PR not playing like i want it to.

[theiceman]

some of you may have seen my post asking questions about a new cpu. I just bought a dual core amd2 3.0 ghz cpu. I installed it, works fine. BUTT I was hoping that could play pr on high. It can for the most part, but on maps like muttrah n fallujah it laggs. I have upgradede my pc almost to the max:

4 gb ram
3.0 ghz cpu
geforce 9500 gt


I was wondering why i cannot play pr on high with no lagg??

p.s. i have vista 32 bit.

[Paladin Necroman]

I had kind of the same prob. I reduced some my video card software options and it runs fine. Though, when i play for like an hour and a half, it starts lagging. I think it's due to PR engine, or something, or even that the engine is kinda old for our pc's. I need help about that too.

Note: i play GTA IV on maximum settings and no lag at all.

[theiceman]

yea, but it might be my internet...

[AfterDune]

See if it's lag or your connection.

Open your console (~ key, topleft of your keyboard) and type: renderer.drawFps 1
(then press "enter" ofc )

The fps should be displayed in the topleft corner of your screen. When you experience this lag, what's your fps? Anything lower than 30 will feel laggy.

[Pill Monster]

Hi,

Firstly you need a better gfx card - sorry but there is no way you will max out PR with a 9500GT.

The 9500GT is basically a revamped 8600GT. It only has 128 bit memory, and either 256 or 512mb of vram. 512mb is a minimum for PR, but what's really holding you back is the 128bit bus.

On top of that you're running Vista32 which is possibly the worst OS to be using for gaming. I suggest either XP32, Vista 64 or Windows 7 64...

Hope this helps..


Btw - What resolution are you using?

[fuzzhead]

There is no possible way 9500 GT will run GTA4 maxed out.

I have the same specs but s 280GT, and I can barely handle GTA4 running at about 20% max settings

[Pill Monster]

You can't possibly believe that...

IIRC the 9500 GT was released in 2008. Now when was battlefield 2 released again?
The statement about 512mb being the minimum for pr, I'm sure you are getting confused with system ram not dedicated graphic card ram. His graphics card is fine, so appears to be the rest of his system. The real question is, is it actually lag in the sense of latency between the computer and the server, packet loss or as he believed low frame rate. Based on the fact that it only occurs on certain intensive maps it is most likely low frame rate. For now do as AfterDune said and post up your framerate from the map you lag on, if possible, post the lowest number you see, the highest and a rough average. It is much too late here to post up a process to help. However, I'll ask you now, are you sure that the processor speed has adjusted properly? What is the value it tells you during the POST (power on self test: the little screen that displays info on startup).

Exiled.

No I'm not not confused about anything, you should know that..... do you not recognize my username?

And I'm not sure why you asked what family his CPU is from, when he said in his post that it's an AM2..



The date his GFX card was released has little to do with how it will run the game.
That's the same as saying a 2006 1.5L Suzuki Swift is faster than a 1990 5L V8 Commodore simply because it's newer. It doesn't work that way. It's all about the specs.

And you can't compare BF2 Vanilla with Project Reality. Yo may as well be comparing the original Doom with Crysis.

Ever wondered why PR looks a lot better than BF2 Vanilla? Ask the Devs, PR uses a lot more Vram because of the extra texture rendering involved.

Sure, his card will run it - but not at high specs, which is what he wants. and when I say high specs I'm talking all optimizations off in NCP, 16xAF and 8-16xAA @ high res..



Furthermore, a 32bit OS can access around 3.5GB of system ram, less system reserved memory (unless the memory hole is enabled in the bios). Vista32 uses close to a gig just by itself.

So now we're down to around 2GB of available memory of which PR will use 1.5- 2GB when maxed out.

That doesn't leave much left over does it... ..

[crokojot]

Monster saying truth.

[theiceman]

Ok, so i did the renderer.drawFps 1 n i got 15 fps on fallujah with about 18 ppl in server. And i got 30 fps average on Qwai with 55 ppl, but it dropped to 25 sometimes. Also, my firend is going to give me windows 7(idk what version but i think a good 1, not the basic) so i will install that on the weekend... Hope you guys can help somemore

-Ice

p.s. running at 1400x 900 res

[Pill Monster]

Well he says he can play on all high with no problems with the exception of a couple of maps. I run vista, it is currently using 700MB of memory. However, vista is designed to load as much information into memory as possible. This means that not everything in the memory is important. When I open up the game if memory is getting low it will overwrite unimportant information. In fact, I don't see much point to you mentioning the ram, what are you trying to say?
And I don't see how the comparison between project reality and battlefield 2 is the same as comparing doom and crysis. Both project reality and battlefield 2 use the same engine, the only difference is the size of the maps, the amount of objects on the map, the amount of triangles on the weapons etc and the view distance. Sure it has to render more stuff, however, it would have a bigger impact on ram and the cpu than the graphics card.



This quote is taken from the poll on graphic settings. If you look at his profile hes using a 6800. Now is the 9500 GT worse than the 6800? Sure it has a 256 bit memory interface, but my card has only 128 bit and it runs fine. He said he wanted to run the settings on high, but it doesn't mean he wants/can run at a huge resolution. For all you know he might plan on running at 1440x900 or 1280x800. The card should be able to run on max detail though it would have problems at high resolution. I personally have a 8500 GT, I run quite a few details on high, shadows off and lighting settings at medium from memory. However, I can run full details, except for AA, @ 1440x900 on quite a few maps. However, since my computer only has a core 2 4300 (@1.8GHz) I'm sure this is holding my computer back. If I could get a better CPU it would run much better.

Exiled.

Mate I'm not going argue for the sake of arguing...

Why don't you read what it says in my profile under "occupation". And FWIW I have 7,000 posts on Guru3D.



Without trying to sound like a prick, there is no debate on this subject,... you simply lack an understanding of how computers and operating systems work.

Read up...

[theiceman]

^ok can u help me now....

[Pill Monster]

^ok can u help me now....

Sorry mate, didn't mean to hijack your thread...

Great start with installing Windows 7 (64 bit hopefully) .

.Is it the RC (beta) version or the released version? If it's the RC version it needs to be build 7127 or below in order to work with Pb - just to let you know...

[theiceman]

he says it is windows 7 ultimate 64 bit...

[Pill Monster]

he says it is windows 7 ultimate 64 bit...

What settings are you using in Nvidia control panel?

[theiceman]

the settings i use now? or what?

[richyrich55]

Lawl.

I have an Intel Core 2 Duo, Vista 32, 2gb RAM, HD 2600 Pro 256mb, 450 watt psu.

I play on all high settings except for lighting which is low, and the dynamic options are off and I have no in game AA.

Smooth as a baby's ***.

[theiceman]

Lawl.

I have an Intel Core 2 Duo, Vista 32, 2gb RAM, HD 2600 Pro 256mb, 450 watt psu.

I play on all high settings except for lighting which is low, and the dynamic options are off and I have no in game AA.

Smooth as a baby's ***.

Well thats GREAT for u!