Project Reality Forums

This is my old rig:
Pentium E5200 Dual Core Process OCed @ 2.75ghz
DDR2 4GB 800mhz G.Skill ram
ATI HD4770 512MB Ram 800mhz memory
1280x1024

BF2 my avg fps ingame was 90-100, maxed settings 8xAA
BF2 R my average fps ingame was around 40-50 fps maxed settings 8xAA, medium texture
BFBC2: my average fps ingames was around 30-40 fps on lowest settings

This is my new rig: (I knew a new gpu would not help much at the moment, heres why)
AMD Phenom II 965 x4 @ 3.4Ghz
DDR3 8GB 1600mhz G.Skill ram
ATI HD4770 512MB Ram 800mhz memory
1280x1024

BF2 R on some maps 95+ fps entire round (asad khal , iron eagle, optimized maps etc..), other maps 50+ fps entire round
BFBC2: my average fps ingame was 75+ fps on maxed settings
BFBC2: Vietnam: average fps ingame was 80+ fps

The goal of this thread was to inform you that my HD4770 is an outdated graphics card (which is around $30-40), but performing beautifully with my Phenom II on the latest games on the market. (I will post crysis benchmarks soon)

So before you spend $300 dollars on a new GPU, please make sure you have a updated CPU, Anything between Phenom II 955 X4 to i5 2500k is more than sufficient for your gaming needs.

With my HD4770, I can confirm that I will be able to run BF3 on maxed with no problem, based on the recommended specs and what I have assumed, (developed for the PC which leads to more optimization than BC2)

you did how ever move from a dual core to a quad core, huge boost in performance, and moved from DDR2 to DDR3 again, quite the performance boost, i have to simmilar PCs with the same amount of ram one being DDR2 other being DDR3, the one with DDR3 would blow the other one out of the water if it had the same GPU.
anyway the rumored BF3 requirements

Minimum

Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
Operating System: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
RAM: 2GB
Video Card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card

Recommended

Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
Operating System: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
RAM: 4GB
Video Card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850

So i guess recommended is running it on medium settings?

also your not maxing out BC2 since that card doesnt support DX11 if im not mistaken.

Its true that todays games are more CPU intensive probably something to do with consoles being stronger on their CPU side than their GPUs

So before you spend $300 dollars on a new GPU, please make sure you have a updated CPU,

ill just stick this 6990 on this 2.0 dual core, no problem what so ever

karambaitos wrote:you did how ever move from a dual core to a quad core, huge boost in performance, and moved from DDR2 to DDR3 again, quite the performance boost, i have to simmilar PCs with the same amount of ram one being DDR2 other being DDR3, the one with DDR3 would blow the other one out of the water if it had the same GPU.
anyway the rumored BF3 requirements

So i guess recommended is running it on medium settings?

also your not maxing out BC2 since that card doesnt support DX11 if im not mistaken.

Its true that todays games are more CPU intensive probably something to do with consoles being stronger on their CPU side than their GPUs


ill just stick this 6990 on this 2.0 dual core, no problem what so ever

Dude are you just repeating what I said? Maybe there is a reason why I put my specs in???

Really? You are gonna rely 100% on the release requirements?
I have not had one experience where those helped me decide my rig......

karambaitos wrote:ill just stick this 6990 on this 2.0 dual core, no problem what so ever

Yeah, but your dual core will bottleneck your HD 6990 so hard that you wont be able to push all from it.

Cossack112 wrote:Yeah, but your dual core will bottleneck your HD 6990 so hard that you wont be able to push all from it.

*facepalm* he was trying to be witty/sarcastic

Trust me - there is such people which do like that.

Cossack112 wrote:Trust me - there is such people which do like that.

Which is the purpose of this thread, and why I beg god for mercy.

yujie900 wrote:Which is the purpose of this thread, and why I beg god for mercy.

Considering the relative ignorance that the thread title and premise displays, I would reign in the hate and discontent - specifically your response to karambaitos...

He brings up several points that you clearly were not aware of/or failed to mention as a caveat to your (very valid) statement that GPU is not the end all be all of performance - specifically that you doubled RAM speed, as well as overall MB BUS speed, a modern MB is going to have completely different BIOS enhancements and an entirely different chipset, you did not include your hard disk speed (even if it is the same disk, good information to have for a valid comparison - loading textures, etc, from disk, and background disk I/O can have serious impact on any program), you went from Intel to AMD on the CPU, and the absence of motherboard specs is a huge void in making any kind of scientific conclusion as to system performance gains. (i.e., it's not ALL in the CPU)

Again, your assertion is quite valid in that many people do overlook the most important component of the machine since CPUs don't come with flames and racing stripes with Duke Nukem jumping out of the box cover to come pwn your face. But, someone who is likely to make the mistake of upgrading their GPU and neglecting to also upgrade an old processor is by definition too ignorant to read "It's all in the CPU" and automatically understand that they also need to purchase a new MB, as well as double their RAM speed and capacity. If someone simply purchases a higher class CPU that is compatible with the rest of their system as-is, they should not expect the same results that you experienced by replacing your entire system save for the GPU.

karambaitos was simply being helpful in pointing these things out, and for some bizarre reason your ego was apparently bruised in the process. While his comment on you moving from dual-core to quad-core was implied by your own post, He does point out the importance of higher speed RAM, and his thoughts on modern games possibly being more CPU dependent due to console development trends is pretty interesting.

