TechSpot

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 GPU Performance In-depth

By Julio Franco
Mar 8, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. Well I have an Intel C2D 8400 @ 4GHz and a BFG Geforce 275 GTX OC and while my CPU usage is usually at 90% or so, my GPU usage is usually around 40-45%.

    How exactly is that "getting the most out of my graphics card"?

    I'm quite tempted to buy a q9550 CPU as that is basically the best I can get without upgrading motherboard/RAM as well. I would think that since my CPU is being used near 100% and my GPU isn't even used half way, that upgrading to a quad core would benefit me, however this review goes against that logic...

    I would like to see actual Dual Core processors tested with midrange cards to see how big of a difference it really makes. An i7 even running on 2 cores has benefits over a Core2Duo so I have a hard time going by those results.

    Basically, a followup review focusing on CPUs would be great for all of us with decent video cards wondering if we should grab a quad core.
     
  2. Sorry but you are totally misinformed/ignorant, not sure which.

    I'd invite you to play a game on my 120hz monitor, something like CounterStrike or something that I can run at a stable 120FPS, and then switch to Bad Company 2 @ 20FPS and you let me know if your eyes can tell the difference. Unless you are legally blind I am willing to bet you would notice a HUGE difference between 20 and 120fps.

    I don't know where you got your information from but generally it is said that human eye can detect at least 40FPS, I've never heard anybody say 20, however that doesn't mean that more FPS won't appear smoother and give you better gameplay.

    I can simply change the refresh rate on a monitor and tell by moving the mouse cursor around that higher refresh = smoother.
     
  3. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Staff Posts: 1,386   +480 Staff Member

    I agree with what you have said in regards to the difference in performance between 20 and say 120fps. However I would just like to add that often the biggest difference is not in what you see but how the game feels. Fast paced first person shooters feel much smoother and precise with over 80fps.
     
  4. sagejay

    sagejay TS Rookie Posts: 24

    I really really want to buy this game, but I'm not sure if my graphic card is going to be able to handle that game(I only have a 2600XT).
     
  5. excellent, practical reviews even without dual core. i ran 4870, win7, 6GRAM with E8600, and this is the game i can feel my hardwares are doing the job. Shooting experiences is the best ever since Rainbow6.
     
  6. I seriously doubt that crysis 2 will be as demanding a game hardware wise as its predecessor. The idea that it would, is a commonly held misconception. Crysis was a game which suffered from extremely bad coding. It would have played a lot better on inferior systems than enthusiast grade had these coding problems been worked out. I already read an interview with an employee of the developer who mentioned that there wouldnt be such huge system demands the second time around. Theres simply no point, and it also has a detrimental effect on sales.
     
  7. I play this game on my P4 3.0ghz 4gigRam and a radeon 4570 Graphics card. I mean it could be faster but it is what it is for now.
     
  8. I went from an Intel E8400 @ 4GHz to a Q9550 @ 3.8GHz and I'm getting about a 30fps increase all around. I used to get around 42-80FPS on low detail, now I rarely see anything below 75-150. Medium settings I can manage 60-125 or so.

    So to those who read this be advised this review is very flaky, there is no dual core CPU that will "get the most of your video card" as this review describes. This game IS in fact CPU intensive, it took 4 cores to stay above 60fps and my GTX 275 isn't being maxed out, it's being half used if that most of the time.
     
  9. isamuelson

    isamuelson TS Rookie Posts: 96

    On my rig (AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE with 4th core unlocked, overclocked to 3.3ghz, ATI 5750), I get an average of around 45 fps at 1280x1024 with max settings. At least, that's what FRAPS was giving me. It still dipped to around 32 fps at certain points. This was during single player mode as I've yet to brave getting online since I'm a noob at this game! ;)

    As for the guy saying 20 fps is fine. Try that online. I think you'll have a different perspective when you die way too often.
     
  10. Steve, I'm way into gaming but on a budget. I'm interested in playing the new battlefeild 2, every time i see benchmarks it with a $300 cpu, so I'm asking you please could you run some benchmarks for us poor folks with like a core 2 duo , a core 2 quad , a amd X3, and x4 cpus . and a veriety of vid cards, thanks.
     
  11. CMH

    CMH TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,573   +9

    Thanks, just saw the update on this.

    An update with all those processors as part of the CPU roundup would be nice :D
     
     
  12. also if possable mabee a older cpu with 2 cards in sli just to see what it would do . or you can send me all your outdated cpus and vid cards and i will do testing for you and do a review.
     
  13. Julio Franco

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Topic Starter Posts: 6,568   +333

    I'm afraid it's unlikely we will follow up with more testing since we must move on to test newer games and hardware and we have limited time on our hands... but... as we've indicated a number of times, while the CPU plays an important role on gaming performance, it's usually the GPU alone that can make or break your gaming experience.

    Check out these charts from our latest CPU round-up (processors between $100 and $200):
    http://www.techspot.com/review/266-value-cpu-roundup/page9.html

    Same high-end graphics card across the board, the performance impact between CPUs is usually marginal when you run at resolutions above 1280x1024 and diminishes the higher you go.
     
  14. thanks techspot. great review.
     
  15. Same as the guest who posted above. I haven't moved onto a q9550 yet. But I did upgrade my 4870 to a 5870 on my e8400@3.9ghz. There was no change really and I still get 45-70 fps regardless of settings.

    Don't bother upgrading your video card if you are lagging in game...unless you have a really bad video card.
     
  16. I have gtx 470 will it be able to play with high settings?
     
  17. Question 1 :

    How much fps I get in Call Of Duty: Modern Warcrafe 2 with:

    Ati Radeon HD5450
    AMD X3 2.1ghz Triple-Core
    4GB

    Question 2:

    How much fps with lowest settings?

    Question 3:

    How much fps I get in Battlefield Bad company 2 with same?
     
  18. I'm running a fairly dated computer:

    6000+ dual core (2 x 3.0ghz)
    Asus Matrix 4850 512MB @ 725/2000 core/mem
    2gb ddr2 667
    Forget my motherboard model as I'm at work but it's an am2/am3 board.

    Just wondering what I should upgrade first to get the biggest bang/buck performance increase for BC2? I play on my 1920x1080 22" BenQ monitor and would like to play on at least medium settings. I have the game on order.

    Cheers.
     
  19. mailpup

    mailpup TS Special Forces Posts: 8,454   +227

    Hello, Guest in post #118. Because this is a thread for comments about the article, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 GPU Performance In-depth, I recommend going to TechSpot's regular forums for advice on upgrading your system. Click here : http://www.techspot.com/vb/ I recommend posting your question in General Hardware.

    You will have to register but it's free and you will likely get a better response.
     
  20. I have NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 (Directx 10 version) and it ran the battlefield bad company an average of 30-70 FPS on Ultra high setting.

    PC:
    CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1055T
    Mobo: Asus AT4875-M
    Ram: 5 GB Kingston DDR2 Ram
    PSU: 750W Corsair Ultra

    It still can run on NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 before, but otherwise, buy something that is roughly in the range of Mid- to - high end solution graphic card.
     
  21. Old article but I wanted to comment -

    I have a C2D - E8400. I'm running dual Radeon HD4850's in crossfire. I have 8GB of RAM.

    I didn't get a big performance increase in this game specifically after crossfiring two 4850's (I used to only run one). I'm still in the 30s during most action.

    I asked over at Hardforum and the consensus there is "Your CPU is limiting you." Some people there even specifically said that they went from a dual-core to a quad-core processor and it made a huge difference.

    So, I can't tell for sure until I upgrade myself, but I'm looking for a Q6600 to replace my CPU. It appears that despite the benchmarks, quad core DOES make a difference for this game.
     
  22. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,904   +715

    BFBC2 is multi-threaded. You would likely see an increase in performance even if the quad was at stock ( dropping from 3G to 2.4GHz). Add an overclock to the Q6600 and you will see a definite improvement in framerate.
    Unless the Q6600 is at giveaway prices, I'd be more inclined to look for a Q9450/9550/9650 quad ( basically two E8xxx CPU's in the same package)- they'll provide a more useful performance boost across most applications, run cooler, and overclock better. Just make sure your board is capable of running the CPU.
     
  23. Current system:

    Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16Mhz)
    ATi HD 5830
    4GB RAM

    I currently play BFBC2 pretty ok most of the time, with some slowdown now and again. I looking to upgrade EITHER my cpu to i5 2500k (OC 4Ghz) OR graphics card (GTX 570).

    Does anyone know which would give me the most benefit?
     
  24. To answer the question above:

    I'd upgrade to a Core i5 2500k with a good board for overclocking and the ability to Crossfire, and 8+ GB of RAM. You can upgrade the video card, but Battlefield is extremely CPU limited, and I think the money spent on an i5 will help you with everything (including things outside of games), and then you can buy another 5830 when they get cheap and crossfire them together, netting you nearly double the video performance on the cheap.


    -------------------


    I am the Guest who was considering a Q6600 3 posts up.

    First off: this game is DEFINITELY more CPU (both cycle and thread) limited than this article lets on. I was given a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, and put it where my E8400 used to be.

    Just at stock speeds, I had a performance increase. But what was really telling is that I removed one of my video cards (was X-firing two HD 4850s), overclocked the Q6600 to 3.3GHz, and performance was BETTER with 1 card + 3.3GHz versus 2 cards + 2.4GHz.

    With 2 cards and the Q6600 @ 3.3GHz, I'm now running 1680x1050 with high quality settings around 50FPS. Because adding the second card only gave me a 10FPS boost, I'm guessing that I'm STILL CPU limited.

    What this tells me is that having a fast CPU may be even more important than a fast video card in this game. An E8400 is NOT enough to get past the point of diminishing returns, despite what the article says.
     
  25. Hi, thanks for the response (above).

    I kinda came to the same conclusion. On my current rig, I get the same performance on BFBC2 no matter what gfx setting or resolution I'm running. I can even run it on 3 monitors with only a slight reduction in fps. This led me to believe that I'm CPU limited.

    Luckily my birthday is just 2 weeks before BF3 comes out.. This makes it way easier to justify spending money on my PC to my girlfriend!

    ;o)
     


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.