BFG 7800GTX and BF2 Stutering

I play at 1280x960 4xAA with everything set to high EXCEPT for dynamic lighting and dynamic shadows, those are set to medium. I was running 1 gig originally but it was hitching and the menu load times sucked so I threw in another 512 (2x256) and the problems went away. Nice and smooth now. I guess 1 gig doesn't cut it anymore!
 
azzkikur said:
Means the game is using more than 1GB of ram. I run it with no pagefile perfectly. I'm afraid the only thing going to fix it is another GB of ram. :(
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help. Ill just run the game at slightly lower settings.
 
i dont get it if i can run bf2 with 1600x1200 everything on high or very high with full eye cany with a x850xt pe then why cant u run it with a bfg7800gtx...and yes i do have 1 gig of ram not oc'ed...
 
that is not your comps fault its the game its self. BF2 is so buggy its ridiculous. A lot of people posted that 2gb of ram greatly reduces the stuttering. Its a combination of a buggy game and crappy servers
 
Mayhs said:
i dont get it if i can run bf2 with 1600x1200 everything on high or very high with full eye cany with a x850xt pe then why cant u run it with a bfg7800gtx...and yes i do have 1 gig of ram not oc'ed...
Click to expand...

What are youre AA and AF settings? Mine is gamma corrected AA on, 2xMSAA, and 4xAF

I think it probly has to do with my cards AA being more of a performance hit since it now AA's grass. bushes, and leaves on trees.

It could also be the early drivers.
 
Stuttering here as well -_-

Athlon 64 3500+
Asus A8V Deluxe
2x512mb Corsair value pc3200 ram
BFG 6800 Ultra OC
Audigy 2

I run at 1024x768 with 2xAA all settings high except:

Dynamic light,lighting, and textures at medium
Dynamic Shadows Off

Then it runs really smooth, even on 64 player servers with a lot of action.
 
I used to get stuttering, I dont now. Went from a 3500+ to a 3700+ (both overclocked)2x512 Mushkin PC3500 LvL2, to 2x512 Mushkin PC4000 Redline and a X850XT/PE, to a BFG 7800GTX.

I used to get stuttering bad at 1920x1200, with everything on high. Now I dont. I can even enable AA/AF will great frames now. The whole reason I upgraded, was to do 4x512. But now after upgrading everything else, I dont get stuttering anymore. I dont want to lose my 1T timings, so I am going to hold off on adding another. I would like the better load times with 2gig, but its a trade off right now I dont want to make. BF2 is the only game that I play that benefits from 2gig, over 1gig. But losing 1T will affect all games.
 
fallguy said:
BF2 is the only game that I play that benefits from 2gig, over 1gig. But losing 1T will affect all games.
Click to expand...

How much impact will changing to 2T over 1T have over games? A few fps? Or more?
 
From what I have read, it depends. 3% if the number I keep on hearing. More when the FSB is raised. Currently my 3700+ is at 11x250=2750Mhz. My ram is at Cas2 2-2-6-1T@1:1. Which gives me a LOT of bandwidth. I guess that helps too.

Command Rate is not normally a factor in Intel DDR tests, but it is a major concern in Athlon 64 performance. A Command Rate of 1T is considerably faster on Athlon 64 than a 2T Command Rate. For this reason, all testing was at 1T Command Rate. Command Rate and voltage are reported for each memory speed setting.
Click to expand...

From a review of my ram. Currently one of the, if not the best DDR sticks out there.

At my res, I dont think it would matter much losing 1T. I just wish I could try the ram, before I bought it.. to see if it was worth it to me.Without having a restocking fee.
 
Hrmmm, remember to delete the old drivers, and then reinstall the new ones... and as far as ram, I only have 1GB of PC2700 DDR and a GeForce FX 5900U and BF2 doesn't stutter one bit, unless I join a server with a ping over 158. Olso keep in mind that most AMD CPU's befor the FX 55 and up and the new X2 have a lot of truble handling a 1GB "sick" of ram, somrthing to do with the cach of the CPU.
 
Mayhs said:
i dont get it if i can run bf2 with 1600x1200 everything on high or very high with full eye cany with a x850xt pe then why cant u run it with a bfg7800gtx...and yes i do have 1 gig of ram not oc'ed...
Click to expand...
Maybe he has a lot of stuff running in the background. I kill almost everything on my computer except xfire, fraps, maybe MSN and that is about all. I especially kill MS Anti spyware because it start searching the drive when I am playing sometimes.
 
will 1.5 gigs be enough??? or is 2 the magic number... i would hate to get more for just one game.... ill just wait for a patch.. see if that fixes performance

right now i play UT2004 alot... and that game runs smooth... at 12x10 with most stuff high and some normal.. i just leave it set to what it wants... i rarely drop frames maybe when alot of flak is on the screen

will the 2gigs... have an effect on other games as well...

