*PICS* BC2 from 60fps to 120fps with i5-2500k upgrade from Q9650 Benchmark

devil22 said:
I understand the theory, but I'd have to see benchmarks, as I've never seen someone say "I just turned on HBAO, maxed out AA/AF and doubled my resolution for FREE in BC2". It may be that the free resources are not in the right place and time to get these things for free. And isn't HBAO dependent on the CPU to some extent?
Click to expand...
this is not theory. when you are cpu limited then the resolution or things like AF, AA and HBAO have no impact on framerate. I just fired up BC 2 and at 1280 the framerate is identical with 2x AA or 4x AA or 4x AA and HBAO on. HBAO is 100% gpu related.

let me make it a little more simple for you. if you are cpu limited then getting a faster gpu will only allow you to raise the res and turn on features like more AA, AF and HBAO. adding a faster cpu will let you render the whole game faster if you were cpu limited. the cpu itself has no impact on features like AA, AF and HBAO though.
 
Ok, i thought some of HBAO was done on the CPU, nevermind then. Like the guy said, if you get 60 fps with your C2Q, then enjoy..
 
devil22 said:
I understand the theory, but I'd have to see benchmarks, as I've never seen someone say "I just turned on HBAO, maxed out AA/AF and doubled my resolution for FREE in BC2". It may be that the free resources are not in the right place and time to get these things for free. And isn't HBAO dependent on the CPU to some extent? In "Theory" SB should not be ~2x as fast as a C2Q (not even taking into account the lower CPU usage on SB) for the same executable (maybe if you used AES/AVX stuff for SB), especially when the C2Q is only using 85% of the CPU, unless of course the game is just designed not to max out the CPU, which could be a heat/noise consideration..
Click to expand...

That is because BC2 is also decently GPU intensive.

If the user had SLi 580GTX or higher then they could indeed turn on HBAO and max out the AA and AF on DX11 for "free".
 
devil22 said:
With more FPS, you could use a larger higher resolution monitor, and/or enable more graphics options. The OP was getting around ~60 FPS, but without HBAO (which I think looks a bit nicer, and is hard on FPS), also don't think he maxed out AA/AF like you would want, he could do both with SB and same graphics card. Very worthwhile upgrade for Core 2 Duo/Quads, imo.
Click to expand...

Qustion I have my Q9550 at 3.6 gighertz with a GTX 570.. Is it really worth it to upgrade a mobo, ram, heatsink and fan, and to a core i2600k at 4.5 gighertz? I only game at 1920x1200 on one monitor, .. what type of frame rates increases will i see.. if its just 20-25fps i dont think its worth the money.
 
UnrealCpu said:
Qustion I have my Q9550 at 3.6 gighertz with a GTX 570.. Is it really worth it to upgrade a mobo, ram, heatsink and fan, and to a core i2600k at 4.5 gighertz? I only game at 1920x1200 on one monitor, .. what type of frame rates increases will i see.. if its just 20-25fps i dont think its worth the money.
Click to expand...
I would just hold off until you could do a bigger cpu upgrade maybe around the time you do your next gpu upgrade. for 90% of cases you are not going to have a noticeable improvement with a faster cpu while using your gtx570 at 1920x1200.
 
Wow, this is surprising. I know BC2 is heavily CPU reliant, but this is something else. I can't wait to get the last of my Sandy Bridge parts in. Going from a Core 2 Duo @ 3.2GHz to a i5-2500K overclocked to who knows what yet. :D
 
its a little more gpu AND cpu dependent in DX11 than DX10 and same goes for DX10 compared to DX9. I play single player just fine in DX10 high settings and 2x AA at 1920 with my sig rig. I average about 45-55 fps with HBAO off and of course a few fps lower with it on.
 
Please use process explorer and nail the dll down eating the resources. Taskmanager don't tell you much.

Then the whitepaper of Pci-e 2.0 clearly states its the driver writer of the Pci-e device that must state if the cpu must snoop when the Pci-e device make read and writes to the system ram. Now if its only data for the Pci-e device and not for the cpu then there have to be no snoop. Now a snoop means the cpu cache line have to be updated to keep cache coherency. With the older quad core cpus that means going outside its package slowing down to fsb speed. With the newer cpus with a IMC they obviously won't have that issue. Further if the Pci-e device read and writes data to the ram and it has nothing to do with the cpu which means it don't have to snoop it must specify the memory address range that it would use. Which got me thinking and things starting to point to the gpu drivers and the ram adresses its specifying.
 
