Battlefield 2 Benchmarked

[Vandenh]

For those of you, who are having doubts if they can run the new Battlefield game, TechConnect has a nice benchmarking article (http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles.php?action=show&id=155&perpage=1&pagenum=1).
Battlefield 2's rendering engine was purposefully weighed to have extremely high system requirements, so that it could remain competitive a goodly amount of months into the future, against whatever technical wizardry is coming next from the minds of those wonderful, quirky coders that crank out the games we love so much. The result is a game that is almost perfectly balanced in its requirements: modern power boxes will have a fairly smooth gaming performance at 1280x1024 with high detail settings, but the highest resolutions are out of reach to the means and intentions of the average gamer - remember that the PCI-Express test box ran on a ridiculously powerful dual-core 64-bit CPU that's not even out on the market yet, and a massively expensive GPU that currently 0wns all other graphics cards. Battlefield 2 manages to remain gorgeous and playable to power gamers, while leaving the hardware mainstream plenty of room to catch up.

[Borys]

Reading IGN's rewiew gave me some laughs:

"This game needs a powerful PC to run and look superb so we will rate it lower!"

Douches.

Anyway 1GB of RAM is a must. Don't buy this game if you don't have it. CPU and vidcard can be lower than required but without RAM you won't experience the game at all.

[Somefool]

To be fair, I think they SHOULD rate the game lower if even on the lowest settings it can't run on a mid range PC very well, which is a problem I've been hearing lots about.

The engine definately seems very poory coded to me- I can run much better looking games at 1680x1050 with full details (including full AA and AF) smooth as butter, but this thing will get choppy if I don't tone some settings down a lot. Of course, this is to be expected- Battlefield 1942 was much the same for it's time.

Also of note- a 10 for graphics at Gamespot? The heck?

[Morratut]

Which games do you think look and run better Somefool?

[Shifteh]

Half-Life 2, Doom 3; hell, I'd say it looks like Half-Life 1 half the time.

I really don't see what all the "OMFG BEST GRAFIX EVAR!!111" comments are based on - I run this thing at 1024 with everything maxed and it still looks like 90 shades of brown and gray.

I guess that's what you get for having a demo that tries to show the game isn't Desert Combat 1.5, yet uses the same two forces, the same basic level, and the same weapons.

[Morratut]

:rolleyes:Mmmm i find it funny when people compare Half Life 1,2 and Doom 3 (which are basically single player fps) with Battlefield 2s graphics which shows a massive battlefield with planes,boats,aircraft carriers,helicopters,tanks and all the resulting mayhem.

I think Battlefield 2 graphics are great.:)

Surely guys you have to appreciate the extra work load of running Battlefield 2 over Doom 3?

Battlefield 2 massive maps,loads of players and objects.
Doom 3 and Half Life 2. Smaller maps,closed environments.Scripted scenes.

[Borys]

Half-Life 2, Doom 3; hell, I'd say it looks like Half-Life 1 half the time.


You are wrong with HL1 (what?!?) and HL2.
Not with Doom 3 but c'mon BF2 does a HELLA more.
4(8) player MP vs. 64 player MP?

"OMFG BEST GRAFIX EVAR!!111"

Point to me even one such quote. Nobody said it has the best graphics ever.

[VYPUR]

I love BF2 also I run it at 1024 with ALL on high and stay above 50fps most of the time the high 80 - 90's. I have a 4000+AMD with a ATI X800. The details in the characters in this game is Amazing IMO. My brother has a BEAST of a system he runs it at sum fucked up 2076 x 1300 crap all maxed and he gets over 80fps all the time and she looks AMAZING. Can not wait till the game comes out I love the commander mode.

[bapenguin]

I had no problem running the demo at 1600x1200 w/ 2xAA 4xAF on my 6800GT on a Athlon 64 3200+ (1 gig of Ram)....the only time I had slowdown was in the damn menus!

[MasterEvilAce]

I agree games should be rated lower if it requires STEEP hardware requirements.. not significantly, but why should a game get 10/10 if it requires a super-computer which nobody has to run it? If people are going to put down 60-80$ for a game, it better run fucking well. I think with all settings to LOWEST (in anygame).. you should be able to run the game very well (with a huge decrease in quality) on 25% crappier hardware. You can still play and enjoy the game with other people, you just have to realize the graphics are shiet because you have crappy hardware.


Anyways.. I don't think BF2 is anywhere near HL1 quality. Have you played HL1 recently? Damn, it's so pixellated.
BF2 is definitely nice looking, with everything on low. However, it's sort of "boring" looking. Maybe i'm just sick of the same map.

[51|RandoM]

actually, on his pc, it probably does look like half-life.

On mine, it looks better than half-life 2 and plays better than hl2 or doom3. It is like farcry with lots more vehicles, lots more players and lots more fun.

[Morratut]

actually, on his pc, it probably does look like half-life.

On mine, it looks better than half-life 2 and plays better than hl2 or doom3. It is like farcry with lots more vehicles, lots more players and lots more fun.

Gaming bliss :cool:

[XxSATANxX]

Well I did'nt make the cut. Yes I can run Lock-on, HL2,D3. Ti 4600 card 512 of ram.