Far cry,doom 3,HL2,painkiller,BF2, and so on
 
Run PBWeb to manually update your PB files. Itll make a bigger difference than all the tweaking posted here, esp if youre behind a router.
 
mine stutters all the time with my 6800 GT 1 gig of ram and amd athlon 3500 Winchester

im not about to buy another gigabyte of ram for the stinking game
 
Dudeyourlame said:
mine stutters all the time with my 6800 GT 1 gig of ram and amd athlon 3500 Winchester

im not about to buy another gigabyte of ram for the stinking game
Click to expand...

i agree,i would like to play this with the other members in the UT2004 clan im in...and i would rather have it run smooth... then jittery and crappy
 
If you have an Hp printer go into task manager and shut down all hp services.Their code sucks and they are alway spying on you.It gets worse if you get a printer error and let it languish.

Just my 2 cents
 
xFuryofFivex said:
really...i also have one gig and i get stuttering.. i have a 6800 GT...i have it on medium settings and it makes is playable.... @ 10x7, i was under thee impression that 1gig was the ideal amount to have
Click to expand...
Yes it was back in the Battlefield 1942 days. Now Battlefield 2 has upped the bar again :p
 
Mr Mean said:
Yes it was back in the Battlefield 1942 days. Now Battlefield 2 has upped the bar again :p
Click to expand...

uhhh Battlefield 1942 just upped the bar on how crappily coded AAA games could be on release. Someone please remind me how many times BF1942 had to be patched before it became playable.

IMHO you can really see the difference between games that have been coded efficiently. I use farcry as a prime example. It has gorgeous graphics, runs smoothly on my current setup at 1600x1200 with max details and 4xAA/4xAF.

Yes....someone will surely pipe in to tell me that "BF2 maps are way larger with huge view distances". My response to that is that there are definately some areas in Farcry which are just as large as the Gulf of Oman map that shipped with the BF2 demo.

Not only that, but the view distances in farcry absolutely destroy the view distances in BF2. There are too many times to count where I was amazed at far I could see using my sniper rifle in Far Cry. And no, im not being nogalstic because I am actually playing through Far Cry at the moment, am currently up to the archives.
 
I didn't bother reading most of the thread, but an easy fix if you want to play with mostly high settings is just to turn Lighting and shadows down, those will cause the most stuttering.
 
xFuryofFivex said:
hey... like i said, i have everything on medium...

maybe u should read the entire thread
instead of posting something like that...
Click to expand...

Are you insane? I wasn't replying to you but the OP. I'm on a gig as well and Dillusion's advice is exactly what works for me. Some people are so self-centered these days :rolleyes: :p
 
BF1942 was not really a fun game to play until it got to about patch 1.3. Until then it was a buggy game that gave a lot of people hell becuase they had to go to to 1GB RAM to run it really right. Before BF1942 most people were running 512MB. Battlefield has been the only PC game I have played since retail BF1942 came out, and I played it since the 1.1 patch was out. I REMEMBER ALL THE GNASHING OF TEETH about the game very well. Same as whats going on now......and BF 2 is about the same way it was re the bugs as bf 1942 was when it arrived.

Now the same thing is happening agin and all the folks that put in the 2nd stick for BF 1942 have gotta stuff more sticks in. :rolleyes:

Minimum to play this game is 1.5GB with any reasonable belief in smooth gameplay with no trouble. The DEMO ate more than 840 MB of RAM on my former system, and that was with everything on MEDIUM.

RAM is STUPID CHEAP. GO buy some. :p
 
I've read these posts with interest, as I recently purchased the BFG 6800GT OC 256MB AGP in order to play my games with full settings. I've been frustrated at the stutter, although it seems to go away for the most part a few minutes after the map has loaded. I have twin sticks of Mushkin 512 with an AMD Athlon 3200+ and an Asus A7N8X Deluxe MB.

I play HL2 Multi at 1600x1200 fully maxed with no prob, as well as COD:UO and a few others, with no probs. I find it hard to believe I'd have to up to 2GB of Ram to get this game to behave.

I used the BF2 spalsh screen link for the driver, so I'll assume that's in order. If a patch doesn't do it then I might just splurge for the extra stick of RAM, it can't hurt, it just seems like overkill.

I also noticed that you have to adjust your BIOS settings for the AGP memory to match up the memory for your card, i.e. 256MB. Check your MB settings.
 
Let me just tell you why the RAM theory is valid.

I first played BF2 on my main machine:

A64 3500
1GIG Corsair PC3200LL
Dual 6800GT's SLI

I would get stuttering all the time...especially at the beginning of the level. Even if I dropped everything down from High to Medium and 1600x1200 to 1024x768. Since now..I don't have the above machine anymore..upgrading to a Dual-Core system w/7800GTX ATM..I set up BF2 on my server with these specs:

P4 3.2c
2GIG Samsung PC2700
Leadtek Geforce 5900 modded to 5950Ultra 128MBDDR

This system plays buttery smooth..granted it's only @ 1024x768 w/Medium Settings...it is extremely smooth.

My old A64 system eats the P4 system in everything else..especially gaming in every other game....just need more memory. So now, for my new system..i'm ordering another 1GIG of Cosair XMS.
 
Vader, with the extra gig of Ram how does it play at 1600x1200 on high settings? That is my goal with the hardware investments I've made, granted, BF2 being the only game that stubbornly has not fallen into line.
 
Ares...I really can't answer that as I don't have my Dual Core/7800GTX system up yet..and my current vidcard in my server is only a 5950Ultra 128MB..so I can't play above 1024x768 res...but I can tell you that it is like butter with the 2GB of memory in that server. I also notice that it's a different kind of stuttering..it's not a drop in FPS it's the harddrive thrashing for to access the Virtual Memory...

I'm ordering another 1GB for my new system that's how confindent I am.
 
Ares900 said:
I play HL2 Multi at 1600x1200 fully maxed with no prob, as well as COD:UO and a few others, with no probs. I find it hard to believe I'd have to up to 2GB of Ram to get this game to behave.
Click to expand...

Don't be "that guy" that compares this game to others like those. Battlefield could not both look and run like HL2. The worlds are orders of magnitude bigger in BF than in HL2, HL2: DM, or CS:S. Add to that we're not only talking about land area, the BF engine is keeping track of everything from 0 altitude to nose bleed altitude. COD:UO gets 7467fps on my machine because well obvious the engine is dated. Same area rules apply.

Are these games coded better? yes. Should it work better with a gig... yes!... but there is really NO reason to mention them in the same breath when talking of performance and actually think you'd be coming away with much of a point. These massive world games lay the smack down on your RAM. BF42 made people upgrade to a gig first, but despite awesome code UT2004 runs pretty shitty with less than a gig (in onslaught anyways, DM and the like no problem, getting it yet? :D ). As we know with comps and technology, history repeats itself, and we're back with the same old upgrade questions, sorry Bill 64k or what have you was not enough :p. Several games scale down or instead just run like crap when you make the jump from single to multi. Doom3 and Farcry bog down by not scaling down. Imagine D3 with 64 players! 2 gigs would probably help but no one gives enough of a crap to upgrade for those MP's. HL2's engine pulls it off quite well but it doesnt have half the reasons to bog either. Now here I am comparing the games at length, it's because these things should go without saying. You should just know these things as truths from here out and not compare CS:S to BF... ever more. I know you said HL2 but like I said comparing to SP would be 3x worse so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant CS:S. :D
 
Needing 2 gigs is bullshit, they just need to fix their broken engine. Though personally, I don't get stuttering.
 
Siciliano said:
Needing 2 gigs is bullshit, they just need to fix their broken engine. Though personally, I don't get stuttering.
Click to expand...
What's broken about it? It loads humumgous maps and doesn't crash or corrupt, but hits up virtual memory when physical memory becomes scarce (which causes stuttering). The more physical memory, the less dependance on virtual memory (which eliminates the stuttering). Seems like a well working, non-broken game engine to me. So, needing 2GB for this game is not BS.
 
Selecter said:
BF1942 was not really a fun game to play until it got to about patch 1.3. Until then it was a buggy game that gave a lot of people hell becuase they had to go to to 1GB RAM to run it really right. Before BF1942 most people were running 512MB. Battlefield has been the only PC game I have played since retail BF1942 came out, and I played it since the 1.1 patch was out. I REMEMBER ALL THE GNASHING OF TEETH about the game very well. Same as whats going on now......and BF 2 is about the same way it was re the bugs as bf 1942 was when it arrived.

Now the same thing is happening agin and all the folks that put in the 2nd stick for BF 1942 have gotta stuff more sticks in. :rolleyes:

Minimum to play this game is 1.5GB with any reasonable belief in smooth gameplay with no trouble. The DEMO ate more than 840 MB of RAM on my former system, and that was with everything on MEDIUM.

RAM is STUPID CHEAP. GO buy some. :p
Click to expand...
not true if you have a shuttle like myself.
 
Ok, so maybe it's unfair of me to compare the games I mentioned. It's just frustrating when your budget cannot keep up with the coders.
 
fallguy said:
From what I have read, it depends. 3% if the number I keep on hearing. More when the FSB is raised. Currently my 3700+ is at 11x250=2750Mhz. My ram is at Cas2 2-2-6-1T@1:1. Which gives me a LOT of bandwidth. I guess that helps too.



From a review of my ram. Currently one of the, if not the best DDR sticks out there.

At my res, I dont think it would matter much losing 1T. I just wish I could try the ram, before I bought it.. to see if it was worth it to me.Without having a restocking fee.
Click to expand...

Isn't that ram that has been rejected? Hence the need for higher voltages for it to run at advertised speeds? Not sure I read recently a few articles about mem companies selling rejected chips as high end chips at major profits, but they need to run at crazy voltages....

Edit: I'm spreading misinformation, they are Untested chips not rejected....carry on nothing to see here!
 
The easiest way I've found to check ram usage is to open up task manager -> view -> select colums -> select peak memory usage.

Then run your game and right before you're done alt+tab out of the game and look for the exe. It should show the largest amount of memory the game was using. Also don't forget to take into account all the other processes that are running as well. You probably want a good 256mb of ram for other usages outside of just the game as well as a little free space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top