• 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

With my 5870 all settings high and 4xAA 16xAF and HBAO off, I think I get ~60-100 fps with dips down to maybe 50fps.
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
Running Vista 64bit.
No idea why this wouldn't work on my system, perhaps I'll try a reinstall of the game.
Click to expand...

Maybe a Vista problem? I don't know anyone else who is running Vista, but that would be the first thing I would check.
 
with a gtx 460 running 7i 950, 6g ram im getting around 120fps in middle of battle, around 150 alone
 
pokevitek said:
Well, about CPU, quad on 4 GHz should really be enough. More than enough. My Core i5 760, OC at 4.2 GHz has three cores at about 50% and last maxed out. Only way I was able to max CPU load was default 2.8 GHz frequency. With no Turbo Boost. Since you are running quad at 4 GHz, I think you sould have lower CPU usage.

For your GPU, usage not beeing maxed, this is really strange. Once again, your CPU is FINE.

For the dips into 40, I have HD 6850, with medium OC. I would guess I am very near HD 6870. I played at 1680x1050 with All High, HSAO on, 4xAA. I got average FPS around 60, with dips down to about 35 in really intensive situations. These dips are normal thing in this game.

This made me play with 1AA, and I disabled Bloom, since to me its worthless. This gave me another boost. Now I play with 75 AVG, still getting drops down to about 38.

Very IMPORTANT thing about this game is, although its not as bad as someone says, its not good either. And not just performance-wise. For example, new patch brought me few seconds freeze few second after map loads, no matter if I am in class selection or I jump to action really fast....
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. I figured a quad at 4ghz would be plenty! Some people here saying they get 100fps in mid battle... I wish! In REALLY heavy action, I've already dipped to the mid 30s for a second. It's those dips that are driving me nuts! I want a solid 60fps without dips.
 
Nosenuggets45 said:
That's what I thought. I figured a quad at 4ghz would be plenty! Some people here saying they get 100fps in mid battle... I wish! In REALLY heavy action, I've already dipped to the mid 30s for a second. It's those dips that are driving me nuts! I want a solid 60fps without dips.
Click to expand...

YES!, wen i got a SSD drive all those random dips to 30FPS wen shotting even for 2-4 sec dissapeared, was all good till my SSD starting acting up
 
tlbig10 said:
Going to do my best to keep this organized, but here comes a lot of graphs and data!

Installed a 5850 this evening and have been rerunning all my tests. I pitted the 5850 against the 4850 since the 460 was not working properly and wouldn't be a fair test for it. Here are the results and boy was I clueless on just how important your CPU is in BC2:

Ah, now we're finally maxing the 5850. Full CPU and GPU usage here...

4850 vs. 5850 - High detail, 8xAA:
line_graph_48_58_h8xAA.png


5850 cpu and gpu usage:
cpu_gpu_usage_58_h8xAA.png


Now we're finally starting to see the 5850 stress itself and not be able to maintain the 60fps average. Yes, it was brutal playing BC2 with the 4850 at these settings, but i trudged through it so we can see the differences!

I'll be installing a Phenom II X4 945 on Saturday, so it'll be interesting to see what it'll do to my lower setting tests where the CPU was the bottleneck. Goal is to reach 50+ minimum framerate and hopefully an extra core and 200 more mhz will make that happen.
Click to expand...
Nice results, very well put together big10. In your BFBC2 config are you in DX10 or DX11 mode for the above tests? Yep that X3 you have is def bottlenecking, Hopefully that X4 will bring your min frames up about 10fps. Then just give that 5850 a mild OC of 800/1100 and you should be set. If you run DX10 and set shadows to low while leaving everything else on the high settings and 4xAA, 16xAF I bet you will never dip below 60fps, shadows really kill performance in this game.

