BF2S Forums Help - Lag Lag Lag

Budget was limited and Figured that I'd get Vista in 6 months or so when support is better

Looks pretty nice. Your graphics solution makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but apart from that it looks ok - certainly easily capable of playing BF2 on high settings.

If you're getting kicked for having high pings, the solution is simple - play on closer servers, check the ping before you connect to them and don't connect to servers with a very high ping.

leetkyle wrote:

there is no such thing as xfire enabled. I think you mean crossfire

Xfire is a standard abbreviation for Crossfire.

leetkyle wrote:

Your rig is pretty awful

Your rig is most certainly not awful. There are some questionable choices you have made with component selection; Maxtor HDD (ok, but might well break), your RAM is probably pretty bad (but there's lots of it), your Mobo is lower end than I would've chosen for such a system (but ASRock make some sturdy reliable and diverse Mobos, I doubt it'll prove problematic).

Some people may criticise the lack of Raptors, those people are facists.

The PSU is absolutely fine, pretty good in fact, certainly nothing to worry about.

Your monitor looks fine, not a bad choice on a tight budget. Hanns G make some very nice low budget monitors.

leetkyle wrote:

CPU - Great
RAM - Mediocre
Motherboard - You got a great CPU, and a cheap-ass board?
Video - You didn't even get a DirectX 10.0 card, and there is no such thing as xfire enabled. I think you mean crossfire
Storage - Not even a Raptor?
PSU - Mediocre
DVD-RW - Fine
Monitor - You got a cheap monitor. Why? You should got a Samsung or a DELL.
OS - You didn't even get Vista?

____________________________________

Your rig is pretty awful alright, nothing special - see my next post way below. You have a mixture of great components with crap components, and you didn't even get Vista. Also, ping has nothing to do with your system, but your wireless / network speed.

ps, welcome to bf2s!
editted for bert's satisfaction

Kingston is just fine.  The rest of your "didn't even" crap is totally unnecessary and off topic.  The game will run more than adequate on his configuration, so why not help him with his problem, rather than berate him on some of his choices?

leetkyle wrote:

I've always just called it crossfire, never even knew there was an abbrev.

He won't be able to get maximum performance that he would if he had of spent just a little more on quality. Okay, yes, it isn't "awful", but for just a few quid extra he could of made it a much more powerful system. A Gigabyte DS3 for instance is only a little extra. I'm not a fascist, but with his rig, he obviously does a good bit of gaming. Raptors are fantastic for that, it's what they were built for! 550W is alright, but only just. A crossfire system requires a lot of power, because all of the X1 / X2 ranges do. I was going to buy the same monitor, until I read some in depth reviews and their uptime is generally much shorter, and they appear to be prone to a lot more dead pixels. As for the RAM, quality - not quantity. I'd rather have 2GB of solid, strong RAM than 4GB of cheap crap.

I'm only joking about the facist bit, I had hoped that was obvious
I'm interested in how you believe raptors impact on game performance. They don't make a lot of difference at all in a system with sufficient available memory. Most games rarely load from the hard drive (provided virtual memory is not being used, which with 4GB of memory, it won't be), when they do it's typically in big chunks, where high data transfer rates are more desireable than fast access times, which is why RAID arrays can be so good for gaming (outperforming raptors on data transfer rates by a long way), even some single 7200rpm drives outperform the raptor when it comes to game load times - such as the Samsung SpinPoint T166 HD501LJ.

People are too obsessed with Raptors, which have a negligible effect on gaming, despite their strong performance for day to day usage - though the extremely poor capacity to cost ratio makes them a poor choice for many users.

It is always pronounced Crossfire, but written, it is quite acceptable to call it Xfire.

leetkyle wrote:

Just had to stress I'm not a fascist
You might want to take a read over at Tom's Hardware - I have noticed significant load and response increases since I went to a Raptor. I myself own a 300GB Samsung SpinPoint T and I use it for the installation of all non "high-priority" applications. Admittedly, their C isn't too good. For the 74GB, it is around £0.95 p/ GB and for the 150GB it is ~£0.97 p/ GB.

I've read that review, along with many others. I've also used a number raptors and did own a pair of 36GB raptors, which I was thoroughly unimpressed by. For general usage there is no doubt that Raptors do perform better, I was commenting on your assertion that raptors are better for gaming - which they are good for, but not as good as other cheaper solutions. Load times are the crucial factor and for example in a benchmark from Custom PC (a publication which I trust far more than Toms Hardware, which has declined in quality over the past decade I have been reading their articles for) the RaptorX 150 loaded Farcry in 38 seconds compared to 35 secs for a Spinpoint T series. With RAID arrays these load times decrease massively especially when loading larger quantities of data into memory.

An 800GB SpinpointT (or many other manufacturers offerings, Seagate have some lovely ones) array will destroy a single 150GB raptor in games performance, have more than 5x the capacity and cost 2/3rds of the price. How is that not a better solution for gaming?

*edit*
Even Tom's Hardware have decided that 2 cheaper drives in RAID is a better decision than Raptors (in a more recent article to the one you linked to)

The conclusion for our reissued battle between the current 150 GB WD Raptor and the pair of 400 GB WD4000KD hard drives in RAID 0 is surprising. Although the WD Raptor clearly remains the fastest Serial ATA desktop hard drive, the RAID 0 array beats it in most benchmarks except access time and I/O performance. The cost per gigabyte ratio of the Raptor is particularly questionable, as you can get three times the storage capacity for half the money today, which has mainstream drives beating the Raptor by a factor of six. Enthusiasts willing to accept the higher risk of data loss in RAID 0 should carefully consider a RAID array consisting of two cheap 7,200 RPM drives over the WD Raptor.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/12/ … age11.html

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-18 07:09:43)

Check all the background processes and shit. Probably something in there stealing ur bandwidths

Did that wireless work well with your previous comp?

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-07-18 05:25:34)

The Wireless worked well with my previous comp and I currently get good strength at 270mbps. May well be the background processes.