Upgrading for M2TW [Archive]

fatsheep

06-01-2006, 01:36

Here's my specs:

AMD 64 3000+ Venice @2.7 GHz
XFX 6600 GT (PCI-E)
DFI Motherboard
1 GB (2x512) Patriot XLBK Memory
Zalman 7700 CU CPU HS/F (installed with AS5)
550W Antec Truepower

Anyhow, I want to upgrade for M2TW so I can play on highest settings. What I am considering is a simple video card and memory upgrade. I know this is a little while off but I wanted to get some ideas. For the video card I was thinking something like a 7900 GT:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150144

For the memory I am going to get a 2GB set (1GB x 2). Something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231047

I think that should have me set to play on highest settings? Any suggestions from my Org friends? :2thumbsup:

John86

06-01-2006, 01:37

I dont think youll have a problem with memory, imo no need to upgrade.

LeftEyeNine

06-01-2006, 10:14

Well if you have money, get the RAMs, IMHO. And that upper-bound 7-series Nvidia will let you play the game in highest settings assuming that the system requirements of the game will be as told.

CBR

06-01-2006, 12:40

I see you have overclocked your cpu. You should get some ram that can overclock as much as possible too, as it increases memory bandwidth. And I'm pretty sure memory bandwidth is the real limit of how many men you can have in a battlefield without the pc choking.

But your 1 GB right now should be fine so I dont think you really need to upgrade it. If you feel RTW is running fine but just want to be able to have the best graphics for M2TW then video card should be your primary concern.

In any case I would say you might as well wait and see how much is really needed for M2TW. We still cant be sure how good a video card is needed at max settings.

CBR

Beirut

06-01-2006, 13:08

I think that should have me set to play on highest settings? Any suggestions from my Org friends? :2thumbsup:

Wait. :yes:

When the game is released there will be a flurry of reviews, both of the gameplay and the tech requirements. I'd wait for those reviews. You'll be better informed, and the price of whatever you buy will be lower.

orangat

06-01-2006, 16:02

Here's my specs:
AMD 64 3000+ Venice @2.7 GHz
XFX 6600 GT (PCI-E)
DFI Motherboard
1 GB (2x512) Patriot XLBK Memory
Zalman 7700 CU CPU HS/F (installed with AS5)
550W Antec Truepower

Your weak link is definitely the video card.
Upgrading memory and the cpu can wait till the game arrives.

I see you have overclocked your cpu. You should get some ram that can overclock as much as possible too, as it increases memory bandwidth. And I'm pretty sure memory bandwidth is the real limit of how many men you can have in a battlefield without the pc choking.
.......

What makes you say the main memory bandwidth is the limiting factor?

CBR

06-01-2006, 16:52

What makes you say the main memory bandwidth is the limiting factor?

Well that goes back to the early days of RTW where several of us with 2400+ CPU's had horrible lag in battles but other people with a newer generation of AMD cpu's of just 2500+ had no problems at all. Other people over at TWC did tests with high end CPU's that showed only a minimal increase of max amount of men before it turned into a slide show too.

Earlier this year I was reading up on hardware as I was planning on getting a new pc and also decided to do some overclocking with those wonderful Opterons. That was when I first noticed the huge increase in memory bandwidth from using dual channel ram(something my old pc didnt have) and ofc the increased bandwidth from overclocking ram too.

Now im no tech geek but I thought that if super CPU/GPU didnt do much, then what other type of hardware limit would there be? A high end CPU doesnt mean much for memory bandwidth so maybe thats why they didnt see any real difference.

My new PC has overclocked ram too and I can run at 12k men without any noticeble lag, which appeared to be higher than what people just using a good cpu and standard ram could do. Of course not very scientific, as I dont have precise tests done on other systems but it seemed to work the way I thought. But I could be wrong of course.

CBR

Boohugh

06-01-2006, 17:40

There will almost certainly be newer graphics cards around when M2:TW arrives meaning you'll be able to get the current ones for less, or just splash out on a new one, so waiting is definitely the best course of action imo :2thumbsup: .

fatsheep

06-01-2006, 18:02

First off, thanks for all the suggestions guys! :2thumbsup:

Second off, I do intend to wait. Once they put a playable demo out to test my system on I can be more sure what I need to upgrade. Also, it would be silly to upgrade now since prices will have gone down quite a bit by september.

Oh btw, about the memory. I have it on a divider so the memory is actually running at only a tad below 240 mhz (200 mhz is default for PC3200 RAM) while the CPU is going at 290 mhz HTT. I also have the memory on somewhat loose timings (3-3-3-8) so I would like to get some memory that will either allow a 1:1 divider and tighten up timings (although I doubt I'll be able to do both, I'd much rather have the 1:1 divider then the slightly tighter timings).

