
Do newer Nvidia cards also have the flicker problem?
(you probably need to be very very attentive to graphics to notice).
-
@Lainer
Must be hard having your videocards duelling each other ;)
It is.....But the good news is that one of them is winning because the fan has gone straight to the shitter. So now the race is on to see if I get around to getting a new fan before the GPU burns up.
-
GF7600GS 256MB
-
Should be based on high end, low end, and mid end. Because an ATi 3800 will easily out perform an ATi 4200.
That is true, but I wanted to keep it simple. I first thought about something like " If you have a midrange card, select one generation older", but I was afraid that people do not know if they have mid-range or performance or low-end. And I think that FH2 is more limited by the memory than by the computational power of the cards.
My old card was an HD 2600XT with 256 MB and I had to set textures and geometry to low because I had loading lags when moving through the map. When I stood still and only moved the mouse it ran on 30-60 fps.
Now I have a HD 5850 with 1 GB (I accidently voted more than 1GB :o) and enjoy myself messing around with viewdistances in the editor. I think that the look of the game can still be improved by doing that and if the average grafic performance of the community increases we could have this in the official maps. Maybe the old african maps could be spiced up too with some more under and overgrowth or just by increasing the view distance.
Here is an example of how a desert could look like (don't mind the leave texture on the ground)
(http://saved.im/mty0odq1cwru/undergrowthdemo.jpg)
Undergrowth viewdistance is 200m. You can see the small gap between horizon and the stonefield. When looked at from above it is more visible but looks not as good so I did not show it ::)
African maps are realy light enough to do some stuff like that and it does not take much time to make it.
-
Home: Nvidia 9600GT 1024Mb
(Work): Nvidia 6800 512Mb - runs FH2 on all low. (On a old Pentium IV) ;D
-
Sadly not only the Graphicscard is importent. Also the Speed 1 single of your Core CPU can bring. Not to mention the number of object and the number of Different objects
-
Ati HD 4850 Pro 512Mb
it was the best deal I ever made :P
-
ATI 5770 - 1024Mb Ram
since my GF 8800 GT - 512 Mb Ram died :(
But even if the ATI is newer and much faster in most games, it performs much worse than my GF 8800 GT with the FH2 shader effects (especially smoke). I played with both cards in 1920x1080. But maybe I had no AA enabled with the GF card, but come on..
Crappy BF2 Engine is hoplessly optimized for Nvidia GeForce Cards It seems.
Turn off V-Sync in the ATI Videocard settings, that should fix your problems.
-
HD5650
1024MB
EDIT: And Intel i5-450
-
Ati HD4850 512mb and in my older comp I have GF 7900GTO 512mb.
-
BFG GTX 260 OC 896MB
The original model, not the MaxCore one. OC'ed out of the box (but not by much admittedly).
Voted 1024MB on the poll.
Used to get some texture flickering and lower than usual FPS in certain areas with a lot of statics, effects and high volume of players. Latest series of nVidia drivers seem to have resolved both issues, though not completely. I do still get texture flickering, but no-where near as bad.
Running it with a C2D 2.66Ghz and 4GB RAM on XP Pro 32-bit if that matters.
-
GTX 295, I say up the graphics ;)
-
GeForce 7600 GT 256 mb
-
HD5770 1GB.
My other (old) PC has a 9600GT 512MB.
-
I just bought an ATI HD5670 1Gb card last week and had my hopes up for FH2, but as it turns out it still runs like shit, with every detail on either medium or low. I just can't seem to get FH 2 running smoothly.
I now have:
Intel Core2Duo 2,8Ghz
ATI 5670
2Gb RAM
Creative X-fi soundcard
WinXP
I'm getting a bit desperate, but maybe I should start a new topic about this, with the title "WHAT THE F AM I DOING WRONG HERE?"
-
Sadly not only the Graphicscard is importent. Also the Speed 1 single of your Core CPU can bring. Not to mention the number of object and the number of Different objects
Conserning CPU: This is true... but as I said, I wanted to keep it simple and in my experience the GC has the biggest influence when you have - lets say more than 2.5 GHz.
Conserning objects: This is why I wanted to know about the video memory. If all the data of the different objects and all the geometry of the object instances in the map fit in there, you don't need to load them from main memory to video memory while playing the map. When this happens, the loss of FPS is disproportionately high.
Why do I think that it works this way? I made a map with a forest in it that covered the whole map. Than I started to increase the view distance and Overgrowth draw distance (set them on the same value). What I observed was that at an certain threshold framerates droped signifacantly when I walked around, but went up again when I just moved the mouse around and stood still. I think that this happened because the tree instances that were in my viewradius completly filled the video memory. So when you move, the ones coming into sight have to be loaded from RAM to the graphic card.
My theory is, that modern grafic cards have enough power to draw a LOT of triangles when only using the simple BF2 shaders without dynamic shadows and other expensive effects they have to calculate in todays game renderes. In most cases the limit will be set by the amount of available video memory and not by the computational power of the card.
I haven't done a lot of undergrowth testing yet, but I think it is ideal for getting more detail. First of all it has no collision mesh and therefore does not strain the server. Secondly it only uses small meshes and textures that don't need much memory. But this needs to be checked out more carefully.
-
GPU: HD 5770 Sapphire 1024 MB IIRC.
CPU: Phenom II X4 965BE
-
Used to get some texture flickering and lower than usual FPS in certain areas with a lot of statics, effects and high volume of players. Latest series of nVidia drivers seem to have resolved both issues
Running it with a C2D 2.66Ghz and 4GB RAM on XP Pro 32-bit if that matters.
I recently upgraded to gtx260 Sli and updated to the latest driver (at that time) and I have been experiencing lower than usual FPS in the same manner as you have described ever since.
I've been trying to work out why the performance has been so crap for months. I upgraded from gtx 8800's and wasn't expecting a backward step. I did wonder a couple of times if it was the new driver that was to blame. I wish I had rolled back now to check. I will go and get the latest one and see if there's any improvement. If not I am going reinstall a previous version.
