BF2S Forums Settings trouble.

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Smithereener wrote:

Yeah, from what I've heard, the switch from 1G to 2G is astounding.

Not with his video card.

His video card is fine. I have a rig running a 7600GT@600MHz (with a 3700+@2.6GHz, 2GB RAM). On that I run on some high, some medium in 1600x1200 2xAA, 8xAF.

Switching to 2GB of RAM would be a much bigger increase. Then you can fit all the level data into memory at once. Makes a huge difference.

Thanks, I'll up my RAM. But I I have a GS, not a GT, which by what everyone is telling me is a gimped version of the GT.

Last edited by .Genera|-Idea. (2007-07-04 09:50:24)

Pretty much yeah. I'll invest in RAM first.

Bertster7 wrote:

.Genera|-Idea. wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

His video card is fine. I have a rig running a 7600GT@600MHz (with a 3700+@2.6GHz, 2GB RAM). On that I run on some high, some medium in 1600x1200 2xAA, 8xAF.

Switching to 2GB of RAM would be a much bigger increase. Then you can fit all the level data into memory at once. Makes a huge difference.

Thanks, I'll up my RAM. But I I have a GS, not a GT, which by what everyone is telling me is a gimped version of the GT.

It's not that much worse.

So Toms Hardware is wrong when his benchmarks show the GS to have about 60% the performance of the GT is it?

I think not.

Also you're running your card overclocked. Therefore there is no comparison to be made - you may as well be comparing it to a lump of camembert.

Bertster7 wrote:

What are the speeds you run at like? Does it run ok for a bit then jolt, then run ok for a bit, then another big jolt - if so, that's definitely RAM.

Not necessarily.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-07-04 22:38:07)

?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

.Genera|-Idea. wrote:

Thanks, I'll up my RAM. But I I have a GS, not a GT, which by what everyone is telling me is a gimped version of the GT.

It's not that much worse.

So Toms Hardware is wrong when his benchmarks show the GS to have about 60% the performance of the GT is it?

I think not.

Also you're running your card overclocked. Therefore there is no comparison to be made - you may as well be comparing it to a lump of camembert.

Bertster7 wrote:

What are the speeds you run at like? Does it run ok for a bit then jolt, then run ok for a bit, then another big jolt - if so, that's definitely RAM.

Not necessarily.

True, perhaps it wasn't the best comparison to make.
Good thing I've also got a 6600GT (well I don't anymore actually, I let my mate swap it for his crappy 7300GS which I put in a rig thats just hooked upto an LCD screen in living room for watching films on - but I used to play BF2 on it a lot and that's the main point), which runs ok on medium settings. The 7600GS is almost a perfect midpoint between those 2 cards. Since the 7600GT runs well at fairly decent settings and the 6600GT runs ok on all medium settings, he can certainly do better than all lows.

I've also played BF2 on my proper system when it only had 1GB of RAM in (I was waiting for some to get delivered) with an 8800GTS, performance was jolty, stuck more RAM in, perfect.

Put it this way, his GPU is about as good as the best (Nvidia) GPU you could get when BF2 was released. It's capable of better than all lows and upgrading his RAM will help immeasurably.

It's RAM plain and simple.
Another GB will make a world of difference.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-05 14:58:01)

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's not that much worse.

So Toms Hardware is wrong when his benchmarks show the GS to have about 60% the performance of the GT is it?

I think not.

Also you're running your card overclocked. Therefore there is no comparison to be made - you may as well be comparing it to a lump of camembert.

Bertster7 wrote:

What are the speeds you run at like? Does it run ok for a bit then jolt, then run ok for a bit, then another big jolt - if so, that's definitely RAM.

Not necessarily.

True, perhaps it wasn't the best comparison to make.
Good thing I've also got a 6600GT (well I don't anymore actually, I let my mate swap it for his crappy 7300GS which I put in a rig thats just hooked upto an LCD screen in living room for watching films on - but I used to play BF2 on it a lot and that's the main point), which runs ok on medium settings. The 7600GS is almost a perfect midpoint between those 2 cards. Since the 7600GT runs well at fairly decent settings and the 6600GT runs ok on all medium settings, he can certainly do better than all lows.

I've also played BF2 on my proper system when it only had 1GB of RAM in (I was waiting for some to get delivered) with an 8800GTS, performance was jolty, stuck more RAM in, perfect.

Put it this way, his GPU is about as good as the best (Nvidia) GPU you could get when BF2 was released. It's capable of better than all lows and upgrading his RAM will help immeasurably.

It's RAM plain and simple.
Another GB will make a world of difference.

OK. Kewl. In that case, yeah, from the sound of it, another gig of RAM would help. I was just going on the Toms Hardware benchmarks, but if you've got real-world experience of it, you're in a much better position to judge what he should be able to achieve than I am.

Though, having said that, CPU, mobo and everything will also make a difference (but probably not that much).

wah1188 wrote:

Does the GS in the card stand for goooooood shit?
So does this card beat the GS?
XFX GeForce 7600GT 256MB Fatal1ty DDR2

Is a 7600GT better than a 7600GS?

In a nutshell - yes.