Why exactly is this game so CPU reliant? I haven't really kept up with it because I haven't played multiplayer FPS in a while. Is there any particular reason or is it poorly optimized?
 
cannondale06 said:
I would just hold off until you could do a bigger cpu upgrade maybe around the time you do your next gpu upgrade. for 90% of cases you are not going to have a noticeable improvement with a faster cpu while using your gtx570 at 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.. I am happy with what i have and the performance with my new video card.. I know Battlefield Bad Company 2 is a demanding game but i dont care if i see more than 60fps a second at 1920x1200, and with everything on high with 4x AA.
Now if i can see 5+ gighertz on air, it might be worth the 750 dollar upgrade..
I probbably wont see much of a performance upgrade.. For people reading this i still think the Q9550 12mb cache is a great processor if overclocked to 3.6+

I think i bought this processor March 2009
 
repoman0 said:
Why exactly is this game so CPU reliant? I haven't really kept up with it because I haven't played multiplayer FPS in a while. Is there any particular reason or is it poorly optimized?
Click to expand...

Destructible environments probably has a lot to do with it. The game isn't very demanding in singleplayer, but when you get on a 32-player server with buildings crashing down around you it's pretty hard on your system. I don't think optimization is a problem here. They just built a game pushing the limits of our hardware.
 
repoman0 said:
Why exactly is this game so CPU reliant? I haven't really kept up with it because I haven't played multiplayer FPS in a while. Is there any particular reason or is it poorly optimized?
Click to expand...

they use Taskmanager so they won't really know why. No one makes a game to run on the best fastest cpus and have issues on the slower cpus. They won't make any money
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
Destructible environments probably has a lot to do with it. The game isn't very demanding in singleplayer, but when you get on a 32-player server with buildings crashing down around you it's pretty hard on your system. I don't think optimization is a problem here. They just built a game pushing the limits of our hardware.
Click to expand...

fair enough but buildings crashing down have to be drawn by the gpu not cpu am I correct?
 
Spooony said:
fair enough but buildings crashing down have to be drawn by the gpu not cpu am I correct?
Click to expand...
well the pyhsics are being calculated on the cpu. I get none of the slowdowns like in Red Faction Guerrilla and Ghostbusters but of course the destruction is way way less in BC 2 too.
 
Spooony said:
fair enough but buildings crashing down have to be drawn by the gpu not cpu am I correct?
Click to expand...

The destruction calculations are all done by the CPU and the engine for BF BC2 supports up to 8 threads. This is where the 2600k does make a difference. When there is alot of destruction happening I saw my 2500k hitting 100% multiple times.
 
cannondale06 said:
well the pyhsics are being calculated on the cpu. I get none of the slowdowns like in Red Faction Guerrilla and Ghostbusters but of course the destruction is way way less in BC 2 too.
Click to expand...

physics on X86 with SSE4 is faster than what a gpu can do it. Only reason nvidia proved that the gpu doing it faster coz they used X87 code which the cpu is horrible in encoding. On X86 the cpu actually do it faster than the gpu
 
Spooony said:
physics on X86 with SSE4 is faster than what a gpu can do it. Only reason nvidia proved that the gpu doing it faster coz they used X87 code which the cpu is horrible in encoding. On X86 the cpu actually do it faster than the gpu
Click to expand...

So i am just curious ,

I have a cpu q9550 12mb cache running at 3.6 gighertz with a gtx 570 running at 1920x1200

do i really need a core I2600k?

I really dont feel like buying new ram , mobo, heatsink fan and cpu.
waste of money if you ask me.. Now if i was coming from a core 2 duo, core i5 then yes.
 
dnottis said:
The destruction calculations are all done by the CPU and the engine for BF BC2 supports up to 8 threads. This is where the 2600k does make a difference. When there is alot of destruction happening I saw my 2500k hitting 100% multiple times.
Click to expand...

why do people on the I7 platforms that also have Hyperthreading enabled have issues. To my recollection the I7 cpus seem to have a problem and poor performance in the game. In the other 2500k vs 2600k thread we were discussing about ht. But setting less cores in the core affinity seem to help some people. EA wrote a letter saying the game is not optimized nor tested on quad cores so they can't give official support with the newer cpus. So if a game was created according to EA to run on 2 to 3 cores why is running havoc with the threads in the same type of manner that malware does.
 
Well you already stated that you are happy with your framerate, so no, not for just one game.
 
Spooony said:
why do people on the I7 platforms that also have Hyperthreading enabled have issues. To my recollection the I7 cpus seem to have a problem and poor performance in the game. In the other 2500k vs 2600k thread we were discussing about ht. But setting less cores in the core affinity seem to help some people. EA wrote a letter saying the game is not optimized nor tested on quad cores so they can't give official support with the newer cpus. So if a game was created according to EA to run on 2 to 3 cores why is running havoc with the threads in the same type of manner that malware does.
Click to expand...

They recommend a quad core... not sure how they can say it's not supported when they officially recommend it. A stock i7 920 (260SLI) kills my [email protected] (5870) in this game though with the exact same settings. I haven't seen i7's performing poorly here due to hyperthreading.
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
Well you already stated that you are happy with your framerate, so no, not for just one game.
Click to expand...

i own the game , but havent played multiplayer.. Anyone have a link that benches multiplayer at 1920x1200 vs the old quad cores i.e. q9550?

i still think an upgrade to a new processor coming from a q9550 is a waste of cash..

you should just upgrade to a GTX 570 for 350 bucks.. vs paying 700 + for ram, mobo, cpu, heatsink and fan.
 
UnrealCpu said:
So i am just curious ,

I have a cpu q9550 12mb cache running at 3.6 gighertz with a gtx 570 running at 1920x1200

do i really need a core I2600k?

I really dont feel like buying new ram , mobo, heatsink fan and cpu.
waste of money if you ask me.. Now if i was coming from a core 2 duo, core i5 then yes.
Click to expand...

you are having issues with the game right? Now EA will never fix it or try to look in the matter. They're reason? The game wasn't tested on quad cores nor optimized for it. So get process explorer run the game. Then the process eating a lot of cpu just click properties. It will show you another screen with dll and the cpu usage and ram usage each dll is using. If you nail down the file or the dll causing the problem post its name here or you can google its name or you can tell ea about if it belongs to the game. Remember dll gets injected into processes. So it can be a driver belonging to a device causing the issue.
 
UnrealCpu said:
i own the game , but havent played multiplayer.. Anyone have a link that benches multiplayer at 1920x1200 vs the old quad cores i.e. q9550?

i still think an upgrade to a new processor coming from a q9550 is a waste of cash..

you should just upgrade to a GTX 570 for 350 bucks.. vs paying 700 + for ram, mobo, cpu, heatsink and fan.
Click to expand...

You cannot really run benchmarks in multiplayer. In fact this thread is the closest thing I have seen to that, and it has confirmed what everyone has suspected for a long time. If you haven't played the multiplayer on this game I don't know why you are even considering an upgrade. Your cpu is just fine for every game out right now. Could you get a higher fps in full multiplayer bc2 servers on a newer generation cpu? Yes, probably. Is it worth $700? No. Are you going to be able to play multiplayer on your current rig and have a great time? Absolutely.
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
They recommend a quad core... not sure how they can say it's not supported when they officially recommend it. A stock i7 920 (260SLI) kills my [email protected] (5870) in this game though with the exact same settings. I haven't seen i7's performing poorly here due to hyperthreading.
Click to expand...

that will be due to the fact when the Pci-e snoops happens your cpu have to slow down fsb speeds to data to add to its cache. Where the I7 platforms and I5 have a IMC where they stay at their internal speeds doing the snoop
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
You cannot really run benchmarks in multiplayer. In fact this thread is the closest thing I have seen to that, and it has confirmed what everyone has suspected for a long time. If you haven't played the multiplayer on this game I don't know why you are even considering an upgrade. Your cpu is just fine for every game out right now. Could you get a higher fps in full multiplayer bc2 servers on a newer generation cpu? Yes, probably. Is it worth $700? No. Are you going to be able to play multiplayer on your current rig and have a great time? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i was thinking.. I am on a military base with no connection to multiplayer, they block ports.. Anyway i will be back home next month to test the game on high speed internet.. If i can pull 55-60 fps 95 percent of the time with my rig then its fine with me.. i dont expect 120 fps running on my LCD.. your eyes can only see 60fps anyway..
yes it will help you if you are running a crt doing multiplayer . but i am happy with what i got.. i will test it out.. im sure the GTX 570 and my processor will do just fine.. Definitly not worth th 700-750 dollar upgrade..

Maybe this christmas i will upgrade when something better is out
 
Spooony said:
why do people on the I7 platforms that also have Hyperthreading enabled have issues. To my recollection the I7 cpus seem to have a problem and poor performance in the game. In the other 2500k vs 2600k thread we were discussing about ht. But setting less cores in the core affinity seem to help some people. EA wrote a letter saying the game is not optimized nor tested on quad cores so they can't give official support with the newer cpus. So if a game was created according to EA to run on 2 to 3 cores why is running havoc with the threads in the same type of manner that malware does.
Click to expand...

This isn't true at all.

There was an article with a BF BC2 developer that said the game was optimized for up to 8 threads. This may have come later with patches but according to them it will use up to 8 now.

i7 users didn't have any stuttering related to the CPU, nvidia driver issues with multi core optimizations were causing issues last summer but that was resolved by nVidia. It affected i7 / quad users but it was the driver code NOT the cpu at fault. The temporary fix was to change the affinity and use 3 cores, but again, that was the nvidia multi core optimization at fault.
 
dnottis said:
This isn't true at all.

