• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Do i need quad core for Battlefield bc2 ??

Lanz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can say the same for mwf2 buts its popular. I think people need to stop worrying about is it going to last 2 years. In this day an age a sequel is out once a year. BF3 is coming out so maybe that might be better i think people need to stop saying its going to own when they have not seen or played it yet it may turn out to be a disapointment in people eyes.
 
thats the point :) im just saying this because a few people have said (and i agree to an extent) that, although destructible environments sound cool, in realy life they arent *that* amazing.
 
yslen said:
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!
Click to expand...

Frames,|||Time (ms),|||Min,|||Max,|||Avg
231238,|||2998527,||||||8,||||200,|||77.117

Numbers don't do much for me either, If it feels right, It's good enough, This game to me, Doesn't feel right.

I'm sure if i had a constant 77FPS it would feel superb, As you can see, It dips to 8, I know this would be representative of about 0.2% of the whole time i am playing, It just doesn't feel right, Might be my setup, The game, My connection.

If i upgrade to i5 and i find it's still the same then, At least i have a nice new CPU & MOBO to play with :cool:
 
Q9550 installed (stock speeds at the moment) and 50-70fps 1650x1080 medium on the single player VIP mission. Certainly a big improvement over my E7200.

hedgey said:
something is wrong there. I get 50-70fps with a 4870 at 1920x1200
Click to expand...

It was indeed confusing, all the benchmarks and stress tests I tried gave me the expected results and the BC2 Beta ran just fine :(
 
Been playing on my gf's rig: E5200 with 3GB ram and 4870 1GB. On medium everything runs ok, when there are closeby firefights FPS drop dramatically. What a difference with my i7 920....
 
My friend plays it with a E6600 @ 3.3ghz / 5870 / and 8gb ram perfectly fine on max settings almost lol. So I really dont think you need a quad atall - just maybe loads faster? idk. but its defo not -needed-
 
hedgey said:
the answer to the OP is a definitive no. 3.8ghz e8400 and 4870 here. 60-70fps on medium.
Click to expand...

Just to add mine, I'm running it on medium (1680x1050) with my X2 3800+ @ 2.65GHz and a 4850 nicely with no slowdowns. I really need to get FRAPS installed so I can get a proper answer but this game can definitely run nicely on a dual core processor. Before I got it I was running through my upgrade options.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
YES

Everyone who says you don't must really enjoy those 20 FPS and under moments in heavy action online..
Click to expand...

Not quite 20 fps, but with my system the lowest fps I get is 30 running in DX11 with everything on and set to high at 1680x1050.

Feels fine to me, a Quad would give me more but I wouldn't say its needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom