BF2 or UT2004 - The most graphic intensive?

fozzybear · 19 Nov 2008 at 20:17

Which of the two of Battlefield 2 and UT2004 is likely to put most stress on a gfx card? I suspect it is BF2 personally.

Also, which card would be the minimum to play them both at max settings and at 1920 x 1080?

I suspect i'll get away with a 4670.

Robert1986 · 19 Nov 2008 at 20:21

BF2. Its a ram eater.

Sasso · 19 Nov 2008 at 20:50

yea setting the textures to high on BF2 gulps down the ram, ut2004 isnt really that intensive as its still a bit blocky but it does have lots of effects, but bf2 has big draw distances. well my 8800gts plays BF" and UT3 with everything maxed at 1680x1050 and BF2 is 90+ and ut3 is pretty much always on 60(vsync) fps, so anything better than my card should run them both fine

fozzybear · 19 Nov 2008 at 21:25

So i'd have no chance playing BF2 at 1920 x 1080 max settings with a £65 4670?

OpenToSuggestions · 19 Nov 2008 at 21:28

fozzybear said:
So i'd have no chance playing BF2 at 1920 x 1080 max settings with a £65 4670?

My old x1800xt 256mb did bf2 EASY at that res
My 6800gt 256mb did it pretty much fine on 1400x900

Come to think of it, bf2 is actually quite old!

chris.dante · 19 Nov 2008 at 21:45

I'd think you could play bf2 easy with 4670, game came out in mid 2005.

fozzybear · 19 Nov 2008 at 22:26

chris.dante said:
I'd think you could play bf2 easy with 4670, game came out in mid 2005.

Really?

I remember my mate spending over £200 to play this when it came out.

Do you think i'd be best getting a 1gig 4670 to make sure?

fozzybear · 11 Dec 2008 at 00:00

Sorry to resurrect this thread.

I need a answer to this question. I'm getting a gfx card next week. For the next 6 months or so, i'll ONLY be playing BF2, UT2004 and Football Manager.

What card is guaranteed to play the above 3 games at 1920 x 1080 with max settings on each. System will be an E5200 and 4gb RAM.

At the mo, I don't see any reason to get a 4850 as it would be overkill for what i'
ll be needing in the coming months.

Any answers would be appreciated.

fester · 11 Dec 2008 at 02:11

My old 7900gs 256mb was able to max out bf2 with an 2.8 opteron 165 at 1680x1050 with frapps always well over 60fps.The 4670 512mb shouldn't even break a sweat.
BTW The 1gig version of the 4670 is a wast of money not a enough pipelines/shaders to use all the memory.It has about the same power as a 8800gt which could not improve performance with any more than 512mb.No need for 1gig on less your going for a ati 4870 of nvidia 2xx or above.

titaniumx3 · 11 Dec 2008 at 04:39

fozzybear said:
Really?

I remember my mate spending over £200 to play this when it came out.

Do you think i'd be best getting a 1gig 4670 to make sure?

No, don't do that!

A normal 512mb 4670 (or even 256mb version if it exists) will easily cope with BF2.

I played BF2, on my old X1900XT 512mb @ 1680x1050, max details, 4xAA and I couldn't notice any difference in framerates when moving to a HD4870; get well over 60fps, pretty much all the time.

Main things you need for BF2 is 2gb of ram and a decent processor.

As for the question at hand, BF2 is easily the better looking game.

fozzybear · 11 Dec 2008 at 12:39

Is the 4670 actually overkill for the games I mention?

Shall I drop down to a 4650 or similar.

I actually think UT2004 still looks stunning considering the modest card you can get away with playing it. Its one of those classic games that i'll always have installed.

Regarding UT3. Does that have similar gameplay to UT2004 or is it based on a completely new graphics engine?