-
just upgraded from my old GF 8800GT what server well for the time being with some dual core athlons. Now going with ati 5850 1GB spiced up with a Core i7 ;D
just shame that ati's dont work with two screens if you have any AA at all in bf2 :(
-
Sadly not only the Graphicscard is importent. Also the Speed 1 single of your Core CPU can bring. Not to mention the number of object and the number of Different objects
Conserning CPU: This is true... but as I said, I wanted to keep it simple and in my experience the GC has the biggest influence when you have - lets say more than 2.5 GHz.
*Snap*
This would be noticeable in your Windows Resource Monitor. Did you check the stats on your CPU, Memory and disk activity when walking around?
By the way is that test map the one in your signature, looks purdy.
-
HD4870 1GB slightly overclocked (by manufacturer)
-
A cute little Mobility Radeon HD 4650 with 1024 memory.
My earlier GF 8800....mother of all flickering issues :-\
Deserved to burn...
;D
-
GPU: GF 9800 GT, 1024 MB.
CPU: Core i7 920.
Also got 3GB RAM.
-
Ati HD 4850 Pro 512Mb
it was the best deal I ever made :P
I believe I have the same. At least I have an ATI card from the 4800 series with 512 MB.
-
I have still my 8800GTX no need to upgrade in the near future.
-
I have still my 8800GTX no need to upgrade in the near future.
that gfx seems to be the king
-
yeah it runs well, have it now good 2 years and it still plays most new games(except crysis) max. settings 1920x1080 and AAx2 or AAx4.
But it has still reserves that i could use with a Vmod ;D
-
9500GT
Cheap then
cheap now
and im sticking to this low budget GFX
-
Graphic: Evga 7800 GS Co
CPU: Athlon 4000+ (single core)
pretty old stuff but running fine in 1600x1200 with everything maxed except terrain (med) and dynamic shadows (off), 4x AA
-
x1950xtx
-
This would be noticeable in your Windows Resource Monitor. Did you check the stats on your CPU, Memory and disk activity when walking around?
By the way is that test map the one in your signature, looks purdy.
Is there a recource monitor in XP besides the CPU activity display in the taskmanager? I am not sure if you can see activity between RAM and video memory on the Windows 7 resource monitor. Do you know a tool that can display the ram read/write activity or even the usage of graphic memory?
When I did the tests, I had a singlecore 2.4 GHz CPU which always ran at 100%, so I couldn't read anything out of that.
Yes the signature is indeed the testmap, but I suspect that the server would not be able to handle so many objects. This needs to be tested, but I don't know how as I don't have a public server and bots would decrease speed as well.
-
5870 1 GB
-
I have an i7, x58, gtx 285 setup. I would say that it runs FH2 at 100fps 95% of the time. HD resolution, 16x AF, 32x AA, all settings on high. The only problem that I have noticed is the sunset on Port-en-Bessin flickers really bad even if there is a building in the way.
In my experience with Nvidia cards you should not use the 200 series drivers unless you have a 400 series card.
-
GF ?260 w/ 890mb, i think. Main factor though is my core i7 proc. Issue is a dodgy used 1366 ASUS board i got on ebay.
Proc. Pins always need to be straightened, it only sees 2gb of my 4gb ram (i could only get 2gb of each brand) and board fails for no reason, like now :'(...
What total sucks is that I'm yet to find any shop in ghana selling core i7 so I'm screwed. Powerful rig, currently on fritz, maybe completely kaput
-
This would be noticeable in your Windows Resource Monitor. Did you check the stats on your CPU, Memory and disk activity when walking around?
By the way is that test map the one in your signature, looks purdy.
Is there a recource monitor in XP besides the CPU activity display in the taskmanager? I am not sure if you can see activity between RAM and video memory on the Windows 7 resource monitor. Do you know a tool that can display the ram read/write activity or even the usage of graphic memory?
When I did the tests, I had a singlecore 2.4 GHz CPU which always ran at 100%, so I couldn't read anything out of that.
Yes the signature is indeed the testmap, but I suspect that the server would not be able to handle so many objects. This needs to be tested, but I don't know how as I don't have a public server and bots would decrease speed as well.
If you just want to try it out sometime by hosting a dedicated server I would be more then happy to give this map a spin.
-
8600GT 256 MB
Running on high, I just have some lags in the beginning of heavy maps (Cobra, Totalize, sometimes Mareth...depends on what map was before) but I'm low on RAM (only 2Gb)
-
ATI 4850 512mb
Runs FH2 on high settings just fine with no problems.
My only real gripe with this engine & the mod is the view distance. I think it's a major factor that effects gameplay and is the main reason that threads pop up about tank combat issues or handweapon superaccuracy issues. If the view distance was longer, players would be shooting at each other from much further distances compared to what it is now.
Crete's a good example, I've had good rifle firefights on crete because you can see much further compared to other maps. At those ranges it can take a couple of shots to hit your target and any machinegun is at it's best suppressing at those kind of ranges. You end up with longer firefights and better gameplay imo, so I'm really hoping that something could be done about the viewdistance. We are playing a fiver year old game and the majority seem to be playing it on systems that can run it easily so what do you guys think?
-
This would be noticeable in your Windows Resource Monitor. Did you check the stats on your CPU, Memory and disk activity when walking around?
By the way is that test map the one in your signature, looks purdy.
Is there a recource monitor in XP besides the CPU activity display in the taskmanager? I am not sure if you can see activity between RAM and video memory on the Windows 7 resource monitor. Do you know a tool that can display the ram read/write activity or even the usage of graphic memory?
When I did the tests, I had a singlecore 2.4 GHz CPU which always ran at 100%, so I couldn't read anything out of that.
Yes the signature is indeed the testmap, but I suspect that the server would not be able to handle so many objects. This needs to be tested, but I don't know how as I don't have a public server and bots would decrease speed as well.
Not on XP I am afraid.
For monitoring Video RAM usage you can use:
RivaTuner (http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=163), ATI Memory viewer (http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/tools/pages/tools.aspxl) or Video Memory Watcher (http://arkiv.idg.se/pfa/program/PFA0702_Snabbare_dator/VidMemWatchV3.zip)
The tricky part would be when or if there is a swap from RAM to videoram. Also I think the max utilisation in the PCI-E architecture is 256MB to be used as virtual video ram. Maybe that can narrow it down for you.
-
Is there a recource monitor in XP besides the CPU activity display in the taskmanager?...
You might find Process Explorer handy. It'll tell you exactly what your CPU and OS are doing.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
-
If you just want to try it out sometime by hosting a dedicated server I would be more then happy to give this map a spin.
When it is ready for a first test I will get back to you, but this might take another year or even longer. I don't spend enough time working on it. Before I set up the gameplay relevant objects, I first want to make a variety of late autumn styled trees. The forest is a big part of the map and I want it to create the atmosphere I want. Maybe future FH2 releases will speed this up.
My only real gripe with this engine & the mod is the view distance. I think it's a major factor that effects gameplay and is the main reason that threads pop up about tank combat issues or handweapon superaccuracy issues. If the view distance was longer, players would be shooting at each other from much further distances compared to what it is now.
Crete's a good example, I've had good rifle firefights on crete because you can see much further compared to other maps. At those ranges it can take a couple of shots to hit your target and any machinegun is at it's best suppressing at those kind of ranges. You end up with longer firefights and better gameplay imo, so I'm really hoping that something could be done about the viewdistance. We are playing a fiver year old game and the majority seem to be playing it on systems that can run it easily so what do you guys think?
That is exactly what I think. Planes and BigFuckingGun-tanks really need long viewdistances to play out their strength.
With infantry it is strange sometimes, because I often see people running forward although I can see a lot of enemies waiting to be shot. I lay down and shoot, they keep running and die. Ok I admit that you don't take flags by laying down, but when my team is able to reach a lokal superiority I will advance as well.
For monitoring Video RAM usage you can use:
RivaTuner (http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=163), [ur=http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/tools/pages/tools.aspxl]ATI Memory viewer[/url] or Video Memory Watcher (http://arkiv.idg.se/pfa/program/PFA0702_Snabbare_dator/VidMemWatchV3.zip)
You might find Process Explorer handy. It'll tell you exactly what your CPU and OS are doing.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
This looks very promising. Thanx for the hint lads. Especially the usage of video RAM is of big interest for me. I once tried to find a tool that monitors that, but I found nothing. Seem like I am a bad Googel0r. ::)
I will check this out tomorrow and do some more experimenting with viewdistances.
Edit: Nobody in the community has the fermi??? No wonder nVidea was in the red last quarter. ;)
-
nd do some more experimenting with viewdistances.
Edit: Nobody in the community has the fermi??? No wonder nVidea was in the red last quarter. ;)
ISn't fermi still vaporware?
-
From my experience, having an 8800GT followed by a GTX 260 and playing FH2 using both on pretty much the same setup I can say that the performance increase was pretty much negligible. Permitting the rest of said system is up to scratch and isn't a bottleneck, anything around the performance of an 8800GT/GTX/9600GT is more than adequate for longer draw distances, map detail etc.
-
ISn't fermi still vaporware?
No idea. never tried to buy it.
I checked out the video memory watcher and if the memory usage it displays is correct, my theory that the full memory limits the fps is wrong :'(
My testmap only uses 320 MB of 1 GB and framrates drop while moving through the forest.
My next guess is, that geometry projection is only done when the player-position changes. So when you stand still the projected triangles are in the memory and the card only has to fill them with pixels. When you start moving, the triangles have to be recalculated -> drop of fps.
I haven't tried what happens if I pump the 1GB full with textures but I don't have the time for that ATM.
-
As far as my knowledge goes ive a 9400 blabla, a dual core 2,4 smthing and experience minor lag in Cagny city at Op. Goodwood.
-
nd do some more experimenting with viewdistances.
Edit: Nobody in the community has the fermi??? No wonder nVidea was in the red last quarter. ;)
ISn't fermi still vaporware?
Nope, Fermi is the GTX4xx series
-
ISn't fermi still vaporware?
No idea. never tried to buy it.
I checked out the video memory watcher and if the memory usage it displays is correct, my theory that the full memory limits the fps is wrong :'(
My testmap only uses 320 MB of 1 GB and framrates drop while moving through the forest.
My next guess is, that geometry projection is only done when the player-position changes. So when you stand still the projected triangles are in the memory and the card only has to fill them with pixels. When you start moving, the triangles have to be recalculated -> drop of fps.
I haven't tried what happens if I pump the 1GB full with textures but I don't have the time for that ATM.
So what we need is a program that monitors the GPU of the Videocard.
Also could it be server - client interaction causing the lag. Meaning the many objects and your position from it needs to be calculated to server and send to your client.
You could test this if more people are connected to your server.
-
Temporary Summary of the Vote:
85% of the voters have a card of the HD 4000 / GF 8000 series or better.
35% of the voters have a card of the HD 5000 / GF 200 series or better.
86% of the voters have 512 MB video memory or more.
49% of the voters have 1GB videio memory or more.
Equipped with the powerful Video Memory Watcher I did some testing of the 27 official maps. The objective was to find out how much video memory and main memory each map uses. The results are shown in the following table:
(http://saved.im/mty0mjc4c292/maptable.jpg)
I shut down FH2 after each test to clear the memory. To get all the data in the video memory I flew in freelook mode over the important parts of the maps. It is possible that the actual video memory need is a few MB larger than the one listed in the table because I did not "collect" all objects. The numbers for the main memory were taken from the task-manager.
I also tested Operation Cobra on low texture and geometry settings. It needed 0.76 GB RAM and 277MB video memory which is less then half of the high settings.
As most of the people have a HD 4000 / GF 8000 or better, I would be interested, what framerates are achieved with the midrange cards of those series (GF 8600/HD 4700). If they run the game at highest settings with 100 fps one could think about pimping up some of the lighter maps.
It would be nice if some owners of those cards can post the typical framerates they get on the most demanding maps (Cobra, Totalize) and on the smallest maps (Hyacinth,PDH,Sfakia).
@NTH:
Also could it be server - client interaction causing the lag. Meaning the many objects and your position from it needs to be calculated to server and send to your client.
You could test this if more people are connected to your server.
I only test on local server without bots. The server - client interaction will probably bring some extra problems with it.
-
gotta say it atleast looks quite a lot :o
-
That's some nice and thorough tests you did there.
