BFBC2: considering upgrading

nobody_here said:
attack....i never attacked anything bro, read the posts....i simply commented on the advertising style of the guys post.....nobody else feels the need to paste pictures and enlarge text and whatnot.....i find it annoying and distracting and rather...ahem...cheap...
Click to expand...
What a fcked up comment bro, I'm just trying to help point out the important facts of my benchmarking and you come in here with your negative comments and call me cheap.

Many people speed read through threads, I figured I'd make it stand out so it doesn't passed up by anyone looking for the correct video card. My original post has very valuable information in it regarding EXACTLY what the OP was looking to obtain. I was in the exact same scenario that he was in.

I doubt anyone else has taken the time like I have and tested out (6) of the most popular cards on a C2D system paying special attention to BC2 performance like I have. Almost all online posted benchmarks are done on i7-920^ test systems that yield much different results then a C2D setup like me and the original poster both have.
 
gmreplay said:
I'm definitely not going to upgrade my E8400 to a Q9650, that sounds like a textbook example of a poor upgrade.
Click to expand...
E8400 to Q9550 w/ a 260 216 was the difference between unplayable and playable for me. $100 out of pocket. Friend of mine did the same and he's been very happy w/ his quad.

nobody_here said:
...nobody else feels the need to paste pictures and enlarge text and whatnot.....i find it annoying and distracting and rather...ahem...cheap...
Click to expand...
LOL!

incredible.gif


§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036629110 said:
Almost all online posted benchmarks are done on i7-920^ test systems that yield much different results then a C2D setup like me and the original poster both have.
Click to expand...
This. It's great to eliminate the CPU as a bottleneck in order to compare the cards, but just like canned or singleplayer benchmarks, do nothing for helping someone make a good purchase.

Play singleplayer? Dual's fine. Watch timedemo's...no need to upgrade. Who does this?

One of these days, someone will put up a site that actually plays games like I do and offers useful opinions. Until then, I'll rely on friends, forums, and fry's.
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036629110 said:
What a fcked up comment bro, I'm just trying to help point out the important facts of my benchmarking and you come in here with your negative comments and call me cheap.

Many people speed read through threads, I figured I'd make it stand out so it doesn't passed up by anyone looking for the correct video card. My original post has very valuable information in it regarding EXACTLY what the OP was looking to obtain. I was in the exact same scenario that he was in.

I doubt anyone else has taken the time like I have and tested out (6) of the most popular cards on a C2D system paying special attention to BC2 performance like I have. Almost all online posted benchmarks are done on i7-920^ test systems that yield much different results then a C2D setup like me and the original poster both have.
Click to expand...

i didnt read your post any further than "What a fcked up comment bro, I'm just trying to help point out the important facts of my benchmarking and you come in here with your negative comments and call me cheap. ".....my apologies, it was the style is was commenting on, not you personally

Jodiuh said:
E8400 to Q9550 w/ a 260 216 was the difference between unplayable and playable for me. $100 out of pocket. Friend of mine did the same and he's been very happy w/ his quad.


LOL!

incredible.gif



This. It's great to eliminate the CPU as a bottleneck in order to compare the cards, but just like canned or singleplayer benchmarks, do nothing for helping someone make a good purchase.

Play singleplayer? Dual's fine. Watch timedemo's...no need to upgrade. Who does this?

One of these days, someone will put up a site that actually plays games like I do and offers useful opinions. Until then, I'll rely on friends, forums, and fry's.
Click to expand...

are you done yet? lol

i actually used to be into benchmarking heavily, rarely playing games, we actually had a benchmarking "team" which competed against other teams...the goal was to see who could bench and get the highest scores, highest scores wins, period....and it was rather fun
 
I don't understand, my rig (Intel i3-550 3.2ghz, ATI 5770 1gb, 4gb ram) runs great for me in BFBC2 on max settings. My 5770 is OC'd to 900Mhz
 
Post is useless without settings and min/avg fps. Try again.

For example:

1680x1050
4xAA 16xAS
High details
HBAO off

Nvidia drivers optimizations off

i5 760 @ 3.8
GTX 460 @ 800

80 avg
60 min
full 32 person server

That's pretty good with high settings. Max settings would be HBAO on and the highest level of AA your card(s) supports. Runs great would be 120 avg, 90 min. Of course it's all dependent on your resolution as well. I can max settings @ 640x480, but then it looks like poop.
 
Last edited:
my Q6600 at 3.0 ghz is not enough for BC2 - or Black Ops or ARMA2 for that matter but i'll stick to the thread topic of BC2. i've only tested a 5770 1GB (950mhz core/1350mhz mem) and my GTX 460 1GB (850 core/2000 mem). regardless of res (native is 1920x1080) or min/med/max settings i still get dips into the low 30's during heavy parts of MP. the BC2:Vietnam expansion however runs much better with occasional dips into the low 40's.

my Intel C2Q is long in the tooth. here i come Sandy Bridge!
 
I will try running BC2 with a FPS counter and post the results maybe tomorrow. But I have what you say max settings HBAO on and highest level of AA and it runs smooth imo. There is obvious really tiny moments of a little bit of lag when massive explosions and graphic intensive things are happening but apart from that its perfect for me.
 
I'll post settings and results. I just tested this today for a few hours with my little brother's machine:

i5 760 @ 3520 (160x22)
AMD 6850 (stock)
1920x1080
All settings maxed out. Vsync enable. HBAO off.

It'll stay at a constant 60fps unless there's a lot of explosion around me. It'll dip but that's rare.
 
Code: 
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6851,     75891,  65, 115, 90.274

Played on a server with 32 players, (map with the ship in the middle of the desert.)
Settings: All Max, HBAO on, AA 32x, AF max, resolution: 1680x1050, vsync off.
Main rig in sig (i7 965, GTX 580). I'd say fermi does just fine in this game, on an i7 9xx anyway.

Default Nvidia driver settings (263.09 version). Spent about half the time battling two tanks at my deployment point, so lots of explosions right near me, and the rest defending point A, with multiple teammates and enemy soldiers in the vicinity and several fire fights. 90% of the in-game play was at 95-105 FPS.
 
Last edited:
devil22 said:
Code: 
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6851,     75891,  65, 115, 90.274

Played on a server with 32 players, (map with the ship in the middle of the desert.)
Settings: All Max, HBAO on, AA 32x, AF max, resolution: 1680x1050, vsync off.
Main rig in sig (i7 965, GTX 580). I'd say fermi does just fine in this game, on an i7 9xx anyway.
Click to expand...

pretty cool, how do you view that info after a match?
 
wadec22 said:
pretty cool, how do you view that info after a match?
Click to expand...

Fraps benchmark mode (press F11 while playing the game with Fraps loaded, then open the .csv files in the fraps\benchmarks directory with notepad.)
 
devil22 said:
Min: 65
Avg: 90

32 players
All Max
HBAO on
AA 32x
AF max
1680x1050

i7 965
GTX 580

Default Nvidia driver settings 263.09
Click to expand...
So it takes an i7 and a 580 to max this game and keep frames above 60 with a resolution of 1680. Sound perfectly in sync with my results.

How bout some information from other users?
 
I had the same question when I first started playing BC2 a month ago. Skip the GPU for now and grab a quad. I went from a 4.4ghz E8400 to a Q9550 at 4ghz and the difference is huge. Without changing any settings in BC2, my minimum FPS went from 35 to low 50s!

Next is the GPU upgrade. CPU definitely first though. (Since this thread is 5 pages in, you may have already upgraded for all I know. I just wanted to chime in)
 
my results seem way low! Don't have them in front of me right now, but using my gtx 260 (core 216) (i7 920 @ 3.4 GHz) last night I remember getting average around 20 or less in BC2, with 1680x1050 and settings turned down to medium/2x AA or so. With dips into single digits FPS :( Others here with the 260 report higher numbers. The card is a Evga SSC, but I kept getting crashes and odd artifacts a while ago and clocked it down 20-30 mhz or something with RivaTuner. Been stable ever since, and wouldn't think this would make that much a difference. BC2 seems weird to me, since I managed to play through Crysis with better visuals, and although not 60 FPS, it felt much smoother..:confused:

Definitely time to upgrade anyway though. Just bidding my time to jump on a 6950 now:D
 
Nosenuggets45 said:
I had the same question when I first started playing BC2 a month ago. Skip the GPU for now and grab a quad. I went from a 4.4ghz E8400 to a Q9550 at 4ghz and the difference is huge. Without changing any settings in BC2, my minimum FPS went from 35 to low 50s!

Next is the GPU upgrade. CPU definitely first though. (Since this thread is 5 pages in, you may have already upgraded for all I know. I just wanted to chime in)
Click to expand...

yeah, Crysis for instance, when i quit it and look at the monitor, i see one core fairly pegged out and the other three sitting idle

with BFBC2 when i quit and look all four cores at at least 80% or more utilized....major difference in how BFBC2 utilizes SMP
 
I wonder how well a 5Ghz Sandy and a pair of unlocked 6950's would perform?
 
I run:

Core i7 860 @ 4ghz
GTX570 SLI
3 x Alienware AW2310's in portrait

BF:BC2 graphic details @ high, AA 1x, AF16x

3240x1920

~90fps constant. Impressive.

I get ~96 - 98% GPU use on both GPU's.

Edit;

Turned off HBAO... now:

120 - 130fps nearly constant! :D
 
Last edited:
That's fantastic usage.

Saw a post on overclock today where a guy's pairing a 580 w/ Q6600 and wondering what's wrong. :D
 
Jodiuh said:
That's fantastic usage.

Saw a post on overclock today where a guy's pairing a 580 w/ Q6600 and wondering what's wrong. :D
Click to expand...

I think it's my large resolution + requirement for 120fps + 4ghz chip.

So many people with yeah, as you said Q6600's and GTX580 wondering why it doesn't perform well :p
 
Jodiuh said:
So it takes an i7 and a 580 to max this game and keep frames above 60 with a resolution of 1680. Sound perfectly in sync with my results.

How bout some information from other users?
Click to expand...

nxcess said:
I'll post settings and results. I just tested this today for a few hours with my little brother's machine:

i5 760 @ 3520 (160x22)
AMD 6850 (stock)
1920x1080
All settings maxed out. Vsync enable. HBAO off.

It'll stay at a constant 60fps unless there's a lot of explosion around me. It'll dip but that's rare.
Click to expand...

Your results are skewed. I have Q9550 at 3.8ghz with crossfire 5770. I max out all in-game settings minus hbao at 1680x1050.
 
since we are talking about x3 vs x4 in BC2. I run a Rana x3 @ 3.4 ghz. I cannot unlock my 4th core at all. Im wondering Ive been meaning to sell my x3 Rana & picking up a AMD Athlon II X4 640 Propus 3.0GHz

With the Extra core Would I see a difference in BF2 or should I keep saving for a Phenom II Quad.
 
Phenom II Quads aren't exactly expensive....I paid a whopping $145 for a 955BE. To me that's a huge steal since the last time I bought a CPU which was an Opteron 165 for $335 at Monarch Computers years ago.
 
nxcess said:
Your results are skewed. I have Q9550 at 3.8ghz with crossfire 5770. I max out all in-game settings minus hbao at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...
Well then, that's not maxed, is it? :D

Would you mind doing a Fraps run w/ the below settings and reporting back w/ your min/avg?

32 players
All Max
HBAO on
AA 32x
AF max

I'd imagine it'd be pretty speedy. What kind of scaling do you get on those?
 
Code: 
hbao on
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
 20447,    360498,  26, 79, 56.719

Code: 
hbao off
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6281,     88802,  40, 111, 70.73

hbao on was played during oasis and hbao off was played during laguna presa. i probably should redo it with the same maps but it's late and i'm too lazy. gaming on single screen kills it for me. too used to 5040x1050. the scaling i'd say is 90% or more. it's being pushed with the eyefinity setup.

after playing single screen on mine and then on my little brother's, i'd say his setup has a smoother feel to it. especially during explosions.
 
Thanks. These fraps runs are worth so much.

I'm gonna have to try out HBAO sometime. Curious to see if the hits worth it for me.

Anyone experiment with transparency aa? Does that do anything for BC2? I remember it being so valuable in bf2 with a 7800 GTX for those fubar fences.
 
just to throw in other #'s...

system in sig

4080x768, max settings, 2x AA, hbao on

min:40, max 83, avg 57
 
Here's what I got using 260.99 w/ all driver optimizations off...

bc2frapsrun.jpg


IMO, anything less will be distracting and does not offer up a smooth experience. That's the minimum acceptable performance level for an intense online shooter. How great would it be to have a set of system requirements based on these numbers?

Also, a friend of mine recently picked up a 460. He knew going in there might be a problem w/ the Phenom X3, but I don't think he expect this...

33ce4fcc.png


He said it's worse than the 4850 it replaced. :eek: Here's what it looks like w/ an i5 760...

usage.jpg


It's too bad folks have been dealing w/ this for the better part of a year. Upgrade or die's a pretty lame fix. Though, it did give me a good excuse to jump the C2Q ship. :D
 
Last edited:
I have no problems playing BC2 at 2560x1600 with a single 6970

It dips below 60 sometimes during huge explosions but not a big deal really. That might be down to CPU even.
 
Hi, well I finally managed to do some testing, so here are my results.

First, CPU: Intel Core i5 760, basic frequency 2.8GHz. For all testing Turbo Boost is disabled of course.

GPU is AMD Radeon HD6850 little OC. Core at 875 (max CCC limit, programs like afterburner doesent by themselves go back to 2D clocks and its not really that difference between 920 and 875MHz, without voltage increase) memory at 4600MHz.

Bad company 2 settings: 1680x1050 (my native), all high, everything except VSync on, 2x MSAA, 8x AF (I use 2AA/8AF since I cant really tell difference in combat and every FPS is good FPS :) )

How I tested:

Well, I connected to empty Oasis map and looked from same position to same place everytime. I know not the best methodology by far, but I don´t have all afternoon to benchmark. To simulate mild combat condition I shot grenade from grenade luncher to building and than meassured lowest FPS.

OK, first I disabled 2 Cores to simulate C2D CPU. Since almost any C2D can easily go up to 3 GHz I set 3 GHz frequency. Than I tested few frequency barriers for full 4 cores enabled.

Results:

#cores || frequency || normall || mild-combat || CPU usage

2 || 3 GHz || 58 FPS || 53 FPS || 95%

4 || 2.8 GHz || 58 FPS || 52 FPS || 60%

4 || 3.5 GHz || 60 FPS || 53 FPS || 50%

4 || 4.2 GHz || 61 FPS || 53 FPS || 42%

Actually these result surprised me, becouse as I wrote few days ago here, when I first run this game on 2.8GHz, it was terribly slow. But maybe back than it was some other problem. I don´t really know.

So, as you can see,there is not much FPS increase from 2 cores at 3 GHz (Of course Core i5 is not C2D, so I would guess 3.2 GHz C2D would act the same.)

Also, with minimal FPS during grenade blast into wall, I think its by far more GPU demanding than CPU, just becouse all the dust is really demanding.

And becouse I was surprised by these result, I tried one more test. I played full populated Laguna Alta map (one of my favourite). I played it a while, and one time I got into really intense battle, point A, building collapsing while 2 RPG soldiers fighting with transporter, lots of dust, fire, explosions. In that scene my FPS went to minimal of 37 FPS with 4.2GHz. That actually isnt that bad. And even 37 is low in online FPS, it was just few seconds.

I tried same map, same people with 2.8 GHz and even there was not so intense battle second time I joined, I still got decent FPS, and subjectivelly I would say the same as with 4.2GHz (you cant really notice difference between 34 and 37 FPS in one second blink.)

So, I hope maybe this would help someone.

BTW: Techspot has also CPU scaling test with i7 CPU. They have much bigger FPS difference in their test, but they are testing it on CrossFire 5870 cards. I believe just feedind two 5870 cards is lot of work for CPU, so maybe thats why they have so big differencies in FPS at bigger frequencies. Also, I am testing latest patch and they teste dit on the one of first releases.
 
Killing 2 cores doesnt really simulate c2d due to architecture differences. But it would be interesting to see framerate and usage with 4 vs 2 cores in an extreme firefight. The only way to know what the experience will be like's by losing yourself in the game. Dropping from 61 to 37 proves that. Playable vs unplayable. Now imagine doing that with 2 cores on older tech running at slower speeds. That's mouse vs wall stuff right there.

Also, Techspot seems to be a little...off. ;)

"So again, a decent dual core processor such as a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or Phenom II X2 should be enough to get the most out of your graphics card in this game. While it is quad-core optimized, the game is not demanding enough on the CPU to warrant it based on what I have seen so far."
 
I'm running a i7 950 @4.0 with 2 570s in sli. Would I get better performance out of 3x1 portrait setup of 23 or 24inch monitors or 1 30inch monitor with a secondary to the side for apps/etc? Would the performance necessarily be bad, or unplayable with the worse choice?
 
I ran my setting for BFBC2 below.

bfc2setting.jpg


Yes, I leave Vsync on due smooth and constantly 60 fps most of time, also use DX11.

Running 263.14 whql.
 
FYI, I used to run an E6750 @ 3.6ghz with the same GTX 260-216 @ 660 mhz in my sig and it ran decent at 1680 x 1050 with 4xAA, 6xAF though occassionally would slow under heavy explosions and smoke.

Now with the i5 760 @ 3.8ghz, I still run 1680 x 1050 but with 8xAA, 16xAF and it there is virtually no slowdown at all. The quad has made an unbelievable difference in this game. On EVGA precision, GPU usage is 99% and peak temps are 49c. With my E6750, GPU usage was 99% also but temps were ~ 57c. Not sure why that is, but the quad appears to be taking a lot more of the load now at the same resolution.

The stuttering in game a couple of people mentioned I think has more to do with the NV control panel global settings not being in sync with the game. Try changing NV global settings line item for the game "Render Frames ahead limit" to 1 or 2 and do the same in the config file for BFBC2 using notepad and save it. Make sure they are the same #. Don't use a value greater than 2.
 
Well Finally today I managed to play some serious time. And I noticed few not-so-good things.

First, there is stuttering in this game. Sometimes, about 5 minutes intervals. I have abou 70 FPS, than lag, and again 70 FPS. And this is not normal lag, I have never experienced this before on my old machine.

Next, I though this game has performance issue due to my old CPU, but no, this game has some optimalisation problems. If I just look thru scope, I get minus 10 FPS. Even when I look down to the ground. And, when something explodes, I get instantly from 60+ FPS to barely 30 FPS. This is way too much. And no its not my CPU, I have Core i5 760 clocked at 4.2GHz....
 
pokevitek said:
Well Finally today I managed to play some serious time. And I noticed few not-so-good things.

First, there is stuttering in this game. Sometimes, about 5 minutes intervals. I have abou 70 FPS, than lag, and again 70 FPS. And this is not normal lag, I have never experienced this before on my old machine.

Next, I though this game has performance issue due to my old CPU, but no, this game has some optimalisation problems. If I just look thru scope, I get minus 10 FPS. Even when I look down to the ground. And, when something explodes, I get instantly from 60+ FPS to barely 30 FPS. This is way too much. And no its not my CPU, I have Core i5 760 clocked at 4.2GHz....
Click to expand...

I don't experience any stuttering personally, on an i7 paired with a 6970. No low FPS when looking through a scope either. Nvidia or AMD card? could be driver related.

I do experience a significant dip during explosions, which is likely CPU related, since turning down the res does not improve frame rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top