I was doing some testing with the gtx570 that I have in my PC right now and I see only a 2-3fps change from running 2xAA to 32xQ_CSAA @ 1600x1200, I then set my rez to 2048x1536 with 32xQ_CSAA and to my surprise I was still getting pretty decent frames not dropping below 50fps... GPU usage @ this rez was still around 75-85% and not maxed out yet lol... This card is def way too much for a Q9650. Will be cool to see what this 570 and my 5870 does in Jod's PC at the LAN, hopefully he tries it out so I can see if it's worth going to a newer i5/i7 setup later down the road.

Like you said it's all about finding the perfect balance.
 
Last edited:
Nosenuggets45 said:
...dips into the 40s. Why is this happening, and why is my GPU/CPU usage not maxed?
Click to expand...
Because you have a Q9550. Move to Sandy Bridge or get a 5870.

pokevitek said:
Once again, your CPU is FINE...
Click to expand...
If by fine you mean, "F***ed up, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional." Then yes, it's FINE. Blame Nvidia for the depression. I would prescribe a heavy dose of Cypress...say...58~70mg?

travbrad said:
For what it's worth my framerates in BC2 almost doubled going from an OCed HD4830 to the GTX460...
Click to expand...
They will double again with Sandy Bridge.

Nosenuggets45 said:
...30s for a second. It's those dips that are driving me nuts! I want a solid 60fps without dips.
Click to expand...
Hi!!

§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036670991 said:
...if it's worth going to a newer i5/i7 setup later down the road...
Click to expand...
It's not. i5 760's garbage. Still not @ 100%.
 
Jodiuh, eve though of some sort of medical help for you?

quad at 4 GHz is more than enough at first place. When I got my 8800GT and C2D!! I got GPU limited at 3.2 GHz OC. I seriously doubt everyone thats says his framerate doubled with quad, only if their previous frequency was 2.4 GHz and they have SLi or CFX....

Core i5 760 has some garbage? :)

Seriously, I have 760 OC at 4.24GHz. My CPU usage is somewhere about 50%.... And if this game developed almost a year back would need you to buy CPU that doesent existed back than, I think that game has some problem.... Blaim DICE, not nVidia. With every patch it seems like I have another problem with game. patch x fixed error in patch x-1 and adds new one. For exammple now I got WSOD, combined with few seconds lag after map loads.
 
Jodiuh said:
They will double again with Sandy Bridge.
Click to expand...

Yep that's why I linked that CPU scaling thing where SB (and quads in general) wtfpwns everything else. :) I still think a GTX260 would be a bottleneck paired with SB, but so would a new GPU with an E8400. Decisions decisions. ;)
 
Last edited:
I find this post interesting. From what I have read so far, it sounds like to run this game properly you need a new system or major upgrade. Unfortunately, I find it sad at the same time because most current hardware should be able to run it decently. Speaking of which isn't this a console port? However, I understand the want and need to get the game to run well and smoothly. I too am in the same boat and considering an upgrade to run this game better. I am still fighting a white screen crash with a fully patched system and up to date drivers. Yes this is my main rig. I really like the Q9550 and it runs strong.

Sorry for my typing I find it a pain in the arse to type on a phone to reply to a post. So when I got home, reread what I had posted and said "damn I had a few mistakes here."
 
Last edited:
Well, it may not exactly be typical midrange, but my Q9550/4870X2x2 setup handled the game pretty well at 2560x1600 without incident [just no AA or HBAO] with a consistently fluid frame rate, and that's two year old hardware.
 
shaggy77 said:
I find it interesting this post. It almost sounds like to run this game properly you need a new system or major upgrade. Unfortunately I find it sad at the same time because most current hardware should be able to run it decently. Speaking of which isn't this a console port.? However I understand the want and need to get the game to run well and smoothly. I too am in the same boat and considering an upgrade to run this game better. I am still fighting a white screen crash with a fully patched system and up to date drivers.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to your system, you should be fine upgrading the video card. This game benefits from a quad, but at the same time needs a decent graphics card. I can barely run this game on a single 5770 without turning the settings down. Crossfire 5770 runs this game good IMHO. 6850 would be even better.
 
shaggy77 said:
I find it interesting this post. It almost sounds like to run this game properly you need a new system or major upgrade. Unfortunately I find it sad at the same time because most current hardware should be able to run it decently. Speaking of which isn't this a console port.? However I understand the want and need to get the game to run well and smoothly. I too am in the same boat and considering an upgrade to run this game better. I am still fighting a white screen crash with a fully patched system and up to date drivers.
Click to expand...