Lastly, and most significantly, you did not mention operating system changes. One would assume at the very least you did a fresh install of the same OS as the previous computer (and subsequently re-installed BF2, PR, PB, etc). Is that the case? Are you/were you running 32 or 64 bit? I assume that you are at the very least running x64 on the new rig, as you have north of 3GB of RAM on the new board.

Simply reinstalling BF2/PR/PB from scratch on the exact same rig can turn the game from a slideshow into more than playable (Just ran through this with a clan mate last night, and he's night and day on improvement in game). A fresh OS install, on an average home machine (i.e., tons of games, apps, hidden spyware, etc), nets a performance improvement on a curve that scales with time. The longer someone has spent slapping fixes, patches, reghacks, installing and uninstalling today's ever bloating games, the greater the performance increase they can expect to see with a full wipe. It also usually means they end up upgrading tons of drivers, install previously missed system updates, etc.

All in all, a good post, and a very thoughtful and valuable piece of information that can certainly help someone from making a tragic mistake... as no one wants to get home with their new UberXYX9000.01GTXPROFOXFIRESLY FTW Edition $300 GPU and get marginal (or even worse) performance. There are just some other very high impact components you've added that should be highlighted with the same importance as the CPU to give the reader the full story, which I am sure is your intention as you've gone out of your way to help fellow gamers get the most bang for their buck.

Nice rig, btw... congrats

80HD wrote:Considering the relative ignorance that the thread title and premise displays, I would reign in the hate and discontent - specifically your response to karambaitos...

He brings up several points that you clearly were not aware of/or failed to mention as a caveat to your (very valid) statement that GPU is not the end all be all of performance - specifically that you doubled RAM speed, as well as overall MB BUS speed, a modern MB is going to have completely different BIOS enhancements and an entirely different chipset, you did not include your hard disk speed (even if it is the same disk, good information to have for a valid comparison - loading textures, etc, from disk, and background disk I/O can have serious impact on any program), you went from Intel to AMD on the CPU, and the absence of motherboard specs is a huge void in making any kind of scientific conclusion as to system performance gains. (i.e., it's not ALL in the CPU)

Again, your assertion is quite valid in that many people do overlook the most important component of the machine since CPUs don't come with flames and racing stripes with Duke Nukem jumping out of the box cover to come pwn your face. But, someone who is likely to make the mistake of upgrading their GPU and neglecting to also upgrade an old processor is by definition too ignorant to read "It's all in the CPU" and automatically understand that they also need to purchase a new MB, as well as double their RAM speed and capacity. If someone simply purchases a higher class CPU that is compatible with the rest of their system as-is, they should not expect the same results that you experienced by replacing your entire system save for the GPU.

karambaitos was simply being helpful in pointing these things out, and for some bizarre reason your ego was apparently bruised in the process. While his comment on you moving from dual-core to quad-core was implied by your own post, He does point out the importance of higher speed RAM, and his thoughts on modern games possibly being more CPU dependent due to console development trends is pretty interesting.

Lastly, and most significantly, you did not mention operating system changes. One would assume at the very least you did a fresh install of the same OS as the previous computer (and subsequently re-installed BF2, PR, PB, etc). Is that the case? Are you/were you running 32 or 64 bit? I assume that you are at the very least running x64 on the new rig, as you have north of 3GB of RAM on the new board.

Simply reinstalling BF2/PR/PB from scratch on the exact same rig can turn the game from a slideshow into more than playable (Just ran through this with a clan mate last night, and he's night and day on improvement in game). A fresh OS install, on an average home machine (i.e., tons of games, apps, hidden spyware, etc), nets a performance improvement on a curve that scales with time. The longer someone has spent slapping fixes, patches, reghacks, installing and uninstalling today's ever bloating games, the greater the performance increase they can expect to see with a full wipe. It also usually means they end up upgrading tons of drivers, install previously missed system updates, etc.

All in all, a good post, and a very thoughtful and valuable piece of information that can certainly help someone from making a tragic mistake... as no one wants to get home with their new UberXYX9000.01GTXPROFOXFIRESLY FTW Edition $300 GPU and get marginal (or even worse) performance. There are just some other very high impact components you've added that should be highlighted with the same importance as the CPU to give the reader the full story, which I am sure is your intention as you've gone out of your way to help fellow gamers get the most bang for their buck.

Nice rig, btw... congrats

cool story bro.

Next time before you get really excited, try and actually read everything first before you correct someone.

So basically you talked about me correcting someone who tried to correct me, and repeated what I said in a block of text, stating the obvious without getting straight to the point.

the OS displayed are the minimum system requirements and recommended system requirements for the upcoming BF3, not my system specs.

Please do contribute something new to the thread next time.

Crysis is as old a game as your hardware, please if you want to see how this card will perform against the latest titles and titles due to come out this year, try Metro 2033.

Also your card runs DX10.1. BF3 will run on that, but with other extra features your card will not be able to unlock (Tellestation etc.. all the DX11 effects). I highly doubt it will run 30FPS on all highest settings with your card + AA. As good a card it is, it is at least 1/2 as powerful as the 460GTX.

However, I do agree there is no point in going for an amazing GPU if your CPU isn't good enough, as with any system, there'll be bottlenecks at some point, and its now getting to the point where the next set of bottlenecks will come from the HDD's.

Also I would love to see your Crysis benchmarks, as from what I've seen your card could manage 25FPS average when it was on a system the same age, so this would then show us the advantages of upgrading the rest of the system, for a game like crysis.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha ... ew-10.html

yujie900 wrote:cool story bro.

Next time before you get really excited, try and actually read everything first before you correct someone.

Absolutely baffling.