PDA

View Full Version : 7800gtx performance in battlefield 2


Pages : [1] 2

chief barker
08-02-05, 02:49 PM
I have been running my new 7800 gtx in my pc for a few weeks now (previously had an X800 XT).

Although the card is running great, I am a little concerned about the framerates i am getting in battlefield 2.

Sometimes when the heat of battle gets very hot I only get about 30 fps. I have all the settings in game set to high, with 4x aa. And AA and AF in the driver control panel set to app pref. Also Transparency antialiasing set to multisample.

Is this normal? or am i expecting too much from my rig?

Before i installed the 7800 i used drivercleaner pro to wipe any remnants of the ATI related stuff. And also un-installed all my games.

Sorry If I sound like a complete idiot but i am new to NVIDIA.

Any other help would be greatly appreciated.

P4 3.6 Prescott
7800gtx
ASUS P5GDC DELUXE MOBO (915 CHIPSET)
160GB HDD
460W PSU
2GB PC3200 DDR400 RAM (4 sticks of 512mb)

jAkUp
08-02-05, 02:55 PM
What resolution are you running it at?

I can pretty much guarantee you that it's your CPU, the game is extremely CPU bound. I would recommend OC'ing your CPU, you should see your performance increase by a good margin.

anzak
08-02-05, 02:56 PM
Sounds like your cpu limited. I was getting dips into the low 20s before overclocking my processor from 1.8Ghz to 2.2Ghz.

EDIT: Meh jAkUp beat me to it. :P

SH64
08-02-05, 02:58 PM
What res you play at ? .. that sounds normal to me however.
besides your CPU can have a role in this as well.

my only notice with BF2 & nvidia cards is the low framerate during shell shock (motion blur effect) & smoke. otherwise its smooth.

chief barker
08-02-05, 02:59 PM
I am running the game at 1280x1024. Through the command line.

Strange thing is, the in-game video options show the highest resolution as 1152x940 or something.

Any ideas?

Zurble
08-02-05, 03:01 PM
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_7800_gtx_overclocked/page15.asp

in 1280 a single card is not even at full potential...
might indeed be CPU.
what kindof battle? 64 maps with 64 players?

anzak
08-02-05, 03:05 PM
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_7800_gtx_overclocked/page15.asp

in 1280 a single card is not even at full potential...
might indeed be CPU.
what kindof battle? 64 maps with 64 players?

I'm guessing he is using an LCD with a native res of 1280x1024.

avirox
08-02-05, 03:07 PM
with a 3.6ghz cpu I wouldnt worry much. Sounds normal to me tbh - no game will run perfectly above 60fps all the time when maxed, even the mighty 7800GTX. I would use fraps to do some benchmarks if I were you, and compare them to others. Another test would be to put on 16xaf and perhaps 8xAA and see if there's a significant performance difference - if not, it *could* be the cpu. Peace,

chief barker
08-02-05, 03:08 PM
Thanks to all of you for your swift replies, It happens in most maps 32 and above players.

However i have tried overclocking the card to 480core and 1.3 memory to no avail. (it does'nt seem to make a difference with framerates) Which probably shows that this is due to my cpu).


Edit.

I am using an lcd panel with a rez of 1280x 1024 8ms response.

SH64
08-02-05, 03:13 PM
FYI CPU limitation can get pretty obvious if you run a SP game with 64 players ;)

Zurble
08-02-05, 03:15 PM
at that res, you won't find games that will be limited by your 7800 for now (and for long i think)
your old X800 XT is probably performing very well too at that res, you won't notice much difference in performance unless you go higher (i know, it's hard with an LCD)

chief barker
08-02-05, 03:20 PM
I am getting excellent framerates in single player so maybe it's not my cpu?

I have a 2mb connection.

With my X800xt i was unable to run the game with the shadows set to high and the textures as well.

Rayman1968
08-02-05, 03:24 PM
I run BF2 at 1280 x 960 (CRT) with vsync off. All settings on high, 2xAA. Frames rarely drop below 70, usually around 80-90.