I don't think your Q9550 (esp at 3.8ghz!!) would bottleneck your system at all really, unless you were to pair it with a very high-end video card (580, SLI, etc). That scaling chart I linked earlier shows the Q9400 about 40% slower than a 2500K/2600K, but the Q9400 is clocked MUCH lower than yours (2.66ghz), and as we've seen repeatedly, clock speed matters in gaming.
 
My 6600 at 3.6 seemed to be putting out at about 90% give or take a few percent while playing while my gpu seemed to be hovering around the 80% mark with sharp spikes up and down as low as 30%. I run the game at 1920 with texture on high and all other settings on medium with hbao off and no aa or af. I'm probably running around 70 fps with dips into the 30's.

I'm gonna bitch slap this game tomorrow when I get my 2500k, corsair vengeance 8gb and p8p67 pro at frys tomorrow. :D
 
nxcess said:
If you're referring to your system, you should be fine upgrading the video card. This game benefits from a quad, but at the same time needs a decent graphics card. I can barely run this game on a single 5770 without turning the settings down. Crossfire 5770 runs this game good IMHO. 6850 would be even better.
Click to expand...

I would do the Crossfire option but cannot since I have the regular P5Q not a pro MB. I am thinking about picking up a 6850 or 70 for more graphical horsepower. The 5770 was an impulse purchase last year right around now for DX11 graphics. I should have kept the GTX260 since it was faster on paper.

travbrad said:
I don't think your Q9550 (esp at 3.8ghz!!) would bottleneck your system at all really, unless you were to pair it with a very high-end video card (580, SLI, etc). That scaling chart I linked earlier shows the Q9400 about 40% slower than a 2500K/2600K, but the Q9400 is clocked MUCH lower than yours (2.66ghz), and as we've seen repeatedly, clock speed matters in gaming.
Click to expand...

Well that is what 2 generations in processors, C2Q to SB? I would hope to see some improvement. I am in a position in which I am not interested in making a major upgrade. From what I have seen with my Q9550 at its current OC, it is really good for single card for the foreseeable future. I see you what you were trying to do. I am not interested in dual card set ups. That is so 1998 Voodoo2 :D

Right now, I am at a crossroads. I am feeling my HD5770 is a little underpowered. For a while, I was inclined to believe I was having a driver problem with AMD to get this game going correctly. The jury is still out. One could say I am bias towards Nvidia most of my experience has been with Nvidia cards. This is due to the fact I was able to drop an Nvidia card in and it worked. When got something that works, you stick with it. This is something we could all find common ground. Since my experience does lean towards to the Nvidia, I was looking into a GTX460 as well. I'm also looking into a 6850-70 or possible 5850 depending on the price. See the predicament. The 6850-70 looks like a good direction to go. I game in 19x12 FYI.
 
shaggy77 said:
The 6850-70 looks like a good direction to go. I game in 19x12 FYI.
Click to expand...

You have it easy gaming on a single monitor. You could max out the game with a decent mid range card. I've been trying to find information on the 6970 and how it plays at 5040x1050.
 
5870 impressions:
A Yorkfield/5870 provides nearly the same gaming experience as a Lynnfield/470 in Bad Company 2. If any of you have been thinking about upgrading to Sandy Bridge for this game alone and have ~ Q9550, I highly recommend snatching up a 5870 and being done with it.

