BF1942 Performance -1 reply

Please wait...

emotionbot

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

28th December 2002

0 Uploads

3 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

This a thread to compare performance. Because I have a few friends that play the game too. Our computers vary from outdated/old to newer more powerful pcs. We've been getting some wierd results in performance.

I have a: 1.33ghz Athlon ECS K7S5A Mobo Overclocked geforce 4 ti4200 64mb 512 pc133 Ram soundblaster live 20gig 7200 hd (for my games) 40gig 5400 hd (for my files) Windows XP professional

Now, this may sound wierd, but when I was running the game at 800x600 16bit with everything on high I got ok fps, but when I got into big online games, It would slow down quite a bit (40fps from 100fps).

Well I was playing around and turned up my resolution to 1024x768 32bit everything on high again. Now it runs better! Anywhere between 70-100fps at all times. I'm guessing theres some type of bottleneck on my system and my vid card wasn't working as hard as it should have been. When I cranked my settings I must of FORCED my vid card to work harder, resulting in more fps.

So I did some forum searching at sharkyextreme.com

Sure enough a lot of people are experiancing this. The main tip was: If your running a slighty slower CPU with a powerful vid card, try cranking video quality for better results.

Post here your system specs, your BF1942 Settings and your FPS (console.showfps 1)

Lets see how we're all running the game.




Gibgon

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

27th November 2002

0 Uploads

44 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

another tip for the geforce 4 ti series is to turn off vsync

system specs:

Pentium4(R) 2.53ghz 512 Sdram Geforce 4 ti4400 128mb Audigy 100gb harddrive




FacelessCl0ck

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

1st December 2002

0 Uploads

117 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

I'm on a:

AMD Athlon 1.4 ghz 768 mb ddr Ram ATI Radeon 9000 Pro (128 megs) SoundBlaster Audigy Gamer 40 GB HD

I run the game at 1024 x 768 x 32 with full detail and highest quality sound and get 70-90 fps...I think I could get better performance but I need a new monitor, the one I'm using is almost 4 years old and only supports up to 85hz refresh rate so I'm looking into getting a new one. If anyone out there has a similar setup and has figured out the best configuration for maximum performance, please let me know, thanks. :cya:




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

I have Athlon XP2000, GF4 MX440, 256 Mb DDR SDRAM. 70+ frames per second. Oh yes, and FacelessCl0ck, 85Hz refresh at 1024X768 is fine, anything below 75Hz is to slow. Of course you didn't mention if it ran at 85Hz in 1024X768. Unfortunately my monitor is so old it spits the dummy when I try to run it at 85Hz.

:cya: :cya: :cya:




derFuhrer

Don't feed the devil

50 XP

21st June 2002

0 Uploads

556 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

AMD Duron 900 MSI K7T-Turbo RAID 512MB PC133 30G ATA100 HDD SBLive! GeForce2 MX400 (was GF4 MX420 but I ripped it out)

Game runs very well at 800x600 @ 32bit, 75Hz res, I set the audio to 11kHz and detail to medium, but video detail are all maxed out including shadows.

Sometimes when I'm on a server with more than 54 players, the game starts to get jerky in crowded spots.

My next sys will be:

AMD Athlon XP1800+ or XP2000+ MSI KT3-Ultra2-R (I can't seem to find the MSI 745 Ultra MS-6561 anymore) 512MB PC2700 60GB ATA133 HDD SB Audigy my original GeForce4 MX420

I expect the game to still be jerky in some areas on the new system though.




Airix

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

20th December 2002

0 Uploads

399 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

I have a 1000Mhz Athlon MSI GeForce3 Ti200 448MB PC-133 SDRAM DFI AK-75EC MoBo with VIA KT-133 chipset. VIA '97 audio Western Didgital 30GB 7200RPM ATA-100

And this game runs like shit on any setting. I get about 30-40FPS when I'm alone. But it gets the worst when an airplane drops a bomb then I shoot down to 12-20FPS




venom400

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

171 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

i have : p4 1.6 , 512 sdram , gf4 4600 ti (my GF bought it for me on christmass) SB audigy 2 plat. , 80 gb hard drive 7400 rpms , 85hz refresh rate.

i have all the settings on high 32 color 800 resoltuion and all the sound settings on high ,

i run 100 fps sometimes and its slows down to it slowest to 40 fps when is really busy , thats with the antialisng on and tri. filtering on. the problem with this game is sound , you want it to stop jerking ? get a audigy 2 .




meanperson

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

4th December 2002

0 Uploads

36 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

what most people dont realize is that the human eye can only register about 30 images per second. movies run around 28-30 fps (depending on who makes them). the only nice thing about running high fps rates is that when the game get busy and the fps drops, it probably wont drop below 30, and thus be noticed. oh yeah, and bragging rights.




(SAW)SSg Deetox

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th November 2002

0 Uploads

89 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

Oh crap not this again, sorry but you are wrong. The human eye can actually detect upwards of 100fps, this has been discussed and proven many many times over the years. Personally i can notice a HUGE difference in smoothness between 30 and 100fps, if you can't see it you are BLIND.




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

Hi all,

Actually the only reason that films played at 30 fps appear smooth is because of motion blurring. Examine a single frame of any major movie and if there is any motion at all, let alone a great deal of motion, and the image will be a complete fuzz. But games like BF1942 produce a crisp, clear frame every time, that's why we can do screen captures so clearly. Because each frame is clear and unblurred it is possible for the human eye to detect the jerkiness from one frame to the next - even if we don't consciously realise it.. That's why the refresh rate of monitors is so high - ie anything below 75Hz is likely to give you a headache, 85Hz is ideal. If it was tue that the eye couldn't detect the diferentiate between frames running at 30 fps we could run our monitors at a much lower Hertz and still be happy.

The new vid cards from Nvidia - The FX cards - actually implement this motion blur in hardware for 3D games, this technology was originally developed by 3DFX, which was acquired when Nvidia bought them out.

While you can't consciously see the difference meanperson, I bet you would if you played on a system running that speed for a while then one running much faster, given that the FPS was the only difference.

Have fun all

:cya: :cya: :cya: