Is this system bottlenecked?

2007-07-09 05:13:58

#1

stef10: Member; +173|6954|Denmark

OK, some days ago I downloaded Insurgency-mod. Got new patch and so on. But still I and some other people are complaining about low fps.
something like 25-30. Ok, some guy says it was because of our system being bottlenecked. ok, I started a game and tested my fps with different settings. all high and then all low. I did not see so many differences. But the thing I find weird it that some places inside I get about 60-70 and some special places outside I get over 100. So I think there might be something with the levels or what?
So here are my specs and say if you think this is bottlenecked by my cpu

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00 GHZ

1.5 gb ram 3200-400mhz

x1950 pro 512 mb ram.

thx

2007-07-09 05:17:11

#2

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

What sort of FPS do you get in BF2? having never played that game I have no idea how system heavy it is.

2007-07-09 05:19:13

#3

stef10: Member; +173|6954|Denmark

Well, sometimes I get from 40-80.mostly 60 it think.

2007-07-09 05:20:42

#4

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

60-70 fps with this system is good, so dont worry!

2007-07-09 05:21:39

#5

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

stef10 wrote:
Well, sometimes I get from 40-80.mostly 60 it think.

Considering my x1950 Pro gets over 200FPS on BF2 (with the FPS limit removed, thats not all high either BTW) Yeah I'd say that's bottlenecked lol.

2007-07-09 05:23:05

#6

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

Looks like an okay system. If you want to upgrade I'd go for the CPU. Wait for intels 22/7 price drops and get something like a E6750. Or if you have lots of monies a fancy quad-core.

2007-07-09 05:24:37

#7

stef10: Member; +173|6954|Denmark

yeah, but sadly my mb cant upgrade more-lol

2007-07-09 05:26:04

#8

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

Sl4y3r wrote:
60-70 fps with this system is good, so dont worry!

I reckon it should be getting higher. The x1950 pro is probably the best dx9 cards equal to the nVidia 7950. Apart from nVidia's haxed gx2 but thats cheating.

2007-07-09 05:26:46

#9

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
stef10 wrote:
Well, sometimes I get from 40-80.mostly 60 it think.
Considering my x1950 Pro gets over 200FPS on BF2 (with the FPS limit removed, thats not all high either BTW) Yeah I'd say that's bottlenecked lol.

200FPS?????!?!!? How come my C2D6800EE, 4096MB DDR2-1000, dual 8800GTX only gets between 150-160 in 1600x1200 maxxed... my AMD64 3200+ 4096MB DDR-400, 7900GS 512MB gets around 70-90...

And you cant compare a X1950 to a Gefore 88** series, neither to a 7900GTX, 7950GX2 etc.

2007-07-09 05:27:54

#10

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

stef10 wrote:
yeah, but sadly my mb cant upgrade more-lol

Then upgrade monitor!

Hey I know. Why not buy a whole new system!!

Sl4y3r wrote:
Oh how I like it when every single topic about hardware is answered with

techpros wrote:
buy a new rig

2007-07-09 05:30:40

#11

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

Sl4y3r wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
stef10 wrote:
Well, sometimes I get from 40-80.mostly 60 it think.
Considering my x1950 Pro gets over 200FPS on BF2 (with the FPS limit removed, thats not all high either BTW) Yeah I'd say that's bottlenecked lol.
200FPS?????!?!!? How come my C2D6800EE, 4096MB DDR2-1000, dual 8800GTX only gets between 150-160 in 1600x1200 maxxed... my AMD64 3200+ 4096MB DDR-400, 7900GS 512MB gets around 70-90...

It's God's way of saying

God wrote:
Slayer you have too many awesome systems, give one to Peter

edit - And maybe because the RAM is only DDR-400?

Last edited by petermassingale (2007-07-09 05:32:07)

2007-07-09 05:31:34

#12

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

Sl4y3r wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
stef10 wrote:
Well, sometimes I get from 40-80.mostly 60 it think.
Considering my x1950 Pro gets over 200FPS on BF2 (with the FPS limit removed, thats not all high either BTW) Yeah I'd say that's bottlenecked lol.
200FPS?????!?!!? How come my C2D6800EE, 4096MB DDR2-1000, dual 8800GTX only gets between 150-160 in 1600x1200 maxxed... my AMD64 3200+ 4096MB DDR-400, 7900GS 512MB gets around 70-90...

And you cant compare a X1950 to a Gefore 88** series, neither to a 7900GTX, 7950GX2 etc.

Well I only run 1280x1024, and as i said it's not maxed, other than that I dont know. lowest FPS i get is 170~ in the middle of an arty strike.

EDIT *goes to find post with BF2 settings in*

Resolution:1280x1024@60hz

terrain:med (I'd have it low but it goes all weird if I do)

effects:low

geometry:high

texture:high

lighting:high

dynamic shadows:off

dynamic light:high

aa:x2

texture filtering:high

view scale:100%

And I'll bury you with FRAPs screens if you like.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2007-07-09 05:33:53)

2007-07-09 05:32:20

#13

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

Always remember

https://img1.putfile.com/thumb/3/7013472591.jpg

And the answer is: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo f*cking way!

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Sl4y3r wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Considering my x1950 Pro gets over 200FPS on BF2 (with the FPS limit removed, thats not all high either BTW) Yeah I'd say that's bottlenecked lol.
200FPS?????!?!!? How come my C2D6800EE, 4096MB DDR2-1000, dual 8800GTX only gets between 150-160 in 1600x1200 maxxed... my AMD64 3200+ 4096MB DDR-400, 7900GS 512MB gets around 70-90...