470 impressions:
After extensive use w/ a 470, it's just too hot. I've never before felt my psu fan and this thing kicked it up full blast. Never thought my PSU could push heat out before this. Sure it's 25% quicker than 460 and lets me flip HBAO and 2x Supersampling on under the transparency settings in the Nvidia driver panel, but neither of those even matter when gaming online.

For the $ 1680 x 1050, 60 minimum, 4x AA, high detail...

C2Q recommendation: 5870
i5/i7 quad recommendation: 460
C2D recommendation: ^C2Q + 5870 or ^i5/i7 quad + 460

I hope this makes sense, been gaming all day long and ate some pretty gnarly taquitos that be tearing me up...
 
If someone interested in 6850:

CPU: Core i5 760 - 4.24GHz
GPU: HD 6850 (900MHz,1200MHz)
Map: Laguna Presa
Time in game: about 45 minutes, same map.
FPS: 27min, 116max, 64avg
 
Check out this awesome feature with AMD x4 processors and a 5850 -

75fbeb2e.png


Very :unamused:. My CPU handles 10 minutes of prime95 (haven't had time to go longer), so I don't think it is due to an unstable overclock. GPU is completely stock. Bad gpu driver?

Edit: looks like my cream-of-the-crop Frys' special 5850 decided to take a dump. All games exhibited that stretch issue and popping the 4850 back in fixed it.

BTW - I did uninstall Catalyst and Device Manager driver, rebooted into Safe Mode, ran Driver Sweeper in SF, rebooted back into Windows, redownloaded 10.12 driver, installed it, and did not fix the 5850 issue.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that looks too deliberate to be artifacts.

Here's that AS wonkiness I mentioned on 58xx awhile back. I noticed it on Dracoirs' rig yesterday. It seems like NV and ATI take turns screwing that up. :/
 
pokevitek said:
If someone interested in 6850:

CPU: Core i5 760 - 4.24GHz
GPU: HD 6850 (900MHz,1200MHz)
Map: Laguna Presa
Time in game: about 45 minutes, same map.
FPS: 27min, 116max, 64avg
Click to expand...

what res?
with sig and 4x AA I get 40-ish avg, and 30 min.. So just wondering why your's is so much higher? (Although you're CPU is clocked quite a bit higher) That's an OCed 6850 right? what's the stock?
 
Last edited:
Pokevitek: that's a 45 minute run? You might want to limit to 5 minutes so there's less map load or other possible pauses that might alter fps. Also, what game and driver settings were used?
 
Well, I used long times benchmarking becouse I was curious more in min FPS than average. And you never know when you get yourself into serious action.

So, GPU is Gigabyte HD 6850OC, flashed with 6870 BIOS (slightly bigger voltage 1.175V and higher CCC OC limit) clocked at 900/1200MHz. What I think is really cool about this Gigabyte version is that even I have fan locked at 35% my temps never go beyond 60°C. stock for 6850 non-OC would be 775/1000 MHz.

I forgot resolution. So complete settings:
Resolution: 1680x1050
Everything High, HSAO on, Vsync obviously off, Bloom off (this doesen´t actually get me much more FPS, but its to me very anoying effect).
4xAA/16xAF
Drivers: 10.12a (a represents in this case second a hotfix released for this driver version, but no FPS increase)

for min FPS, it is map-dependant much more than average FPS. For example, the biggest frame losing action in Laguna Alta was transporter destroying house while I was inside house, lots of debries and smoke, but still got 37FPS min. In Laguna Presa I got into transporter battle on crashsite A and got minimum of 27 FPS.

As soon as I am done learning math, I will test 5 minutes ran at Laguna Presa trying to maximally move around all 3 points, to get true gameplay average. I will do it for stock CPU, stock GPU, OC CPU stock GPU and finally OC CPU OC GPU. Might be interesting.
 
OK, I am back with some hard data....

So, this time I took it more seriously. All testing involves 1680x1050 resolution, All HIGH, HSAO on, Bloom off; 4xAA, 16xAF....

CPU stock: Core i5 760 at 2.8GHz TURBO BOOST OFF !!!!
CPU OC: Core i5 760 at 4.24GHz TURBO BOOST OFF !!!!
GPU stock: HD6850 at 775/1000MHz
GPU OC: HD 6850 at 900/1200MHz
Drivers: 10.12a
OS: Windows 7 x64

First testing - short playtime around 5 minutes on Laguna Presa, every test jerking around point A - crashsite. Lots of flames there. I have done each test 3 times, averaging data. Focused on min FPS and avg. FPS, I believe no one really cares about max FPS.

So, there we go.
CPU: stock, GPU: OC = min: 43FPS, avg: 55 FPS.
CPU: OC, GPU: stock = min: 40FPS, avg: 53FPS.
CPU: OC, GPU: OC = min: 41 FPS, avg: 57 FPS.

OK, so as you can see from this data, becouse I wanted to benchmark real game scenarios, differences between settings are very blury. Mainly min FPS is really given by one bad look into some greater action. Anyway, from personal experience, there is notable difference playing with GPU OC. It just seems a bit better all the time.

What I want to STRESS before next testing is one thing - like I said before, I DON´T THINK C2Q CPU clocked at 4+ GHz would be bottlenecking any card. Maybe SLi or CFX, but thats all. I MUST DISAGREE with blaiming those CPUs for bad framerate. They ARE FINE, and no it does not mean fu**** !!!!

Why am I saying this? Just to be sure, I have done another testing. Static one. I joined empty Laguna Presa server. I went to point A, looking into flames, everytime to the same position looking the same way. And there are some data:

CPU at 2.8 GHz had +- 1 FPS THE SAME FPS = 56FPS. I had GPU load opened, CPU load opened - even 2.8 GHz have been more than enough. My CPU load never went above 60%, with GPU load beeing 99% all the time. Even when cousing some demolitions, CPU load remaind constant, as well as GPU load.

And the last numbers are just about GPU OC. At stock, I have 48 FPS looking into flames. When OC at 900/1200MHz, I get those 56 FPS. That would be approx. 16% OC to get 16% more FPS. And, when RBE with voltage mod will be released, those GPU can hit 1000MHZ at core. This means HD 6850 beating GTX 470 and 6870. Of course you can OC them as well, but in case of 6870, it doesent really help as much as with 6850. You can take this as my buying recommanadation.
 
DualOwn said:
benchmarking bc2 in mp is unrealistic imo.

lag slows down the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah bro.... any server with high enough ping that it affects my performance is a server I'm leaving.....I'm looking for 15-20 pings before I join....you should play on better servers
 
Porter_ said:
my GTX 460 hovers around 40-50% usage in BC2 and Black Ops, with my Q6600. my train of thought is inline with DualOwn's post above.
Click to expand...

*just* got my i5-2500K build up and running, still at stock clocks. only played one game so far but on Arica Harbor (my worst-case map, previously) 32-man server my GPU usage is now around 90% at medium settings and where i previously saw drops into the 30 fps realm i'm now dipping into the 80's. big upgrade from my Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz. i'll up the graphics settings and see if i can't max out my GTX 460.
 
3DMark 11 says the 6870 should be neck and neck w/ the 470 stock and 460 OC. But the last couple hours w/ BC2 says otherwise.

BC2ColdWarFrapsRun460OCvs470Stockvs6870Stock.jpg


That's the best of five 5 minute fraps runs on Cold War. I tried playing, I tried staying away, I mixed it up. They were all the same. 70ish avg, 35ish min. To make matters worse, there's a flickering on some walls that did not appear w/ either Nvidia cards.

It seems to be putting out slightly less heat than the 460 and noticeably less than 470. I'll keep going and see if something weird's happening, but it seems to be slower in BC2.
 
That's too bad. I popped in an X4 945 oc'ed to 3.6 and the 5870 should be here on Thursday, so even though we're running different resolutions, it'll be interesting to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top