I was'nt expecting great but none seems like a deal killer for me. Is this smart? No larger battle field then lock on. I think this will hurt sales. I was at E3 and saw HL2 running pretty well on an xbox. Might have made more sense to make the engine scalable to capture the most possible players as is it's for the smallest part of the market.

[Borys]

Well I did'nt make the cut. Yes I can run Lock-on, HL2,D3. Ti 4600 card 512 of ram.

I was'nt expecting great but none seems like a deal killer for me. Is this smart? No larger battle field then lock on. I think this will hurt sales. I was at E3 and saw HL2 running pretty well on an xbox. Might have made more sense to make the engine scalable to capture the most possible players as is it's for the smallest part of the market.

Once again: does HL2 allow you to play massive 64-player battles?

Don't compare apples to oranges people. Show me BF2 (not BF: Modern Combat) running on Xbox then we will talk.

And if you got a GeForce 4... what did you expect? That PS3 games will work on your PS2? Or 360 games on your Xbox 1?

Probably there will be a hack to run it on GeForces 4, though.

Evolve or switch to console gaming.

XxSatanxX, you are better than this.

[vornskr]

I ran this with a ATI Radeon 9500 Pro Sapphire with 512 ddr and I averaged about 30-40 fps. However, I kept the default lowest settings. Only slowdown was (as prev. mentioned) in the menus.

The graphics were garbage, but to be comepletely honest, most of the combat took place at a pace and range that kind reduced the appreciation to visual detail. The only models that looked decent close up were the player models, and really, thats all that counts. ;p

This is the kinda game I built my rig for, something that leaves a small back door open to play but will be the welcome mat on my next build.

[Bone]

I have an XP 3200+ (not 64 bit) , 1 gig of RAM and a 9800 Pro 128 MB card, which I bought almost 2 years ago and which even then was not top of the line.

BF2 runs for me at 60 fps, at 800x600 and 2x AA with all the details cranked up except for texture- so while the requirements may be somewhat steep, it's hardly unattainable with what is now old hardware.

And anyone who can compare this game graphically to HL1 is simply retarded. Maybe with all the settings turned down it could look similar, but even then the engine is doing so much more with terrain, objects, vehicles and players that the comparison could never stand.

Personally, on my rig with the settings nearly maxed, this game is on par graphically with Doom3 and HL2, even with all the extra stuff going on. Again, try and make an HL2 or Doom3 map of BF2 size, with all the vehicles, and tell me how that runs.

[mpsmith]

That article is crap. They didnt use any 256Mb GF 6800 series cards, from what I could tell (although I didnt see them explicitly state it). What kind of benchmark article only tests high-end ATI cards and no nVidia?
For what its worth I run the BF2 demo in 1600x1200 with all settings max except AA (sound quality is set to "high") and I get what seems like 50+ FPS.
my machine:
athlon 64 3500+
1Gb corsair XMS
GeForce 6800 GT

Oh, and I agree with bone about people comparing BF2 graphics with HL1 being retarded.

[TRiLoGY]

I run the Demo in 2048x1536 on a 22" monitor with all settings max except AA and it runs fine for me.

But then, I have a fairly High-end Machine:
P4 3Ghz HT 800FSB
2Gb PC3200 Ram
ATI X800 XT PE

[Bone]

For anyone who wants to add their personal benchmarks: In the game, pull up the console (~ key) and type: renderer.drawFps 1

The frames per second will appear at the top left corner of your screen.

[netcraazzy]

I really hope Anadtech or Tomshardware give this game the proper benchmark treatment. That article was pretty weak, they really hindered the AGP cards by using lower end hardware. The Geforce 6800 in particular was really held back. On the flip side, It's interesting to see how much slower a middle of the road Athlon XP platform is compaired to the latest and greatest Dual Core CPU. My brother has an Athlon XP2500+ and we are planning on upgrading his Ti4200 so he can play BF2. It looks like a 6800 might be overkill, I'm thinking a 6600GT would do the job.

[kurr]

My 6600GT is arriving today! It should go nicely with my A64 3000+ and my gig of shiny corsair ram! XD

Yes -- I purchased this card solely to play the BF2 demo. I have such fond memories of wake island, and the BF1942 demo.

[WpnX]

Anyone try this with an X300?

My buddy has a nice system (3.4 gig, 1 gig of ram) with the exception of his blasted underpowered vid card. He wants to play, and doesn't much care about the resolution...

--Bill

[Bone]

With his rig, adding a (now cheap) 9800 Pro will let him play at 800x600 or 1024x768.

[KarmaGhost]

The AGP system has 1 gig of single channel RAM. Two sticks of 512 would make a huge difference.

[kurr]

Dual Channeling is great, I'll admit. But why a 9800 when you can get a 6600GT for roughly the same price?

[Bone]

If you can get the same price, go for it. I've been seeing the 9800 Pro for as low as 80 bucks, can you get a 6600 GT that cheap?

[kurr]

I picked up a refurbed oem Leadtek GF6600GT for less than 150 from newegg. Turns out they shipped me the retail package instead. Hah. They just got themselves a loyal customer. XD I can't wait until it's time to clock out so I can install this bad boy. It came with splinter cell pandora tommorow and PoP:WW on DVDs.. too bad I don't have a DVD-ROM drive.