Video Memory usage is textures being loaded, right ? With texture settings on high off course needing more video memory or it will use Main memory, which require swapping. This is good info for our players.
About the local server, it emulates server - client interaction, so your PC will have to bear the brunt of being a server and client at the same time. It will be interesting to see what a dedicated server will do with your map.
-
Bardia uses more than Pointe du? Bloody hell.
I know its not by much but I found that quite interesting, what with the general chaos, boats, smoke and fly-overs.
-
I lag more on PdH, but that is because of the smoke effects.
-
Only looking at the range of GPU's is not going to give you a real view of performance.
CPU and RAM are also very important factors. I could have ticket I have a GTX470, It would look like Im playing on all high etc when I could have a low end dual core or even P4 that is holding the rig back.
-
Only looking at the range of GPU's is not going to give you a real view of performance.
CPU and RAM are also very important factors. I could have ticket I have a GTX470, It would look like Im playing on all high etc when I could have a low end dual core or even P4 that is holding the rig back.
This is a FPS you know, CPU doesn't really matter (at least if it's not a 10 years old one).
About RAM, having 2 Gb is a standard nowadays and it looks quite sufficient for BF2, even though it's not a bad thing to have some more available. ;)
-
awesome chart Knitschi thank you very much.
-
Good work there Knitschi.
BTW, CPU does matter. For me changing from Pentium D to c2d was like stepping into heaven (for example Giarabub: unplayable on max settings (~14FPS) turned to ~70FPS. Same GPU, same RAM.
-
same here, single core athlon, unplayable, dual core, on high.
though I guess there's not much difference on 2 or more cores, just that other specs of the cpu.
-
Good work there Knitschi.
BTW, CPU does matter. For me changing from Pentium D to c2d was like stepping into heaven (for example Giarabub: unplayable on max settings (~14FPS) turned to ~70FPS. Same GPU, same RAM.
YES processor DOES matter alot more than I originally thought. My old PC was a 2.2ghz Athlon dual core and I had playable framerate, but on some maps it would dip down into the 20's which gave me a pretty big disadvantage. And this PC had a GTX 260 graphics card and 4 gigs of RAM.
Ever since I got my new i7 quad core (2.8 ghz), with the same video card and RAM as before, I've been getting FPS well into the 60s no problem in all situations. I know BF2 doesn't recognize 4 cores, but the processor clearly did make the difference.
-
I know BF2 doesn't recognize 4 cores, but the processor clearly did make the difference.
BF2 may not recognize more than a single core, but if you can run all your device drivers, Windows background processes, copy protections installed by other games, firewall, antivirus, PunkBuster, TeamSpeak etc. on the other core, it gets a single core all by itself which it didn't get before.
-
BF2 does use all 4 cores, in the graphs below the last 2 seconds are at desktop just as the game exits, so not quite idling yet. Not efficient but still being used. This is why core speed is important. 50% of 2200mhz gets trumped by 50% of 2600mhz.
(http://members.shaw.ca/hardwood/bf2cpu.jpg)
-
BF2 does use all 4 cores, in the graphs below the last 2 seconds are at desktop just as the game exits, so not quite idling yet. Not efficient but still being used. This is why core speed is important. 50% of 2200mhz gets trumped by 50% of 2600mhz.
(http://members.shaw.ca/hardwood/bf2cpu.jpg)
BF2 uses only one core, but if you start a game other processes are running that will be run on the other cores.
The technique behind the CPU is better then it was 3 years ago hence the better performance even on games not optimized for multi cores.
-
i did not know that. :D
lol so thats why it shows all for cores being used lol
-
CPU: Intel C2D E6420 2.1Ghz --> @ 3.2Ghz with Thermalright cooler.
GPU: ATI X1950XTX 512mb gddr4
I can max out graphics wihout any fps drop what so ever on any map, wich is nice for a 4 year old GPU :)
It runs very hot though, 75C in idle and 90-100C during gaming. Other then that i dont have any complaints.
-
...It runs very hot though, 75C in idle and 90-100C during gaming...
:o
Is it overclocked? If not, when was the last time you opened the case and cleaned the fans?
-
ati carsd run hot and they can take some heat without problems
but this is way to hot
75°C during gaming would be ok but this seems too much.
-
100 degrees! Pheeew!! As Cfodder said give the mobo and all components a good clean every couple of months! You will definitely see a difference in performance!
-
Maybe its time for a CPU poll....
I could try underclocking my CPU for measuring the impact on the framerate but I am afraid I don't have the time for that in the near future. :-[
Ever since I got my new i7 quad core (2.8 ghz), with the same video card and RAM as before, I've been getting FPS well into the 60s no problem in all situations. I know BF2 doesn't recognize 4 cores, but the processor clearly did make the difference.
I guess you have the i7 920. I bought it too and I advise you to overclock it a little bit. I raised it up to 3.4 GHz without even increasing V-Core. It is a very fine piece of hardware. The only reason for not raising it even higher was that it got a little hot when all 8 threads ran at 100%. But in everyday life this happens very rarely so I think about putting it back to 3.6 GHz. :)
-
I guess you have the i7 920. I bought it too and I advise you to overclock it a little bit.
Well, I would advise to keep it @ stock.
Why ?
Because of the dynamic frequencies system. If you overclock this CPU you will have higher frequencies when 4 cores are used but it may be counter productive in "real" use (ie. when only one core is at full load) since that single core is already overclocked in that case and this overclock is validated.
BTW with nowadays CPU, overclocking is more a benchmarking handjob than a really useful thing ... :P
-
Because of the dynamic frequencies system. If you overclock this CPU you will have higher frequencies when 4 cores are used but it may be counter productive in "real" use (ie. when only one core is at full load) since that single core is already overclocked in that case and this overclock is validated.
I don't realy understand what you mean. The dynamic frequency system is not affected by overclocking. The multiplyer is still dynamicly changed when cpu use changes. I know that some people switch it of when they overclock their cpu but I haven't.
And why should I not have the performance of a 960 at the prize of a 920?
-
Ok, let's be concrete.
You know that a processor runs fine for a given frequency at a given voltage, for a given temperature.