There was an article with a BF BC2 developer that said the game was optimized for up to 8 threads. This may have come later with patches but according to them it will use up to 8 now.

i7 users didn't have any stuttering related to the CPU, nvidia driver issues with multi core optimizations were causing issues last summer but that was resolved by nVidia. It affected i7 / quad users but it was the driver code NOT the cpu at fault. The temporary fix was to change the affinity and use 3 cores, but again, that was the nvidia multi core optimization at fault.
Click to expand...

remember it was playing without problems. Running on 2 cores the a patch came out so it can utilize more cores. I think that's were the problems started. Anyone running a unpatched version?

The nvidia thing could easily been fixed with Nhancer that's why the profiles is there. There's a setting for multicore cpus in it.
 
Spooony said:
remember it was playing without problems. Running on 2 cores the a patch came out so it can utilize more cores. I think that's were the problems started. Anyone running a unpatched version?

The nvidia thing could easily been fixed with Nhancer that's why the profiles is there. There's a setting for multicore cpus in it.
Click to expand...

At this point the Nvidia thing is a moot point cause it's been fixed along time ago. You cannot connect to servers running unpatched, so no. Unless you only play SP and cancel the update everytime.
 
dnottis said:
At this point the Nvidia thing is a moot point cause it's been fixed along time ago. You cannot connect to servers running unpatched, so no. Unless you only play SP and cancel the update everytime.
Click to expand...

exactly! That's why I asked. Its a buggy patch or a patch not working well with certain drivers. I will still love to see a process explorer close up to the dll using all the cpu. That's the only thing that can solve our questions and theories.
 
UnrealCpu said:
So i am just curious ,

I have a cpu q9550 12mb cache running at 3.6 gighertz with a gtx 570 running at 1920x1200

do i really need a core I2600k?

I really dont feel like buying new ram , mobo, heatsink fan and cpu.
waste of money if you ask me.. Now if i was coming from a core 2 duo, core i5 then yes.
Click to expand...
It's not really necessary to upgrade, to be honost a Q9650 still rans everything fine for me at 1600x1200. But if your looking at wanting to get the best performance and really see that 570 shine especially in BC2 then I'd go for the 2500k upgrade.

Keep in mind that there is still a large demand out there that's interested in buying used Q9550s, you can probably sell your Q9550/mobo/memory on ebay and easily get ~$300 if not more for it. A new 2500k/mobo/memory/heatsink is only gonna run ~$530(that's what I paid on newegg). So realistically it's only about ~200 to do the upgrade and you'd be futureproofing your system for BF3 or anything else that comes down the pipeline.

If you have a 120hz LCD I'd defiantly recommend going with the 2500k so you can stick around the 120fps mark, I don't see a Q9650 being able to provide ample power to do that.
 
Then the next big thing comes out that isn't a coding horror and you realized you bought a new cpu for just one game when your mate on a old quad is getting the same performances in games as you.
 
If a person upgrades be happy for them. They decided to spend the money. There is an improvement whether you want to admit or not.
 
Spooony said:
Then the next big thing comes out that isn't a coding horror and you realized you bought a new cpu for just one game when your mate on a old quad is getting the same performances in games as you.
Click to expand...

You can never have "too much system" if you are a gamer. I love going back and playing Red Faction Guerilla @ 100+ fps now. remember my Q9550 dropping to the 40s during building destruction. Sandy Bridge just eats that game for breakfast now. There is no such thing as too much!!
 
dnottis said:
You can never have "too much system" if you are a gamer. I love going back and playing Red Faction Guerilla @ 100+ fps now. remember my Q9550 dropping to the 40s during building destruction. Sandy Bridge just eats that game for breakfast now. There is no such thing as too much!!
Click to expand...

i might see if i can ebay my mobo and processor with fan
 
lol

I just went to ebay and some asshat is selling a Q9450 for $369!!! Damn. If I could get that I would not need much more for a 2500K + ram and mobo!
 
vsync on to vsync off omfg what a difference this platform upgrade has made. :rolleyes:
 
spaceman said:
lol

I just went to ebay and some asshat is selling a Q9450 for $369!!! Damn. If I could get that I would not need much more for a 2500K + ram and mobo!
Click to expand...

does he have some bids? man thats pretty sweet. lol. Line em up!
 
maxius said:
vsync on to vsync off omfg what a difference this platform upgrade has made. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Dang, you busted me maxius, test is a hoax. :rolleyes:

Lets see some fps comparisons of the screenshots I posted, so you think I used custom vsync settings for each screenshot?

2500k___Q9650
116_____59
182_____112
123_____78

Because of some doubters I'm actually gonna be posting up a video pretty soon.
 
can you do one for 1920x1200? or close to it? i'd like to see the difference between the two architectures in a real world situation, and if it's worth it to get SB or just wait untill bulldozer and then purchase something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top