Improve performace?

TheFairy

LOL @ YOU! Missed the did you?

cherryghost

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

In that review, an Athlon x2 265 up to an i7 2600k display almost identical performance.

Yeah, really CPU heavy....

You're missing 2 points though. Firstly architecture on the CPUs wield different results, and secondly... that X2 is running at 3.3ghz, almost 1ghz per core faster than OPs. It most definitely makes a difference.

Genghiz Cohen

Ok, last time.

Dual core running at 2.4GHz (e6600). 100% usage.
4870 1GB, running from 50% - 80%
4GB DDR2 RAM running about 75%.

Before Gaembooster, around 20FPS.
Enable Gamebooster, it claims and extra 40% processor time is freed up.
Get 30FPS.
CPU and GPU usages are the same as before.

Genghiz Cohen

the_syco wrote: »

Gonna hijack this thread :P


Loading times can be fairly long, and I'm looking to improve it.

See if your install is fragmented.

the_syco

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

the_syco - a number of things will help speed up loading times, form a faster CPU, faster HDD, ATI's stupid map loading bug, and yes, an SSD would help immensely.

Saying that, I wouldn't go shelling out on an SSD without upgrading your vid card. Much better to have faster in game performance than 'suffer' an extra few seconds loading.

The game takes minutes to load. At least 3 minutes sometimes, I'd say. The game runs smoothly enough as it is, with medium/low settings. I'll be spending about €300 on a card after xmas, but looking for a cheap speed boost in the meantime.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

See if your install is fragmented.

I just found out that my system runs a scheduled defrag every Wednesday, so all disks are at 0% fragmentation...

Shy_Dave!

Eh, don't know if it's been mentioned, but the game seems to become a different animal usage wise when going from single to multiplayer.
Hoping some multiplayer benchmarks (I know that they won't gave the same consistant situations) will come soon.

uberpixie

the_syco wrote: »

Have a Q9550 @ stock 2.63GHz, with a TRUE120 cooler on it. Never overclocked, but wondering would it improve loading times? Have 4GB of DDR2 RAM, and a 1GB "factory overclocked" () 4870.

Loading times can be fairly long, and I'm looking to improve it. Early new year I'll be getting new mobo that will take my Q9550 and allow me to put DDR3 RAM into it, and will put 8GB

extra ram won't do much: game won't use up much more than 2.5 gig when I checked last.

Clock your quad up to 3 ghz and buy a new gfx card tbh. Save up for the new intel stuff that will be released in March/April.

Wouldn't get less than radeon 6950/5850/5870 or nvidia 470/560/570 to make a worth while jump over your current card.

the_syco

uberpixie wrote: »

extra ram won't do much: game won't use up much more than 2.5 gig when I checked last.

Need more ram anyhoos, for non-gaming purposes.

uberpixie wrote: »

Clock your quad up to 3 ghz and buy a new gfx card tbh. Save up for the new intel stuff that will be released in March/April.

Will do. Hope it doesn't go badly :pac:

Wouldn't get less than radeon 6950/5850/5870 or nvidia 470/560/570 to make a worth while jump over your current card.[/QUOTE]
Probably the 2GB 6970 or 570. Usually get a good card that will last me. Think I got the 4870 and the rest of the rig December 2008, so it has lasted me 3 years :eek: Have a car service/timing belt change also coming up in January, so may do with what I have now, and do a an upgrade of the entire rig (mobo/RAM/CPU) in March/April of next year.

Marcin B

This game is definitely CPU heavy. I'm running:

E6600 Dual Core @ stock 2.4 GHz
6 GB RAM @800 MHz (dual)
GTX 560

When playing at medium settings on large conquest maps I'm getting 25-30 fps. Even though the graphic card has plenty of stuff to calculate the average GPU load is less than 60%. There's also plenty of RAM free both on graphic cards and motherboard. The CPU is a different story, it's a constant 100% load on both cores.

By the way. The game used to crash after around 15-20 minutes. It took me a while but I found a solution. I downclocked my GPU by about 5% and now the game runs stable for hours. It's very wierd. I was monitoring my GPU's temperature and it never reached 40 degrees so there was no way it was overheating.

Jonny7

Marcin B wrote: »

This game is definitely CPU heavy. I'm running:

E6600 Dual Core @ stock 2.4 GHz
6 GB RAM @800 MHz (dual)
GTX 560

When playing at medium settings on large conquest maps I'm getting 25-30 fps. Even though the graphic card has plenty of stuff to calculate the average GPU load is less than 60%. There's also plenty of RAM free both on graphic cards and motherboard. The CPU is a different story, it's a constant 100% load on both cores.

By the way. The game used to crash after around 15-20 minutes. It took me a while but I found a solution. I downclocked my GPU by about 5% and now the game runs stable for hours. It's very wierd. I was monitoring my GPU's temperature and it never reached 40 degrees so there was no way it was overheating.

The game is CPU limited up to a point.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

However, whilst desirable, a quad core is not absolutely essential for this game. Fast dual cores (3+ ghz) in conjunction with decent graphics cards are giving decent framerates.

Dublin_Gunner

Marcin B wrote: »

This game is definitely CPU heavy. I'm running:

E6600 Dual Core @ stock 2.4 GHz
6 GB RAM @800 MHz (dual)
GTX 560

When playing at medium settings on large conquest maps I'm getting 25-30 fps. Even though the graphic card has plenty of stuff to calculate the average GPU load is less than 60%. There's also plenty of RAM free both on graphic cards and motherboard. The CPU is a different story, it's a constant 100% load on both cores.

By the way. The game used to crash after around 15-20 minutes. It took me a while but I found a solution. I downclocked my GPU by about 5% and now the game runs stable for hours. It's very wierd. I was monitoring my GPU's temperature and it never reached 40 degrees so there was no way it was overheating.

Its not CPU heavy, your CPU is just very slow (its just hitting the game minimum requirements) - it is a 5 year old dual core after all. Your GPU was obviously just unstable at the speeds you had it. BF2 used to be the very same, made your whole system very sensitive to slightly unstable overclocks. Even in other games it would be fine, but BF2 would make the PC have a crap haemorrhage.

Marcin B

I am well aware that my CPU is old but it served me well so far and I never had to overclock it. Actually, in all games (with advanced graphics) that I played in recent times the graphic card was running at 100% capacity while the CPU was rarely used at more than 80%. So I was very surprised when I noticed that Battlefield tries to squeeze as much as possible from my CPU while my graphic card was basically on holidays.

Well I guess it's time to overclock.