Your i7 920 runs at 2.66Ghz, and if only one core is used its frequency is cranked up to 2.8 ghz. All this with two different voltage values set by Intel. These settings have been factory tested and checked, to ensure the CPU calculates properly.
Now you come and say "me want i7 920 = i7 960, cast spell !" and the turbo mode is still on. The default frequency is now 3.2Ghz, the frequency when a single core is used is now 3.36 Ghz. AND THE VOLTAGE VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME AS FOR 2.66/2.8 Ghz. This is unlikely to work properly.
Overclocking isn't that easy, it's not just setting a value in your BIOS. You have to test those settings extensively with the right softwares and even then, you need to set the voltage values by hand to get a stable CPU. Otherwise you'll get random errors/data losses.
Therefore it's not a good advice to tell someone to overclock his CPU, especially if he doesn't know anything about it and when this overclocking is not likely to result in a noticeable gain. ;)
-
Well i've read up on the 1950xtx and these insane degrees seems normal for this card, i read somewhere that it was the hottest or one of the hottest running stock GFX cards made. the copper cooler on the card weighs nearly 1kg.
Admittably i havent cleaned the inside of my case for a while but i got these temperature readings when my PC was brand new some 3 years ago wich i built myself.
And no, i havent clocked it at all. Tried it but there was no difference in performance, only made the card unstable.
-
Ok, let's be concrete.
You know that a processor runs fine for a given frequency at a given voltage, for a given temperature.
Your i7 920 runs at 2.66Ghz, and if only one core is used its frequency is cranked up to 2.8 ghz. All this with two different voltage values set by Intel. These settings have been factory tested and checked, to ensure the CPU calculates properly.
Now you come and say "me want i7 920 = i7 960, cast spell !" and the turbo mode is still on. The default frequency is now 3.2Ghz, the frequency when a single core is used is now 3.36 Ghz. AND THE VOLTAGE VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME AS FOR 2.66/2.8 Ghz. This is unlikely to work properly.
Overclocking isn't that easy, it's not just setting a value in your BIOS. You have to test those settings extensively with the right softwares and even then, you need to set the voltage values by hand to get a stable CPU. Otherwise you'll get random errors/data losses.
Therefore it's not a good advice to tell someone to overclock his CPU, especially if he doesn't know anything about it and when this overclocking is not likely to result in a noticeable gain. ;)
It's not that hard to Oc Intel CPU's i have a E6600 and its runnin on 3,5GH (not the best one :( ).
But all your components should be able to OC, i think most complete PC's are not good for that because off shitty Mainboards...and you should read some guides bevor you start.
Are you talking about C1? Turn it off to OC or Bluscreen.
But all in all with the right Hardware and knowledge it's really easy.
-
Now you come and say "me want i7 920 = i7 960, cast spell !" and the turbo mode is still on. The default frequency is now 3.2Ghz, the frequency when a single core is used is now 3.36 Ghz. AND THE VOLTAGE VALUES ARE STILL THE SAME AS FOR 2.66/2.8 Ghz. This is unlikely to work properly.
I let CPU-Z speak for me.
CPU running in idle mode (multiplier = 12)
(http://saved.im/mtyymzg4oggz/notbusy.bmp)
CPU running with full multiplier
(http://saved.im/mtyymzg5mwdy/busy.bmp)
I did not touch anything else than the bus speed in BIOS.
I haven't done excessive testing with running all 8 threads at 100% but it ran for 50 hours with one thread at 100% without crashing.
-
I did not touch anything else than the bus speed in BIOS.
I haven't done excessive testing with running all 8 threads at 100% but it ran for 50 hours with one thread at 100% without crashing.
Well, don't take it wrong, but you seem to be a newbie that thinks himself an expert at overclocking. Or you are someone who trusted a crappy guide written by a newbie that thinks himself an expert.
1°) Booting Windows doesn't mean your CPU is stable
2°) Running CPU-Z doesn't mean your CPU is stable
3°) Running one thread on the 8 available doesn't mean your CPU is stable
4°) Having a random software running without a crash for some time doesn't mean your CPU is stable
5°) Any drastic increase in frequency necessarily involves a voltage increase for the CPU to keep computing correctly
What will ensure you to have a properly working overclocked CPU is to run several different stress softwares (one by one) on all threads available at the same time and for a long time.
And since you keep the turbo mode on, not only do you need to do this test with all cores running, but also with 1, 2 or 3 cores running at a time.
There are plenty of softwares for that purpose but one of the bests is OCCT. Run it for at least 48 hours, without any computation error, without any overheat, and then you may start thinking your overclocking is stable. ;)
And believe me, I'm not telling shit. I've been overclocking CPUs since the Athlon time (not the Athlon 64 or XP, the first ones) and I know what I'm talking about. :P
-
I did not touch anything else than the bus speed in BIOS.
I haven't done excessive testing with running all 8 threads at 100% but it ran for 50 hours with one thread at 100% without crashing.
Well, don't take it wrong, but you seem to be a newbie that thinks himself an expert at overclocking. Or you are someone who trusted a crappy guide written by a newbie that thinks himself an expert.
1°) Booting Windows doesn't mean your CPU is stable
2°) Running CPU-Z doesn't mean your CPU is stable
3°) Running one thread on the 8 available doesn't mean your CPU is stable
4°) Having a random software running without a crash for some time doesn't mean your CPU is stable
5°) Any drastic increase in frequency necessarily involves a voltage increase for the CPU to keep computing correctly
What will ensure you to have a properly working overclocked CPU is to run several different stress softwares (one by one) on all threads available at the same time and for a long time.
And since you keep the turbo mode on, not only do you need to do this test with all cores running, but also with 1, 2 or 3 cores running at a time.
There are plenty of softwares for that purpose but one of the bests is OCCT. Run it for at least 48 hours, without any computation error, without any overheat, and then you may start thinking your overclocking is stable. ;)
And believe me, I'm not telling shit. I've been overclocking CPUs since the Athlon time (not the Athlon 64 or XP, the first ones) and I know what I'm talking about. :P
Think about it Strat, if he OC'ed his CPU and claim to sees benefits form it on an application, whether it's supports mulit threads or not isn't relevant, then it is mission accomplished.
OC these days is made simple for the masses by motherboard manufacturers, the whole "Yeah but can it run a whole week on full load without one crash" is a noble cause for die hard OC'ers,
but as interesting as a monk convention is for a whore, to the common users.
-
That's what you think until one day, you get a blue screen when typing a report on Word. And then you start weeping all the tears of your body for not listening. ;D (true story)
You know, that's less a die hard OCer problem than an attempt to get the warranty that a random error won't occur when you expect it the less. ;)
-
I can get a blue screen without OC'ing, also true story, but thank God MSI fixed my laptop so that's over.
The point is if it works it works, regardless the future problems we PC nerds can forecasts.
These day I don't need to OC anything anymore, and if I want want to, no more screwing around with jumpers and what have you. The new bottleneck is I/O, my harddisk just can't keep up with the amount of data waiting to be read or writen.
In the meantime my CPU is picking it's nose waiting for the harddisk to hurry the F up.
-
the whole "Yeah but can it run a whole week on full load without one crash" is a noble cause for die hard OC'ers,
but as interesting as a monk convention is for a whore, to the common users.
made me lol ;D
-
The point is if it works it works, regardless the future problems we PC nerds can forecasts.
Well, if a user does not want to understand then it's his problem (it's his computer anyway, if he likes it to crash from time to time).
But such points are dangerous when expressed in a forum, because people that know even less about Ocing do trust them and waste their system this way ...
BTW I completely agree with the 2nd part of your post, I stopped overclocking when I got a C2D E8400, since it's really powerful enough to run everything and it's not worth wasting my time (and more Watts) for an extra power I do not need at all. :)
-
The point is if it works it works, regardless the future problems we PC nerds can forecasts.
Well, if a user does not want to understand then it's his problem (it's his computer anyway, if he likes it to crash from time to time).
But such points are dangerous when expressed in a forum, because people that know even less about Ocing do trust them and waste their system this way ...
BTW I completely agree with the 2nd part of your post, I stopped overclocking when I got a C2D E8400, since it's really powerful enough to run everything and it's not worth wasting my time (and more Watts) for an extra power I do not need at all. :)
If a user is OC'ing his PC he must have a small interest in PC anyway. I hope if can come as far as OC'ing his PC he can make a link between the OC and the crash, for those that don't there is always Saint Jude Thaddeus.
-
My Asus g73jh-A2 laptop runs FH2 like sh&t! Be warn if you plan buying this laptop! :-[
the specs are :
Processor: Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6 GHz, with Turbo Boost up to 2.8 GHz)
Video Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870, 1G GDDR5 VRAM
Audio card: Realtek Built-in 2.1 channel stereo speakers / EAX Advanced HD 4.0
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium
Chipset: Mobile Intel HM55 Express
Memory: 8 GB DDR3 1333MHz
Display: 17.3" Full HD (1920x1080) Color-Shine (Glare-type)
I can reach 150+ fps in maps and then move to another area and drop to ~30, even if i'm just looking at a plain wall. This is particulary true in city maps like goodwoods (cagny) or, the worst of all, Ramelle-Neuville. When i move my aim, let say left to right, the image move to the right as espected, but often jumps back to the left by few pixels, making aiming very difficult in close combat.
I tried differents ATI drivers with no success. Different power plan settings. I also tried to run the bf2.exe process on one core (with set affinity) without success. Reducing the video/audio settings in game didnt give any valuable results and worstened things in some case (ex: texture filtering "high" -> "low")
I think the culprit is the cpu base clock that is too low. Even if the clock can reach 2.8GHz for one core application (like fh2), this is only for few ms and go back to a lower clock. Maybe this clock fluctuation is also causing the jerkiness of the aiming? My conclusion is that FH2 needs raw cpu horsepower (constant?) that Intel Core i7 720QM cannot offer. If you have the same laptop or cpu without any issues (more than 60fps anytime/anywhere), let me know, because for now, forgotten hope running flawlessly is a "no hope". ???
-
Interesting, since my Asus K50AB with slightly lower specs runs FH2 just fine. :/
-
Interesting, since my Asus K50AB with slightly lower specs runs FH2 just fine. :/
Asus K50AB specs:
Processor: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor QL64 (2,1GHz / 1MB L2 Cache)
Graphics: ATI Mobility™ Radeon® HD 4570
Display Resolution : 1366 x 768
Your cpu has better clock. I forgot to mention that i play at my native resolution (1920x1080), which probably doesn't help. On the other hand, I also tried to reduce the resolution, but the aiming jerkiness remains in some maps, even if the average fps is higher.
-
ATI Radeon HD4650 1gb of memory
Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.2 ghz
Realtek Built in soundcard
4 GB of ram (although my XP only recognizes 3.25)
2 HDD (1)80gb for windows/applications(2) ½ terabyte for games
19" Fujitsu Siemens LCD screen
2.1 "PC line" Speakers (with a sub woofer)
Running FH2 @
1366x768 resolution
everything on high
view distance 100%
-
With my system I constantly have 75 fps, even in Cagny wich is a fps nightmare for most people. I have maxed out all settings in BF2 and running 1280x1024@75hz.
Though sometimes it would randomly dip to 45 fps minimum, but this only happens on singleplayer. Online I really only notice server lag, very seldomly an fps drop.
-
How can you measure FPS on your PC? I've beem wanting to check that out for FH2 because I just can't figure out why my PC performs so off-and-on with FH2. Some levels just run okay, some start out okay but after a while slow down, and some are just a nightmare for my computer to begin with. I know I've got an adequate computer, but still can't get it to run smoothly.
-
Type renderer.drawfps 1 in the console.
-
Interesting, since my Asus K50AB with slightly lower specs runs FH2 just fine. :/
Your cpu has better clock.
Clock doesn't mean anything, remember the P4 times ... Your i7 is supposed to be much more powerful than a Athlon X2. ;)
Did your problems begin after updating to 2.3 ? It might be a shader issue. ???
-
Clock doesn't mean anything, remember the P4 times ... Your i7 is supposed to be much more powerful than a Athlon X2. ;)
Did your problems begin after updating to 2.3 ? It might be a shader issue. ???
Jerkiness was there before 2.3, but localized in some specifics locations of maps. In Ramelle-Neuville and Brest, the stuttering is everywhere and it's very annoying.
My dream would be to run this game with vSync without any dips under 60 fps 100% of the time. I dont think i can acheive it with this asus "gamer" laptop. :-[
-
Clock doesn't mean anything, remember the P4 times ... Your i7 is supposed to be much more powerful than a Athlon X2. ;)
Did your problems begin after updating to 2.3 ? It might be a shader issue. ???
Jerkiness was there before 2.3, but localized in some specifics locations of maps. In Ramelle-Neuville and Brest, the stuttering is everywhere and it's very annoying.
My dream would be to run this game with vSync without any dips under 60 fps 100% of the time. I dont think i can acheive it with this asus "gamer" laptop. :-[
With V-Sync this is not going to happen, especially when someone pops smoke in front of you.
-
Mine is GF 9800GT 512MB
-
iv got a
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz overclock to 4.1GHz
12 gigs of DDR3 Ram
motherboard ASUS
2 EVGA 9800gtx2 Sli 1gig on each card
2 1tb Western Digital VelociRaptor
case cool master
PSU 1000w
Hp 2009m 19 in"
to bad the BF2 engine wont use Sli :'(
-
you say one 9800 is not enough to run it on all high?
-
:) no a 9800 can run it max out
i just like sli ;D :D
-
How can you measure FPS on your PC?...
You can monitor your FPS with FRAPS:
http://www.fraps.com/download.php
-
How can you measure FPS on your PC?...
You can monitor your FPS with FRAPS:
http://www.fraps.com/download.php
Or if you want to know your fps in FH2, open the console and type: renderer.drawfps 1
-
2 x HD RADEON HD5770 1024 mb in crossfire.
-
Sapphire HD 5770 1GB running max settings 8x AA at 1980x1080 @ 60Hz
Looks awesome and runs v. smooth ;D
-
I dont know if it is the right thread for it but a few days ago i downloaded the new nvidia driver 260.99
and fh2 looks like that with higest settings and tuning in nhancer: http://tinypic.com/r/2nlaa0k/7
And now with the old 197.13 driver and the same settings : http://tinypic.com/r/ve7xvm/7
-
I can't see the problem with those screenshots.
-
The only thing is that on one of those pictures anisotropic filtering seems to be enabled...
-
Ground textures sucks monkey balls on the first one while on the second one they are as they should be.
-
Yes and so many details are incorrect tree,grass,grass far away..
-
Ground textures sucks monkey balls on the first one while on the second one they are as they should be.
That's funny, to me the first picture the roads look a bit smoother, less edges and the trees look a bit more crisp.
-
It seems that my 4 years old Geforce 7600GT won't run anymore... >:( I don't have enough funds to buy new computer yet, so I'm planning to buy rather cheap graphic card. What will you say about Radeon HD5570 1GB DDR3 128bit - will FH2 run on full details?
It also depends how I will cope with exams on studies... I hope I won't be forced to give them many again... ::)
Edit: Yeah, you will rest from me for while on servers :P
-
How much ram do you have? Perhaps choose a HD4850 for the moment and stock on RAM with the extra cash.
Or stop playing for the moment and take it as a sign of the gods. Exams are more important. ;)
-
Well, I have quite old PC (5 years): Intel Core Duo 2,8 Ghz; 2 GB RAM. I think I have enough RAM and this processor should rather cope with it. Yes, that's my plan - I will buy it after successful exam session.
-
Then buy a 40$ish card and wait for the big update.
Do you already own a PCI Slot for the GPU or does your PC still feature an AGP slot?
-
That's it, a HD4850 or a HD5770 would make it (if you do not think you need more power for other games and you wish to keep that card for some time, prefer a 1Gb version ;) ).
Adding some memory would also be interesting if you can, that would eliminate swap. 2Gb is the minimum amount to run FH in correct conditions, but it's not the most comfortable one.
-
Adding some memory would also be interesting if you can, that would eliminate swap. 2Gb is the minimum amount to run FH in correct conditions, but it's not the most comfortable one.
Quite much for such game...
Well, I have 2x 256MB slots in my drawer, but I have some doubts if it will be ok when I add different memory size slots... I've read somewhere that it's not recommended...
And I have PCI slot.
And thx for suggestions :)
-
Well, I have 2x 256MB slots in my drawer, but I have some doubts if it will be ok when I add different memory size slots... I've read somewhere that it's not recommended...
You read correct. Different sized memeory slots don't add up too well. So 512 + 256 + 256 is not the same as 1GB. It will act like 512 instead.
-
Well, I have 2x 256MB slots in my drawer, but I have some doubts if it will be ok when I add different memory size slots... I've read somewhere that it's not recommended...
You read correct. Different sized memeory slots don't add up too well. So 512 + 256 + 256 is not the same as 1GB. It will act like 512 instead.
Yeah, so I will stay with my 2x 1GB memory :)
-
Adding some memory would also be interesting if you can, that would eliminate swap. 2Gb is the minimum amount to run FH in correct conditions, but it's not the most comfortable one.
Quite much for such game...
...
Not when you know how BF2 was programmed. ^^ It presses everything into your RAM before loading a map. ^^
-
Well, I have 2x 256MB slots in my drawer, but I have some doubts if it will be ok when I add different memory size slots... I've read somewhere that it's not recommended...
You read correct. Different sized memeory slots don't add up too well. So 512 + 256 + 256 is not the same as 1GB. It will act like 512 instead.
Mmmhhh what ? I don't really get your point. If you plug 512 + 256 + 256 modules on the motherboard, it will recognize 1 Gb of course.
The only "problems" you might have is that the dual or tri channel is disabled, or that all the modules run at the speed of the slowest module.
But if he has a C2D, let's keep the 2*1Gb he must have on channel A, plug the 2*256Mb on channel B and everything will be fine. Just make sure those 256 Mb modules are DDR2 modules supporting the same speed as the others. :)
-
The only "problems" you might have is that the dual or tri channel is disabled, or that all the modules run at the speed of the slowest module.