And you cant compare a X1950 to a Gefore 88** series, neither to a 7900GTX, 7950GX2 etc.
Well I only run 1280x1024, and as i said it's not maxed, other than that I dont know. lowest FPS i get is 170~ in the middle of an arty strike.

EDIT *goes to find post with BF2 settings in*

Ah k, havent seen it´s not maxxed. Well, dunno what my rigs run in zero settings... I guess around 15.000 FPS

2007-07-09 05:34:31

#14

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

Sl4y3r wrote:
Always remember

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/3/7013472591.jpg

And the answer is: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo f*cking way!

lol, I knew you'd bring out that old sig.

And I was sure you were going to say yes.

2007-07-09 05:34:35

#15

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

its far from low lol. read up.

2007-07-09 05:39:18

#16

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

Zero!. wrote:
i get 120 fps with a 1950xt

max 300 in a jet

i dont have a c2d and fancy ram

fx-62 and 2gb

and your question: id say its bottlenecked

which settings?!

Why is everybody saying this guys system is bottlenecked?! A 60-70 FPS with this system in medium settings is more than average! Stop talking bullshit please!

And if you wanna bragg with your FPS, tell the settings and explain please! Otherwise I call bullshit. My rigs>yours, fact!

/rant

this enlarged my epen0r mucho

2007-07-09 05:44:06

#17

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

An x1950 Pro running at 60FPS on medium settings is normal? Fucking hell gimme a break lol, maxed it manages 90+ happily, his CPU doesen't stand a chance of keeping up with that card, and 1.5GB RAM is boarderline (though that doesen't affect FPS all that much).

2007-07-09 05:46:48

#18

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6874|dm_maidenhead

Sl4y3r wrote:
Zero!. wrote:
i get 120 fps with a 1950xt

max 300 in a jet

i dont have a c2d and fancy ram

fx-62 and 2gb

and your question: id say its bottlenecked
which settings?!

Why is everybody saying this guys system is bottlenecked?! A 60-70 FPS with this system in medium settings is more than average! Stop talking bullshit please!

And if you wanna bragg with your FPS, tell the settings and explain please! Otherwise I call bullshit. My rigs>yours, fact!

/rant

this enlarged my epen0r mucho

well I get 15-20 fps normal, 30 in a jet and 5 in artillery.
Everything is on the lowest.

Hows that for some 1337 fps's?

(And yes, new PC arriving in 7-10 working days.)

2007-07-09 05:50:14

#19

De_Jappe: Triarii; +432|6999|Belgium

Lol why do you even care if you have 160 or 200 fps, not that you'll notice any visible difference.

To the 200 guy, max your settings please. Having 200 fps on medium settings is just a waste of your graphics card. I'll trade your card with my radeon 9600xt which can also run medium settings (80 fps)

To the OP, mmm I thought you should get more fps with that rig, but maybe the mod is just too heavy.

2007-07-09 05:50:30

#20

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

An x1950Pro running at 60FPS with an P4 3.0Ghz and 1.5GB RAM is pretty average, nothing more, nothing less...

https://img.tomshardware.com/de/2007/04/05/thg_vga_charts_q1_2007/chart_battlefield2142_1024_trilinear.png

BF 2142 1024 x 768 max quality

kthx!

2007-07-09 05:58:15

#21

Tdog2007: Giggity Giggity; +25|7184|US

stef10 wrote:
yeah, but sadly my mb cant upgrade more-lol

533 FSB instead of 800?

2007-07-09 06:02:05

#22

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

Sl4y3r wrote:
An x1950Pro running at 60FPS with an P4 3.0Ghz and 1.5GB RAM is pretty average, nothing more, nothing less...

http://img.tomshardware.com/de/2007/04/ … linear.png
BF 2142 1024 x 768 max quality

kthx!

The point were making and the entire point of the thread in fact is that with a better CPU his card would put out much higher FPS. That is what bottlenecking is after all, (shit CPu holding back otherwise good hardware) cheers for proving for us.

2007-07-09 06:02:41

#23

stef10: Member; +173|6954|Denmark

Sl4y3r wrote:
Zero!. wrote:
i get 120 fps with a 1950xt

max 300 in a jet

i dont have a c2d and fancy ram

fx-62 and 2gb

and your question: id say its bottlenecked
which settings?!

Why is everybody saying this guys system is bottlenecked?! A 60-70 FPS with this system in medium settings is more than average! Stop talking bullshit please!

And if you wanna bragg with your FPS, tell the settings and explain please! Otherwise I call bullshit. My rigs>yours, fact!

/rant

this enlarged my epen0r mucho

actually im running it ALL high-

2007-07-09 06:03:46

#24

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|7092|Mhz

De_Jappe wrote:
Lol why do you even care if you have 160 or 200 fps, not that you'll notice any visible difference.

To the 200 guy, max your settings please. Having 200 fps on medium settings is just a waste of your graphics card. I'll trade your card with my radeon 9600xt which can also run medium settings (80 fps)

To the OP, mmm I thought you should get more fps with that rig, but maybe the mod is just too heavy.

I run my setting at what they are because it makes things A LOT easier to see, maxed things go darker and infantry blend in more.

2007-07-09 06:04:55

#25

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|7228|Hell, p.o box 666

stef10 wrote:
actually im running it ALL high-

then 60-70 FPS is more then good with this CPU, RAM and this GPU!

BF2S Forums Is this system bottlenecked?

stef10 wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

stef10 wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

techpros wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

stef10 wrote:

God wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

stef10 wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

Zero!. wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

Zero!. wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

Sl4y3r wrote:

Zero!. wrote:

De_Jappe wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Board footer