Do i need quad core for Battlefield bc2 ??

[gurusan]

Core control is in the BIOS, but it depends on the motherboard.

...and in my opinion at 1920x1200 a quad is not at all needed to enjoy this game but I would say it's still recommended.

 

[C64]

Yea my next upgrade will be 6420 to q9550 just waiting for a q9550 @ £60-£80 second hand shouldn't be too far off seen them go for 90-100.

 

[gurusan]

I think you will be waiting awhile tbh. My original plan with my old EP45T-UD3P and E8400 was to snag a cheap Q9550 or Q9650, but I didn't see that coming for a long while...hence the move to AMD, and I don't regret it one bit.

 

[C64]

Saw a q9550 go the other day for £100 on here if need be I'll put up with a 95w q6600 though.

 

[Cesar67]

Like I said it's fine to my eyes. I think some people have different reactions to framerates/input lag. I felt it was all a bit laggy and stiff until I read about turning HBAO off. Now it runs smooth as no matter what is happening. Was considering going i5 for this game before I'd played it, no I'm glad there is some life in my old E8400, seeing as there isn't any other games on the pipeline I'm excited about (until BF3 )

It might be a server/connection issue, It just doesn't *feel* as smooth as it should, It might even be the game. I run with HBAO and BLOOM off.

Maybe i am always looking for a reason to buy new shiny bits

Potentially stupid question: surely if you're already getting 70fps, a CPU upgrade will make no difference? My monitor, for example, has a 60Hz refresh rate, so anything above 60fps will look and feel exactly the same, no?

Thanks,

Yslen

I'm no expert mate but, I think the minimum frame rates wont dip so low, Making the whole experience *smoother*. My 70FPS is just an average, It might sit under 50 in parts of the game.

I don't think it's all about the output from the GPU, If the CPU is struggling then an upgrade could help.

 

[ashmanuk67]

I have just put in my Q9550 and i have only been on BFBC2 for a very short time but does seem smoother FPS does not drop down as low.
But all the checks i am doing it only ever shows me two cores, CPUID says cores 2 threads 2 am i doing something wrong HELP...........

 

[ashmanuk67]

WOW i have been on most of the night now and diffo a big boost in fps much higher average lows are around 60 and high around 70-80 average i have seen it go upto 150 though i was was in a sparse part of the map and no fire action
I am very pleased with this purchase as i am sure allot of games will use Quads + more and more...

 

[craptakular]

Buy an i7 quad core....


/In before easyrider.

 

[_lecro_]

Buy an i7 quad core....


/In before easyrider.

Lol totally agree ,but simple answer to question is NO..
I know a few m8s who play it on dual cores

 

[yslen]

My 70FPS is just an average, It might sit under 50 in parts of the game

I'd be interested to know what your min and max values are. Personally though, anything above about 25fps (if constant/smooth) looks the same to my eyes. The first time I played through oblivion it was on this old laptop with 15-20fps at all times; It didn't really bother me. As a result it always seems very odd to me when people aren't satisfied with much larger numbers!

 

[ashmanuk67]

quel

Wow that just go's to show we are not all equal 15-20 fps i would get such a headache from that.

I would love to go with the i7 range of chips but that means new motherboard and memory way to much money at the moment, have to say though for me coming from E6600 duel core to Q9550 quad core in BFBC2 is nice improvement and hopefully will compliment my crossfire.

It just moves too quick in this game

 

[throdgrain]

I have an E6600 clocked at 3 gig, all the rest of my spec in signature, the game runs fine on high settings at 1280x1050.

It did lag for a bit, then I discovered I'd set the FOV at 80 in settings. I changed it to 65 and no further problems ...

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

My rig (in sig) can max the game and it runs quite smoothly too so I'd say no, you do not need a quad core to enjoy the game.

 

[Angst]

My rig (in sig) can max the game and it runs quite smoothly too so I'd say no, you do not need a quad core to enjoy the game.

whats your fov set a mate? i forgot to mention for my tests my fov was set at 80 so that could make quite a bit of difference.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

whats your fov set a mate? i forgot to mention for my tests my fov was set at 80 so that could make quite a bit of difference.

It's just at the default setting. I can look in the settings.ini if you really want me to but whatever the default is, that's what it's at.

One thing I was a bit annoyed about was having to use D3D Overrider to enable VSync as just turning VSync on in the game was giving me horrific screen tearing. I'll post the settings file now actually seeing as I've got nothing better to do.

[WindowSettings]
Width=1360
Height=768
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=60
VSync=false
[Sound]
Quality=high
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=0
[Graphics]
Effects=high
Soldiers=high
Vehicles=high
Overgrowth=high
Undergrowth=high
StaticObjects=high
Terrain=high
Shadows=high
Bloom=true
HSAO=true
MSAA=3
Water=high
MainQuality=custom
Texture=high
DxVersion=auto
Aniso=4
Detail=high
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=55

VSync is set to False as I've got the D3D overrider tool forcing it on.

 

[hedgey]

Currently running [email protected] + ATI 5850. Regardless of ini settings (all low, all high) I get 30-40 fps according to fraps. This suggests that I am CPU limited.

Just picked up a Q9550 so will be doing that same single player level to compare over the weekend.

something is wrong there. I get 50-70fps with a 4870 at 1920x1200

 

[yslen]

Wow that just go's to show we are not all equal 15-20 fps i would get such a headache from that.

It's not that bad if it's smooth. If it's 15fps as an average of much higher and lower values on a very short time scale, the result is a mess, and feels very jumpy to play. If it's a smooth 15fps all the time, it's much better. Like I said, anything over a smooth 25fps seems fine to me. I'm quite glad reviews all seem to quote min fps as well as average these days, as in my experience the deviation from the average makes a huge difference.

Anyway, irrelevent, sorry. Carry on.

 

[ashmanuk67]

It's not that bad if it's smooth. If it's 15fps as an average of much higher and lower values on a very short time scale, the result is a mess, and feels very jumpy to play. If it's a smooth 15fps all the time, it's much better. Like I said, anything over a smooth 25fps seems fine to me. I'm quite glad reviews all seem to quote min fps as well as average these days, as in my experience the deviation from the average makes a huge difference.

Anyway, irrelevent, sorry. Carry on.

Well 35mm film runs at 24 fps so you do have something there as you said it's the drop and rise in frame rates that make it feel laggy/jumpy

 

[Lanz]

Seems like so many people have having different performance experiences with this game, its hard to point out what really does give biggest bang for buck when it comes to upgrading. Its a typical Dice/EA battlefield game, some people its fine, some people its not, some people it crashes, some people it crawls... Bottom line is, I'm not sure its a good enough game yet to go fork out money especially for, the multiplayer just doesnt have that wow/thrill factor that keeps people playing for many years imo.

 

[Cooper]

I'm not sure its a good enough game yet to go fork out money especially for, the multiplayer just doesnt have that wow/thrill factor that keeps people playing for many years imo.

I cant see there being hundreds/thousands of players on dozens of servers, 5yrs from now, like Battlefield 2 still has.....

I was looking forward to it, but the Beta left me cold......highly destructable environments sound great in theory , but in multiplayer it sucks, just too distracting...