Full graphics settings

Raniak · Post by **Raniak** » 2007-11-04 02:08

RHYS4190 wrote:I find PR really laggy I care for perform more over graphics.
If you don’t get lag can you tell me witch driver you use and other things.
It strange I find 2142 looks better and is way smoother then BF2.

Well, I can play both 2142 and 2 with full settings... but in PR I can't get over Medium...

SethLive! · Post by **SethLive!** » 2007-11-04 02:48

i get really good fps in all games cause i partitioned my hd into two sections...one only for games. i defrag the games section all the time and that really boosts your fps.

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-11-04 03:15

SethLive! wrote:i get really good fps in all games cause i partitioned my hd into two sections...one only for games. i defrag the games section all the time and that really boosts your fps.

Wouldn't that just speed up your loading times and only make a difference to your fps if you don't have enough RAM?

Nicolo_Tracchia · Post by **Nicolo_Tracchia** » 2007-11-05 09:53

8800GTS 640, 2.5 GB RAM (DDR 400 CL 3). All on High, AAx8. Usually 80+ fps, however it slows down on 50+ people servers... I guess the CPU is choking (X2 4600+, 2.4 GHz). Waiting eagerly for cheap Penryns.

Going from 512 MB to 1 GB RAM helps a lot, adding another gig - not that much.

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-11-05 15:45

GI went from 1 to 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM and it helped ALOT. Now i dont have any startup lagg whatsoever

SethLive! · Post by **SethLive!** » 2007-11-05 17:14

solodude23 wrote:How do you do this? I might give it a try.

you have to repartition your hard drive and when it asks how you want the hard drive set up, divide it into two partitions so you can install windows and all you random **** on the first partition (the C drive) and then all your games on the second (the D drive) its really fast to defrag whenever you install something new (takes me about five to ten minutes to defrag every time i intstall something)

it boosted my crysis fps by about 5 to 10 and i can play it on mediums and a few lows (shadows, effects) and get 28-38 fps at 1280x1024

my system is pentium4 3Ghz, 2 gigs ram, nvidia 8600

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » 2007-11-05 17:59

I run all high, with 16x SLi AA, 16x AF, 1280 x 1024.
(P4 650 running at 4.2 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 800 Cas 4, 7800GTX [x2])

RAM plays a huge part with the BF2 engine, as said numerous times. If you want to get more out of the system you've already got, look into tightening your RAM timings if you can get into the BIOS. PM me or ask anywhere and people will come out of the woodwork with advice and guidance on how to do so safely. For example, running 1GB of DDR2 533 at Cas 3 instead of Cas 4 can improve loading lag quite a bit at 1280 x 1024.
If you're looking to get all new components, I'd recommend £60s worth of Asus P5k if you're running an intel on a socket 775, £40s worth of DDR2 in the form of some OCZ Platinum [rev. 2] DDR2 800, and £170s worth of 8800GT, it's the best bang for buck since the GeForce 4 days. Make sure you've got the wattage of a decent brand PSU [Say, a 500W Silverstone for £60] and you'll be good to go. All in all that's about £330.
Happy trails

Indecisi0n · Post by **Indecisi0n** » 2007-11-08 03:04

Tell me these aren't baddd @$$$

Some screenies

RHYS4190 · Post by **RHYS4190** » 2007-11-08 10:23

SethLive! wrote:you have to repartition your hard drive and when it asks how you want the hard drive set up, divide it into two partitions so you can install windows and all you random **** on the first partition (the C drive) and then all your games on the second (the D drive) its really fast to defrag whenever you install something new (takes me about five to ten minutes to defrag every time i intstall something)

it boosted my crysis fps by about 5 to 10 and i can play it on mediums and a few lows (shadows, effects) and get 28-38 fps at 1280x1024

my system is pentium4 3Ghz, 2 gigs ram, nvidia 8600

How do you do this repartition thing?.

Dam indesition making me jelous LOL and yes that does look good.

M4nicMin3r · Post by **M4nicMin3r** » 2007-11-08 11:35

Indecisi0n wrote:Tell me these aren't baddd @$$$
Some screenies
...

They are some pretty nice quality gfx..., excuse my ignorance but what game is it from?

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-11-08 11:38

CoD4?

Jedimushroom · Post by **Jedimushroom** » 2007-11-08 17:01

When I get my new mobo and my AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ (and 2 gigs Crucial ballistix tracer DDR2 RAM) I should just about blow this game away.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-11-08 18:37

Jedimushroom wrote:When I get my new mobo and my AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ (and 2 gigs Crucial ballistix tracer DDR2 RAM) I should just about blow this game away.

With respect, why are you buying AMD? I'm not an Intel fanboy - for years I used and loved Athlons - but seriously, anyone looking for serious performance for good money thesedays is mad to get an Athlon. (If you're buying a new Mobo, that is. If you're just upgrading your CPU, then yeah I'd go with one.)

Unless you do masses of video compression/rendering etc, then the chances are you won't even max out something like an Intel E6750 in day to day use, let alone need to overclock it. I run mine with a serious underclock, and still pull 100FPS in Project Reality, with every setting on max.

On a side note - I'd put 3 Gigs of RAM in. Next set of games (well, current if you include things like CoD4 that're only just here n' now) will be far more memory intensive than even PR is, and for future-proofing that extra gig will be helpful.

Indecisi0n · Post by **Indecisi0n** » 2007-11-09 00:33

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:With respect, why are you buying AMD? I'm not an Intel fanboy - for years I used and loved Athlons - but seriously, anyone looking for serious performance for good money thesedays is mad to get an Athlon. (If you're buying a new Mobo, that is. If you're just upgrading your CPU, then yeah I'd go with one.)

Unless you do masses of video compression/rendering etc, then the chances are you won't even max out something like an Intel E6750 in day to day use, let alone need to overclock it. I run mine with a serious underclock, and still pull 100FPS in Project Reality, with every setting on max.

On a side note - I'd put 3 Gigs of RAM in. Next set of games (well, current if you include things like CoD4 that're only just here n' now) will be far more memory intensive than even PR is, and for future-proofing that extra gig will be helpful.

I agree. I use to only buy AMD because not only were they cheaper but they also had better overcloking performace. Sorry to say but the tables are turning and this is my first intel build. I am very happy with the intel setup and will be keeping it for some time now.

[R-MOD]Masaq;526040

If i am correct, if you were to go with 3GB memory (3x 1GB sticks) you will lose your dual channel. I would stick with either 2GB (2x1 sticks) or 4GB (4x1 sticks).

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-11-09 16:08

Indecisi0n wrote:I agree. I use to only buy AMD because not only were they cheaper but they also had better overcloking performace. Sorry to say but the tables are turning and this is my first intel build. I am very happy with the intel setup and will be keeping it for some time now.

If i am correct, if you were to go with 3GB memory (3x 1GB sticks) you will lose your dual channel. I would stick with either 2GB (2x1 sticks) or 4GB (4x1 sticks).

Yeah, Intel have dropped prices massively whilst simultaniously having AMD licked for performance almost by a development generation now. AMD are dropping down onto the 65nm process now, and their new top-range chips now (such as the X2 5000+ Black Edition) are still being matched by Intel's current breeds- with Intel's 45nm process Penryns due out shortly.

You could go with 2x1Gb and 2x512Mb sticks to gain 3Gb and retain dual channel (which is what I had for a while; mostly due to money shortages- I have to buy my upgrades piecemeal). But yeah I agree- 4Gb in four 1Gb sticks, or 2Gb in 1Gb sticks makes most sense from an economy-for-efficiency point of view. If you're strapped for cash though, that extra Gig from 3 to 4 (for smallish performance gain, at present) is a hard one to argue for, even on the grounds of loosing two upgrade slots.

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2007-11-09 16:22

ive drawn up a PC that is pretty dam good for under 1k (tho it needs some parts from my old PC, CD drive, HD Drive etc)

unfortunatley i havent got enough money to get it for crimbo

M-Board: ASUS P5N32-E 680i

CPU: Intel Core 2 Q6600 2.4Ghz (a nice CPU for overclocking, can get it to 3.0Ghz)

RAM: 2Gb Corsair DDR2

GFX: ASUS EN8800GTX 768mb

PSU: Coolmaster 850W

H-Drive: 160Gb Western Digital (slave added to my current drive)

+ new case

= £951.15

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-11-09 21:13

So don't get the quad chip? I've no idea how much of an overclocker you are, but seriously- the fact that that CPU is good for overclocking is completely moot- you don't NEED to overclock anything in the Intel C2D/C2Q lineup that costs anything above about £80 because frankly, unless you do video editing or rendering on a regular basis, you'll very very very rarely touch 100% usage even if you underclock by 10%.

I'm running an E6750 and frankly unless you're a complete processor nut (as I was a few years ago - had a P4 3.7Ghz Extreme Edition for a long time, overclocked to 4.1 - until I realised a £100 chip would get me performance about 50 times higher for 1/5 the price, new (I got my P4EE second hand from someone who didn't know its worth)) - then there's absolutely no need to buy a Quad core yet.