Again thanks for the advice. :2thumbsup:

CBR

06-01-2006, 19:08

Well 1:1 divider is pretty tough at nearly 290 Mhz but this test did have a couple that could do it: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2676&p=16

But your current 1 GB is very good so its not that important to upgrade, at least its not your first priority if money is the issue.

CBR

fatsheep

06-01-2006, 21:53

Ouch, those RAM setups are out of my price range (<$200). I guess I'll just hope a high OCer falls down below $200 by november. ~:pimp:

orangat

06-02-2006, 02:03

Well that goes back to the early days of RTW where several of us with 2400+ CPU's had horrible lag in battles but other people with a newer generation of AMD cpu's of just 2500+ had no problems at all. Other people over at TWC did tests with high end CPU's that showed only a minimal increase of max amount of men before it turned into a slide show too.

Earlier this year I was reading up on hardware as I was planning on getting a new pc and also decided to do some overclocking with those wonderful Opterons. That was when I first noticed the huge increase in memory bandwidth from using dual channel ram(something my old pc didnt have) and ofc the increased bandwidth from overclocking ram too.
........

I assume you are talking about the Barton cores which started at 2500+. The big improvement from 2400-2500+ is probably mostly due to the increase of the fsb from 133->166 and bigger l2 cache _not_ due to faster memory speeds. The older pre-Athlonxp behaved in exactly the same way also.

The A64 is not memory bandwidth starved and buying faster memory over the standard is pc3200 is generally pointless. Simply compare 754 vs 939 benches for proof.

With A64 systems, faster memory modules will give big huge improvements in synthetic benchmarks like Sisoft but do ziltch in real world benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2676&p=5
The Ballistix only gives ~3% improvement going from 200->300(pc4800) which is pathetic. Other modules in the roundup have bigger 'improvements' but that is due to their terrible pc3200 performance (since fast memory modules are bad when configured to run at pc3200).

orangat

06-02-2006, 02:11

CBR

06-02-2006, 13:18

I assume you are talking about the Barton cores which started at 2500+. The big improvement from 2400-2500+ is probably mostly due to the increase of the fsb from 133->166 and bigger l2 cache _not_ due to faster memory speeds. The older pre-Athlonxp behaved in exactly the same way also.

The A64 is not memory bandwidth starved and buying faster memory over the standard is pc3200 is generally pointless. Simply compare 754 vs 939 benches for proof.

With A64 systems, faster memory modules will give big huge improvements in synthetic benchmarks like Sisoft but do ziltch in real world benchmarks.

Oh yeah the Barton core and it was 2600+ actually. What I couldnt understand back then and now was the apparent huge difference in framerate between our older 2400+ and their newer 2600+ cores. Whereas we had horrible input lag, that made MP games at 8k men near impossible to play, they reported no problems at all.

But nonetheless the tests I have done on my pc shows an increase in fps when overclocking ram. Overall my overclocking means I can play with about 2-2.5k more men before the fps is low enough to make it unplayable. Around 30-40% of the boost comes from just the ram.

Now whether its because of memory bandwidth or the lower latency, or whatever I can test in various benchmarks, I dont know, but what I do know is that there is a clear advantage from overclocking ram in a game like RTW. If you never go anyway near that max number of men (before the game turns into a slideshow) then a couple of fps extra wont do much, but that depends on what unit size you play on of course. You are more likely to run into that barrier when playing with huge unit setting.

CBR

orangat

06-02-2006, 14:34

Oh yeah the Barton core and it was 2600+ actually. What I couldnt understand back then and now was the apparent huge difference in framerate between our older 2400+ and their newer 2600+ cores. Whereas we had horrible input lag, that made MP games at 8k men near impossible to play, they reported no problems at all.

But nonetheless the tests I have done on my pc shows an increase in fps when overclocking ram. Overall my overclocking means I can play with about 2-2.5k more men before the fps is low enough to make it unplayable. Around 30-40% of the boost comes from just the ram.
.......

Can you link TWC thread on the tests?
What is your specs and what did you do to overclock? ram speed/divider etc.

CBR

06-02-2006, 16:48

Took a while to find them but here they are http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11052 and http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12200

From cpu-z:
CPU Clock Speed 2506.6 MHz
Clock multiplier x 9.0
HTT Bus Frequency 278.5 MHz
5/6 divider so ram is at 228 MHz

Is that enough info?

CBR

orangat

06-02-2006, 19:50

Thanks for the links.

BHCWarman88

06-04-2006, 04:29

2.8 Ghz
512 Ram
80GB Hard Drive
64MB Card ( I think, BF2 needs 128 and I can't run it :-( :-( )

lars573

06-04-2006, 06:24

fatsheep

06-05-2006, 21:12

My personal plan is to get an X1900 XT and bring my ram total up to 3 gigs from 1 (2x512). Course the X1900 means I need to get a beefier powersupply. I'm running with a 350W now. I'll probably get a 500W enermax liberty.

My current rig is
Athlon 64 3200+
Asus A8V-E SE mobo
2x 512MB kingston DDR400 ram
WD 1600 160 gig HDD
X1300

100% agree about the power supply but in my opinion 3 gigs of RAM is overkill for games. There are statistical applications and such that could use that much but not any of the current games or ones coming out in the near future... I don't have any tests to back this up but that's my opinion as 1 GB or ram seems to be enough for just about anything at the moment.

orangat

06-05-2006, 22:57

......I don't have any tests to back this up but that's my opinion as 1 GB or ram seems to be enough for just about anything at the moment.

1Gb is insufficient for Battlefield2 or Oblivion.
BF2 will start trashing and become unplayable if textures are set higher than medium on 1Gb. The constant map loading on Oblivion is a real pain with only 1Gb. Getting 2Gb now is not too much of an overkill.

lars573

06-06-2006, 16:01

^1GB is just sufficient for BF2. It ;ags during loading but that's it. Not having a net connection of my gamming PC means I've never goten to play in a populated server. And I have the 360 version of Oblivion.

100% agree about the power supply but in my opinion 3 gigs of RAM is overkill for games. There are statistical applications and such that could use that much but not any of the current games or ones coming out in the near future... I don't have any tests to back this up but that's my opinion as 1 GB or ram seems to be enough for just about anything at the moment.
I operate under a simple rule for RAM. More is better, no matter what bench marks say. But I also know that for WinXP 4 gigs of ram is out of the question. It just does not like it.

orangat

06-06-2006, 21:40

^1GB is just sufficient for BF2. It ;ags during loading but that's it. Not having a net connection of my gamming PC means I've never goten to play in a populated server. And I have the 360 version of Oblivion.
..........

No. If textures are set higher than medium, it doesn't just lag during loading. It lags constantly throughout the level for harddisk accesses.
Its just a fact. I've seen many posts about it and THG did a study on it which showed 2Gb giving a huge boost.

lars573

06-06-2006, 23:59

Not on my machine. Not constantly anyway. But that could be cause of no net connection.

Geezer57

06-07-2006, 13:00

Lagging in BF2 seems to be dependent on not just RAM, but also CPU and video card. I've one friend who lagged badly with 1 gig, using an Athlon XP 3200+ & GeForce 6800 GT. When he switched to 2 gigs, the problem went away. His nephew, running 1 gig with an Athlon 64 4800 and GeForce 7800 GTX, had no lag.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 17:41

got a 64MB Card, should I upgrade to a 128MB Card??

fatsheep

06-07-2006, 20:22

got a 64MB Card, should I upgrade to a 128MB Card??Well it depends on what those cards are. The size of a graphic card's memory is not a very good measure of its performance....

orangat

06-07-2006, 22:38

Not on my machine. Not constantly anyway. But that could be cause of no net connection.

Well what are your settings for textures and lighting?
If textures are set to high, bf2 will start hitching quite often with only 1Gb of memory.

No net connection means you probably don't have an antivirus/firewall/chat but bf2 takes up around 1.3+Gb on a clean tweaked system with nothing extra running.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 23:31

Well it depends on what those cards are. The size of a graphic card's memory is not a very good measure of its performance....

ok because I seen nice 256MB ones
for only $99.97......

orangat

06-08-2006, 00:43

ok because I seen nice 256MB ones
for only $99.97......

The amount of memory is largely unimportant because newer cards typically don't have a bottleneck with the amount of memory. Extra large memory configurations are usually gimmicks to make older cards more enticing. Its like having a speedometer that goes all the way to 250mph with a 4 banger.

Beirut

06-08-2006, 01:06

Extra large memory configurations are usually gimmicks to make older cards more enticing. Its like having a speedometer that goes all the way to 250mph with a 4 banger.

What he said.

The ATI 9250 is such a card. I've seen them with 256 megs but they don't tell you they run at only 64-bit instead of 128. Bad deal.

lars573

06-08-2006, 03:50

Well what are your settings for textures and lighting?
If textures are set to high, bf2 will start hitching quite often with only 1Gb of memory.

No net connection means you probably don't have an antivirus/firewall/chat but bf2 takes up around 1.3+Gb on a clean tweaked system with nothing extra running.
I'd have to check to make sure but IIRC I pushed everything as high as it would go. Except resolution. i never take that above 1024x768. And with the exception of longish load times there was very little lagging (and that was usually after nadding or other explsions on me) during bot play.