PDA

View Full Version : BF2, CPU/GPU/RAM or ??? limited


Zurble
08-02-05, 05:17 PM
It already came in another discussion, but it deserve a thread on its own.
I wonder what is the limiting factor in BF2

if you look at this (ex: 1024x768, 7800)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_geforce_7800_gtx_scaling/page14.asp
you can conclude the game is not CPU limited (same results at 3000+ or at FX-57)
and at that res u can imagine it is not GPU limited either

if you look at this (ex:1024x768, 7800) 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)

If a game is not CPU limited and is not GPU limited either, what is it limited by then?

Both on the same system: 1GB ram
i know BF2 needs a lot of RAM, but even with HD access within the benchmark, you would still see the benefit of higher CPU/GPU, and in 1024x768, RAM is less needed

firingsquad results might be flawed, but with so many testing it seems an improbable answer.

any thought?

CaptNKILL
08-02-05, 07:08 PM
Your links are broken...

And the common answer is: get the best of everything that you can afford. Especially RAM id say... I have a pretty powerful system but the hitches from hard disk swapping really irritate the crap out of me, much more so than lower frame rates ever would. Im going to get another gig shortly.

Zurble
08-02-05, 07:14 PM
oups....corrected

Edge
08-02-05, 07:49 PM
I think that for those benchmarks the game is engine limited, since the framerate is capped at 100 FPS. So even if the CPU and GPU were the fastest in the world, you would never see over 100 FPS on that graph. The 90 FPS result is probably because some area in the benchmark are too complex either for the engine, or because of virtual memory being used in parts which caused the framerate to dip a bit in sections. But in general, the game will be almost entirely GPU limited. Even the slowest CPUs seem fast enough to reach 90FPS, and since the game is framerate capped at 100FPS, there isn't much room for the faster CPUs to pick up the slack.

Also, RAM usage is always the same regardless of the resolution. A game will have just as much stuttering and pausing at 640x480 as it would at 1600x1200 if you don't have enough RAM. In fact, at lower resolutions having less RAM than the game uses will be even more noticable since your average framerate will be extremely high but pausing will still occur. At a gig, there will be noticable skipping in the game, at least 1.5 gigs are really required to keep the game from pausing from virtual memory usage.

Zurble
08-03-05, 04:53 AM
caped in tiemedemos too?
i saw more the 100 at anand
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2466&p=3

for the RAM, i know it can cause HD accesses, but you would still see improvement with higher CPU or GPU:
ex: u also have 1 GB RAM for the 6800 testing, you have the same HD access then withh the 7800, but 7800 give better results.
so i would say both benchmarks are slowed down by the same HD accesses, but it is not a real bottleneck (not the amount of RAM at least)

Edge
08-03-05, 09:15 AM
The FPS cap is limited to 100 by default, but it can be raised through a console command. Since Anandtech's shows framerates higher than 100, while Firingsquad's only shows it getting up to 90 FPS, I'm guessing that Anandtech removed the FPS cap while Firingsquad left it on.

Zurble
08-03-05, 09:50 AM
might be an explanation...
sounds strange that
1) timedemos doesn't disable that cap by default
2) firingsquad didn't disabled where he is so close to the limit

BigWilly
08-03-05, 10:31 AM
Edge hit the nail on the head. Get a decent video card and CPU and load up on the RAM. RAM makes all the difference in terms of smoothness of gameplay in BF2 and almost every other game for that matter.

$n][pErMan
08-03-05, 06:02 PM
im going to go with programming limited....