Battlefield: Bad Company 2 GPU Performance In-depth

By Julio Franco
Mar 8, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. Kovach

    Kovach Newcomer, in training Posts: 44

    I was thinking that new Crysis 2 will set new parameters in benchmarking tools and testing, but this is going to "hurt" our GPU performance. It's a good game and I think this part will not dissapoint us. Thanks for the review.
  2. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    Those CPU scaling results make for some interesting reading - at 1920x1200 you pretty much get a 30% boost in performance for a 30% overclock on the default frequency. But mind you it is using 2x 5870's which most of us can only dream about...
  3. rpsgc

    rpsgc TechSpot Member

    "Like many first person shooters the CPU doesn't play a huge role in this game's performance, therefore a decent dual-core processor should be enough to power even the latest graphics cards at full speed."

    I disagree. Countless tests and benchmarks have been made by users comparing dual-cores to quad-cores and it's pretty obvious. Dual-cores suffer in this game.

    They don't recommend a quad-core for nothing.
  4. JMMD

    JMMD TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,177

    Interesting article. The CPU scaling was definitely nice to see for those who OC their CPU's and although I don't play this game yet, know how the different GPU's perform is very helpful when it comes time to upgrade.
  5. How can you conclude that a dual core CPU should be fine without even having tested with one?

    It would have been very interesting to perform a shoot-out between a dual-core and quad-core CPU with a high end graphics card, there is much debate around this on forums be no reliable answers.
  6. Serag

    Serag TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 179

    I agree with previous comments and I expected to see dual-core / quad-core benchmarking included in this article to settle it,
  7. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,137   +281 Staff Member

    Okay guys I will add dual-core vs. quad-core asap. However just so we are clear I said that you would be fine with a decent dual-core and you will be, I have disabled all but 2 cores on the Core i7 and the game runs much the same but I will get some performance numbers.

    wow aren't you guys easily pleased.
  8. Captain828

    Captain828 TechSpot Guru Posts: 277

    Good to finally see a performance review on something that actually taxes out a modern GPU.
  9. Geek4life

    Geek4life Newcomer, in training Posts: 31

    I have a 8800 Ultra with a Q9550 4GB~1066ram and gaming on a 24". Will I be able to run on high settings? I think my 8800Ultra is on par with GTX 260.
  10. natefalk

    natefalk Newcomer, in training Posts: 78

    I agree, I just got a 5870 and haven't had any graphic intensive games that used the full potential of the card. The bad thing is that there are a bunch of awesome games coming out this month (FFXIII tomorrow). And I am still trying to finish Dawn of War 2 before the expansion comes out on Thursday.
  11. Why no 295 tested surely better to see the speed than a 285?

    Ian
  12. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,137   +281 Staff Member

    Okay for those that were concerned about the dual vs. quad battle here is a little more info before I get some sleep.

    The game does appear to use all four cores when available. Here we used a standard Core i7 920 processor at 2.66GHz for this test, please note HyperThreading has been disabled and a single Radeon HD 5850 graphics card was used. As you can see none of the cores are working very hard.

    http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/images/quad.png

    Here is the same Core i7 920 processor with two cores disabled as well as HyperThreading. As you can see neither core is maxed out but the CPU utilization is much higher.

    http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/images/dual.png

    So again in conclusion a decent dual core processor such as a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or Phenom II X2 should be enough to get the most out of your graphics card in this game. While it is quad-core optimized the game is not demanding enough on the CPU to warrant it based on what I have seen so far. Still quad-core processors are ideal but not entirely necessary.

    Finally the Radeon HD 5850 produced the same average frame rate with 2 cores enabled as it did with all 4. I admit more testing needs to be done with real actual dual-core processors and I promise I will do my best to collect more data for you guys. Also thanks for all the feedback so far its great!
     
