• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

BFBC2: considering upgrading

I have 6850 CF with i7 920, and I get well over 60fps in BFBC2. 1920x1200. All high
However I do recommend GTX460 1GB SLI over 6850, only because 6850's drivers sucks.
 
gtx 460 sli will peak around 170 fps and avg between 100-170

Stereoscopic 3d avg 60 fps SLI

Single GPU 3d 30 fps.
 
MadOblivion said:
gtx 460 sli will peak around 170 fps and avg between 100-170

Stereoscopic 3d avg 60 fps SLI

Single GPU 3d 30 fps.
Click to expand...


At what resolution? My single 460 1Gb averages in the 85'ish fps and that's at Max settings allowed in game, 32xAA , HBAO on and 16xAF
 
1050x1600

remember those were sli numbers

i can give u some single gpu non 3d fps numbers in a few.

o.c 830 mhz 2000mem 8xAA 16x af all settings max
 
running at 1050x1600 AA 8x AF 16x single GPU 830mhz/1800mem
Last driver update seemed to make the gpu more unstable at higher memory clocks.
fps peaked around 77 avg 60-65.

Like the 56c Full load temps with 60% fan after an hour of gameplay. I run a Custom fan profile in MSI afterburner for optimal effective heat dissipation and fan life.
Also have three 120 mm fans blowing cool air on the gpus from two diffrent directions. and a quad push/push/push/push exhaust system

SLI really is the ticket when it comes to the 460's.
latest driver updates are utilizing more gpu in sli.

singleGPUFPS.jpg

screensnap-1.jpg

Code: 
<object width="425" height="305"><embed src="http://media.xfire.com/swf/embedplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="305" flashvars="videoid=401f71"></embed></object>
 
Last edited:
what's going on at the end there where you're getting 145 fps? did you enable SLI?
 
Porter_ said:
what's going on at the end there where you're getting 145 fps? did you enable SLI?
Click to expand...

That's where the level ended, or a checkpoint was reached and a cutscene took over, loading screen, etc.....same thing happens on mine, hits nearly 200 fps at times.
 
nobody_here said:
That's where the level ended, or a checkpoint was reached and a cutscene took over, loading screen, etc.....same thing happens on mine, hits nearly 200 fps at times.
Click to expand...

MadOblivion said:
that was just a single gpu installed. Sli avg around 120fps peak 170.

fps spike was just a map load.
Click to expand...

gotcha, thanks for the input. my second 460 will be here tomorrow...getting excited :)
 
Porter_ said:
gotcha, thanks for the input. my second 460 will be here tomorrow...getting excited :)
Click to expand...

I have to ship out my other card tomorrow for a RMA. Evga's rma process kinda sucks balls... with the refurb crap they send.

You should buy yourself another 1tb drive for a raid0 setup. Faster drive setup really helps 3d performance or at least seems to lmao. That and the faster map load lets you get your favorite vehicle before anyone else as long as there isn't a spawn time limit.

Even with my raid0 my windows hd rating is capped at 6.0 . But noticeably faster from a 5.9 rating i had when i had my raid setup improperly. Only 90$ cost for some improved performance and extra storage space :-P

Here is a bench showing the improvements of a single 1tb wd black vs 2x raid. I have seen 5x raid0 setups that really smoke some benchmark numbers but i would recommend raid 5 if you run more then 2 drives in raid.

hdbench.png
 
Last edited:
^seconded.

I really noticed a difference in loadtimes going from a single 500GB to a 4x160GB raid0 setup.


Here's 4x160GB maxtor sata drives in raid0 on ICH10R for comparison, interesting results.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
MadOblivion said:
You should buy yourself another 1tb drive for a raid0 setup. Faster drive setup really helps 3d performance or at least seems to lmao. That and the faster map load lets you get your favorite vehicle before anyone else as long as there isn't a spawn time limit.
Click to expand...

This explains why I'm always the first to spawn. I'll grab a quad bike, head to the mcomm, arm it, and guard it. Takes a while before my team catches up to me.
 
Why do people always claim that ram or ssd's are excellent for grabbing the first vehicle in BFBC2 like it's the most important thing in the world? That game has rounds that are soo long, and vehicles are constantly re spawning, so does it really matter? I downgraded to a 5400RPM because I have it timed perfect so that I can snag the second batch of vehicle's spawning and rush to flag point alpha from command point bravo and snipe charlies.
 
The main reason I like to be first in is so I get a vehicle and don't need to walk/run to first objective. I've played on others machines and had to spawn at the start of a round on heavy metal on to find myself with a 1mile jog to the first flag :(. Vehicles don't respawn until they're destroyed so you may be waiting a while on some maps/servers.
 
You don't need write speed for loading games. The only thing you really need write speed for is moving large files to the drive, and given SSDs' currently limited capacity, is a completely moot point.
 
samuelmorris said:
You don't need write speed for loading games. The only thing you really need write speed for is moving large files to the drive, and given SSDs' currently limited capacity, is a completely moot point.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you can also get more performance and speed per $ going with standard Sata iii drives in raid0 or 5.

A 5x raid setup will blow away any SSD and cost way less if you measure performance vs storage space and cost.

When you buy a SSD you are really just paying for the longer life of the drive.. because the performance increase alone is not worth it.
 
Well, more performance per dollar is obvious. Per GB, the best value SSDs are still 34 times as expensive as the best value mechanicals, and they aren't 34 times as fast.
RAID does not blow away SSDs, it amazes me that people think it does. The main benefit of SSDs is not the sequential read speed, it's the access latency, which RAID does not improve, and it can in fact make worse.
I doubt almost anyone here who owns an SSD owns it for longevity.
 
Raid is an excellent setup for mechanics or SSD.

The main problem that plagues Raid 0 is failing drives. So if an SSD can cut down on a failing drives in a RAID 0 setup.. that would be one big reason for me to go SSD when they are cheaper.

as far as latency goes, that is good.. but if a corvette starts a race a couple seconds after a honda civic... the corvette still wins.

Same applys to RAM, tight timings are good, but higher operating frequency with sloppy timings will out perform any cas 6-7 ram setup.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top