This is with an FX-53, 7800GTX and 1 gig of Corsair XMS LL PC3200.

If I raise the res to 1600 x 1200 with the same settings the game will dip into the 40's with lots of action on the screen (a little too low for my taste, that's why I play at 1280 x 960, and only 1 gig of RAM doesn't help either).

Oh, and the BF2 account serves are DOWN AGAIN!! :mad:

kwynjunk
08-02-05, 03:32 PM
I have been running my new 7800 gtx in my pc for a few weeks now (previously had an X800 XT).

Although the card is running great, I am a little concerned about the framerates i am getting in battlefield 2.

Sometimes when the heat of battle gets very hot I only get about 30 fps. I have all the settings in game set to high, with 4x aa. And AA and AF in the driver control panel set to app pref. Also Transparency antialiasing set to multisample.

Is this normal? or am i expecting too much from my rig?

Before i installed the 7800 i used drivercleaner pro to wipe any remnants of the ATI related stuff. And also un-installed all my games.

Sorry If I sound like a complete idiot but i am new to NVIDIA.

Any other help would be greatly appreciated.

P4 3.6 Prescott
7800gtx
ASUS P5GDC DELUXE MOBO (915 CHIPSET)
160GB HDD
460W PSU
2GB PC3200 DDR400 RAM (4 sticks of 512mb)

OMG, I have almost the same setup!

p4 3.4 (O'cd to 4.0)
ASUS P5GDC
2 Gigs Ram(PC3200)
BFG 7800GTX
My power supply is 520W.

Anyway, I get similar results as you. I was concerned too. Maybe this is normal for our rig. From what I'm hearing, you and I should have gone the AMD route . I will for my next rig

Zurble
08-02-05, 03:35 PM
I am getting excellent framerates in single player so maybe it's not my cpu?

nope, multiplayer is more complex to manage for the CPU but certainly not for your GPU.

Zurble
08-02-05, 03:54 PM
I wonder what is the limiting factor in BF2

if you look at this (ex: 1024)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_geforce_7800_gtx_scaling/page14.asp
you can conclude the game is not CPU limited
and at that res u can imagine it is not GPU lim either

if you look at this (ex:1024) on the FX-55
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_7800_gtx_overclocked/page15.asp
you can conclude the game is not GPU limited
until 1600 res

Both on the same system (1GB ram <- week point?)

WTF...

Buenamos
08-02-05, 03:55 PM
Truthfully, my setup dips into 30s all the time.

Clay
08-02-05, 04:10 PM
I wonder what is the limiting factor in BF2

if you look at this (ex: 1024)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_geforce_7800_gtx_scaling/page14.asp
you can conclude the game is not CPU limited
and at that res u can imagine it is not GPU lim either
Based on those results the game is not CPU limited until you pair the CPU(s) with a 7800GTX (instead of a 6800GT)...at which point it does become CPU limited.

if you look at this (ex:1024) on the FX-55
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_7800_gtx_overclocked/page15.asp
you can conclude the game is not GPU limited
until 1600 resRight, that makes sense doesn't it?

Both on the same system (1GB ram <- week point?)

WTF...Maybe I'm not understanding where you're coming from. I do think that 1GB is a definite issue with BF2, seems like 2GB is what it really likes especially regarding disk access reduction.

Zurble
08-02-05, 04:16 PM
Based on those results the game is not CPU limited until you pair the CPU(s) with a 7800GTX (instead of a 6800GT)...at which point it does become CPU limited.
"at which point it become CPU limited...."
but look at results: a 3000+ give same results as an FX57
if it was really CPU limited you would see a benefit in upgrading CPU

subbo
08-02-05, 04:17 PM
The key thing here is "client-side prediction". Only rough coordinates for the motion of players and vehicles are sent between the server and the clients a few times a second, and all the thousands of minor adjustments and predictions for the smooth motion of said actors are calculated by your CPU locally. The more happening near you the more calculations needed. The firingsquad numbers mean nothing for online play if your CPU cant handle the predictions.