  13. JMMD

    JMMD TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,177

    Thanks for the added information Steve. That was really nice of you to go back and check on this on the request of the site users.
  14. bludfist

    bludfist Newcomer, in training Posts: 25

    This games looks very promising. I'm considering buying it. I am not sure whether or not I would buy it for my PC though. I'm afraid it would be to demanding.
  15. megrawab

    megrawab Newcomer, in training Posts: 93

    Bad Company 2's GPU performance looks really promising to its users. The graphics are very clear essential for an enjoyable gaming experience. The visuals presented here proves it. This article is written in in-depth approach yet it is easier to understand since words are not very technical and the images almost presents everything.
  16. tim074

    tim074 Newcomer, in training

    The game looks good and promising. Graphics looks good and can't wait to get my hands on that game. I'm looking forward to buying it along with upgrading my PC.
  17. z0phi3l

    z0phi3l Newcomer, in training Posts: 16

    Been playing it on Medium settings so far on my PC
    Running a GTX260 and it looks really good, going to try a higher setting and see if my System can handle it fine
  18. Su47GoldenEagle

    Su47GoldenEagle Newcomer, in training

    i played the Beta of the game it was awesome .
    i bought the game for my PC .... i have to be fair the Campaign sucks ! .... cause the AI is too stupid and the story is not good ... normal ..... and there is too many mistakes in it ..... the MW2 is way better campaign .... in the story and in the AI ......
    In the Multiplayers side the BadCompany2 ROCKS !!!! it's just awesome and so much fun ..... unlike the MW2 multiplayers ... cause it's sucks in the servers problems ... full of cheaters .......
    and the graphics is not that much great :S not as just i expected ..... i mean how the weapons looks is not cool .... the BattleField 2 was better ....
    but the gameplay is so much realistic .... u really feel that u r in a war zone ... u need to stick with ur squad mates .. u can't hide in a building ... cause they will make it collapse on ur head .... ur not Rambo like in MW2 and u can have a sniper and an assault rifle !! every kit has a purpose and u should know how to use it ...
    i say what i have
    i am waiting for the BattleField3
  19. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,121   +51

    I see, this is good for gaming, has been a while since something pushed our hardware. Have an ATI Radeon HD2600XT with 256 DDR3 and it has worked with every game I've had.
  20. yorro

    yorro TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 242

    This is probably the first time in three years a game made a high-end system fall it its knees, last time was Crysis. But Bad Company is probably excellently optimized, so consistent frame rate all over is expected.

    Bad Company 2 is way better than Modern Warfare 2 on so many levels. I am not saying Modern Warfare 2 was bad, if fact it is awesome which makes Bad Company 2 even more awesome.

    All I am saying is: This is the year PC gamers will never forget.
  21. PvillePiper

    PvillePiper Newcomer, in training

    I am running an E6300 Pentium Dual-Core running at 3.4 ghz in a Gigabyte GA-EP45-UDR3 motherboard, 4 gigs of DDR2 1100 ram and an MSI Twin Frozer GTX-260 OC and at medium settings playing online I average upper 30's on most maps. I see very little lagging at these settings. I am using the Afterburner software program to get the framerates. I am thinking of getting a Q9550, do you think I will see much of a boost in frame rates?
  22. Orionlocke

    Orionlocke Newcomer, in training Posts: 35

    I had no idea the graphics on this game were so good. I've been wanting to pick it up but I think I'll definitely have to get it now! I'm running a GTX 285 so hopefully I'll be able to run at hight settings without problems. My brother has been playing this game and said it's definitely a blast to play!
  23. skitzo_zac

    skitzo_zac TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 459

    Good to see such an article for a a high profile game so soon after launch, good work TechSpot.

    Good to see the commitment of Steve regarding the dual vs quadcore CPUs.

    Now can anyone please hurry up the delivery of my copy so I can jump into a multiplayer server?

    1943 hasn't actully been released for the PC yet has it? According to EA, Wikipedia, Gamespot it hasn't. Seems to be implied you are talking about the PC version, can this be clarified please?
  24. Puiu

    Puiu TechSpot Booster Posts: 991   +82

    The computer i want to buy has a core i5 750 and a 5830 with a 23" monitor. it should be more than enough to play at high.
    BTW how does it scale from using 2GB of RAM to 8GB? I believe 4GB should be more than enough, but will i see some kind of gains when using 8GB (2-4 fps)?


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.