I meant this :) thanks for clarifying. Also, this was more of a problem wih older memory sticks, but since I don't know what kind of mem Kwiot has, I thought I'd post it.
-
Ok, so I have 4 memory slots in my PC and can I put there 2x1GB and 2x256MB? Should be ok?
-
Check your 256 Mb modules: if these are the same type as the 1 Gb ones (should be DDR2) and support the same speed, carry on.
If the supported speed is lower, tell us how fast the 256 Mb modules are, and how fast the 1Gb modules are, and I'll tell you if it is worth using them or not. ;)
Informations about speed and type should be written on a label on the module, if not you'll at least find the brand and model number, that will allow to find more informations on the maker's website.
-
Ok, thx for advise. I will do it when I get my new graphics card. :)
-
I stopped playing games in general after switching to mac. But I took the time to install bootcamp (only to play FH2 :D ). It is a MBpro with a GF 330M (with 256MR RAM). I was afraid it would't go well, but the game runs smooth on medium settings :)
-
I stopped playing games in general after switching to mac. But I took the time to install bootcamp (only to play FH2 :D ). It is a MBpro with a GF 330M (with 256MR RAM). I was afraid it would't go well, but the game runs smooth on medium settings :)
Holy shit, yours actually manages to run games? My Macbook Pro (2009) panics when I start Portal or Poker Night :-\ Though it's very full with the Adobe package and all on it. And I just don't like the thing :P
-
I stopped playing games in general after switching to mac. But I took the time to install bootcamp (only to play FH2 :D ). It is a MBpro with a GF 330M (with 256MR RAM). I was afraid it would't go well, but the game runs smooth on medium settings :)
Holy shit, yours actually manages to run games? My Macbook Pro (2009) panics when I start Portal or Poker Night :-\ Though it's very full with the Adobe package and all on it. And I just don't like the thing :P
Do you mean kernel panics? (looking like this: http://www.insidemac-blog.de/bilder/2007/08/kernel_panic.jpg )
Because in this case, there is really something wrong with your hardware.
I have a recent model, so I guess there have been some hardware upgrades since 2009. And make sure you boot you mac in bootcamp and not using VMware Fusion or Parrallels because I tried those without succes. (they both work fine, just not for games)
-
I have installed 2x1GB DDR2 533 MHz memory. And is it good to add also 2x256MB DDR2 533 MHz memory?
-
I have installed 2x1GB DDR2 533 MHz memory. And is it good to add also 2x256MB DDR2 533 MHz memory?
Every bit helps and since they are the same speed (not counting the CL#), go for it.
-
Ok.
Hmm... I installed new graphic card, because my old crashed... And I found out in the net that it's better than my brother's card. I thought that I can play FH2 on full details, but it's quite laggy on almost high.... My brother can play on full details... On medium details graphic looks simply pathethic - it was better on my old graphic card.
I have Radeon HD5570 1GB DDR3 and my brother has Geforce 9600GT 1GB DDR3.
And do you know why DVI input doesn't work? It worked with my old graphic card... ???
-
The smoke effects seem to be the heaviest (bad coding plus no support for newer cards' features which would make it smoother) to handle in Refractor engine. Textures, geometries, lighting, shadows, plus everything else should run just fine even on highest settings with that card.
-
Two HD 4870s with 512mb each.
-
Hmm... I installed new graphic card, because my old crashed... And I found out in the net that it's better than my brother's card. I thought that I can play FH2 on full details, but it's quite laggy on almost high.... My brother can play on full details... On medium details graphic looks simply pathethic - it was better on my old graphic card.
I have Radeon HD5570 1GB DDR3 and my brother has Geforce 9600GT 1GB DDR3.
That's normal. If we told you to go for a HD4850 or a HD5770, there's a reason.
The HD5570 is a low end-graphic card. It's meant for office automation, not playing.
Edit: However, even though the 5570 is less powerful than a 9600GT, it should be better than a 7600GT. ???
Did you properly wipe every single bit of the Nvidia drivers before installing the 5570 and its drivers ?
DVI input should also work. It might be a faulty card.
-
I have HD4870 with 512 MB memory.
That has been broken for one time. Even its 2 years old, i can play games on Very High settings without lag.
-
Well thx for advise. I uninstalled old NVIDIA drivers (forgot to do this) and it helped a bit. But still even on medium settings it is a bit laggy... It's quite weird, especially when I can play smoothly on high settings in such games like Call of Juarez or CoH... ::)
-
WHAT ? You kept the Nvidia drivers installed ? No need to search elsewhere THIS is the problem. :D
Now what you need to do is to uninstall everything (Nvidia and ATI drivers), then use a cleaner tool for both to make sure everything is removed (that one should be enough http://downloads.guru3d.com/Guru3D---Driver-Sweeper-%28Setup%29-download-1655.html (http://downloads.guru3d.com/Guru3D---Driver-Sweeper-%28Setup%29-download-1655.html)), and last install the ATI drivers.
And if it still doesn't work properly, you may have to format and reinstall Windows ... :-\
-
Running FH2 everything High on a 1GB HD5750 (passive cooled).
Combined with a Core i7 950 with 6 gigs of ram (helps also)
-
WHAT ? You kept the Nvidia drivers installed ? No need to search elsewhere THIS is the problem. :D
Now what you need to do is to uninstall everything (Nvidia and ATI drivers), then use a cleaner tool for both to make sure everything is removed (that one should be enough http://downloads.guru3d.com/Guru3D---Driver-Sweeper-%28Setup%29-download-1655.html (http://downloads.guru3d.com/Guru3D---Driver-Sweeper-%28Setup%29-download-1655.html)), and last install the ATI drivers.
And if it still doesn't work properly, you may have to format and reinstall Windows ... :-\
Ok, thx.
Running FH2 everything High on a 1GB HD5750 (passive cooled).
Combined with a Core i7 950 with 6 gigs of ram (helps also)
But 5570 is not 5750 and my PC is Intel Pentium Duo 2.8 GHz with 2GB...
Edit:
Ok, I reinstalled my Windows in order to be 100% sure. And it seems that it helped - it's much better. However I'm not still satisfied in 100%... But the graphics is much better than on my old Geforce 7600GT, so thanks for advise once again :)