Traditionally with the BF series the client-side predictions (calculated by the CPU) bring down the frame rate in the heat of battle.

So simply put, with a 64p server you can get very CPU bound when there is lots of stuff happening around you, and if you just fire up your own server to test the game alone, or play on a server with 32 or less and use a high resolution+settings its mostly GPU.

Clay
08-02-05, 04:19 PM
"at which point it become CPU limited...."
but look at results: a 3000+ give same results as an FX57
if it was really CPU limited you would see a benefit in upgrading CPUAh, good point. That graph doesn't make much sense now that I look at it more closely.

Zurble
08-02-05, 04:29 PM
i know that the RAM is a limiting factor but ingame Hard drive access would have given much more disparate results wouldn't it?
and in 1024, less ram is used....

i really wonder what is the limiting factor in BF2

chief barker
08-02-05, 04:36 PM
I have been experimenting with driver settings and i have adjusted the transparency antialiasing...now i have set this to off, instead of multisampling.

I am getting at the lowest:60fps and the highest :100fps (with no discernable difference in overall quality of the game) I see no jaggies whatsoever.

Thanks to all of you that have helped me with this little concern of mine. :D

SH64
08-03-05, 09:23 PM
nope, multiplayer is more complex to manage for the CPU
care to explain why?
I thought managing the SP is harder for the CPU than the MP in BF2 because the CPU have to predict the movments & actions for each bot while that is not the case for MP .. or am i missing something here ? :confused:

subbo
08-04-05, 11:59 PM
care to explain why?
I thought managing the SP is harder for the CPU than the MP in BF2 because the CPU have to predict the movments & actions for each bot while that is not the case for MP .. or am i missing something here ? :confused:

Like I explained above, its pretty much the exact opposite. With the bots, the CPU controls the location and movement of each bot to the t (so no predictions needed) and the only thing to caclulate is the AI and the simple physics. The AI used to be pretty unoptimized in BF42, and caused a far greater slowdown than an equal amount of mp players would. You also need to predict (and calculate) the physics to a small degree in SP as you are the trigger for the events, not the cpu.

With MP you also need to predict the physics objects like vehicles and wrecks (and in BF2 the ragdolls eat a little too) to a great degree as the triggers for each physics event are inaccurate and produce chaos, since the timing and position of each trigger is out of sync due to network lag for each client and the fact that the client-side events are chaotic due to the player causing them.

When you think about a physics engine on a computer, you think its very accurate and if you drop a box from up high it should always end up the same way. This is not the case when YOU are the trigger for the event, you can never hit the same exact millisecond of any given second (polling interval), and as the impacts are polled only a few times a second, one time a corner of the box penetrates the ground deep before the impact is detected, and other times it impacts without even touching and so always ends a different way.

So the coordinates (this includes velocity, direction etc) for every physically moving object on the server has to be recorded several times a second by the server, and then sent to each client whom they may concern (meaning a high priority within view distance - less so in the distance), and the physics engine only governs a general idea of how things move, but the server decides where they ultimately end up and updates each client accordingly in due time. Meanwhile every client has to predict the motion of the objects based on the general idea governed by the physics engine (ie "the server said it was moving this way and spinning like so, so that object should only be able to move like so and so next") so that we actually see smooth motion between the coordinates provided by the server and not just "freeze frames" of the objects in various poses two times a second.

When the server is bogged down (bandwidth or cpu, or both) the coordinates are too scarse to predict properly (cause a client can press keys 50 times a second and nobody can predict that, and cause the predictions are honed only to a certain extent/quality) causing the wonderful warp lag we all so love.

Long story short, its not Quake any more and the BF2 network code is not bad at all to be honest, its just very demanding on the server side.

Man thats alot of text, feel free to correct me or add more info. :angel: