Using the X2 processor and playing Battlefield 2? [Archive]

Danger30Q

07-16-2005, 08:13 PM

Rabidmoose171

07-16-2005, 08:21 PM

i cant even play bf2.

cabojoe

07-16-2005, 08:38 PM

I think the game is capped at 100FPS isn't?
Open console and put in game.lockfps 999. Unlocks it.
Enter Renderer.drawFps 1 to get fps.

HKPolice

07-16-2005, 08:44 PM

In most games, it does provide a 2-5fps boost with dual cores, but ya it remains largely unused. Even when they do program games to be multi-threaded, lots of gaming tasks simply will not benefit much from dual cores - there are other bottlenecks. Just like how even 64bit threaded apps don't all benefit the same amount. It's been what, almost 3 years since A64 first came out and we still don't even have a wide spread, functional windows 64bit platform yet. Software development is rather slow compared to hardware IMO.

[XC] leviathan18

07-16-2005, 08:54 PM

hk police i think we dont have widespread 64bits programing due to INTEL and their slow release of the emt64....

games in the other side have to be multithreaded just for the new gen of consoles so we are going to see major games with multithreaded coding because of the consoles beeing multicore/multi cpu machines

terror_adagio

07-16-2005, 08:56 PM

Tomshardware.com has a nice article about the future of gaming and dual-core processors (http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050708/index.html). It basically says that since no games are programmed to use dual-core, there is no immediate advantage of having an X2 over a single core. By the time games start being programmed with dual-core advantages, the X2's will have evolved much nicer then their current 1st generation. That's my reasoning for soon purchasing an FX55 or 57 san diego.

There is an advantage right now, three games coming out this year are being supported dual-core. And next year even more, as Unreal 3.0 tech will be out.

Battlefield 2 and, games in general, feel better and load faster with the X2. I have noticed this myself. And while there may not be a FPS advantage, the advantage you get from faster loading, quicker responses from programs and Windows is more than worth it.

Not to mention taking into account all of extra advantages with general applications.

Dual core is now and the future. I find it funny you bash X2 saying its not needed, yet you say you are going to get a FX-55 or 57 instead. Dual core is the future, so your not even following your own logic. Someone with a dual core is better off than someone with a single core.

IvanAndreevich

07-16-2005, 09:00 PM

terror_adagio

Definitely, the game loads faster with an X2 over a single core.
BS

terror_adagio

07-16-2005, 09:01 PM

BS

You don't have an X2, thus, what you say is BS.

I've used both single cores and dual cores, and it DOES load faster.

Instead of going based off ignorance, come back with some actual constructive experience with an X2.

HKPolice

07-16-2005, 09:18 PM

Unless you time it with a stop watch, all the 'feels faster when loading' hype of dual cores is probably psychological.

HKPolice

07-16-2005, 09:20 PM

Ya, but those are for consoles based on a totally different RISC CPU platforums. The source code will basically have to be totally REWRITTEN for multi-threaded desktop CRISC CPUs like X2. Sure, some attempts have been made at doing cheap direct ports over to the desktop - with very disapointing results.

hk police i think we dont have widespread 64bits programing due to INTEL and their slow release of the emt64....

games in the other side have to be multithreaded just for the new gen of consoles so we are going to see major games with multithreaded coding because of the consoles beeing multicore/multi cpu machines

IvanAndreevich

07-16-2005, 09:31 PM

terror_adagio
I have a multiplier and if I reduce my CPU speed by 2 times, it will still load roughly the same. Depends on: HDD speed, amount of RAM.

dnottis

07-16-2005, 09:46 PM

You don't have an X2, thus, what you say is BS.

I've used both single cores and dual cores, and it DOES load faster.

Instead of going based off ignorance, come back with some actual constructive experience with an X2.

Well if the game isn't written to take advantage dual core the only way there could be a difference is if one core is handling the OS and background apps and services and the second core handles launches the game - however without multithreaded support I'm not sure this would really happen right now.

Major

07-16-2005, 09:53 PM

Just out of curiosity ;)

I used to have a dual XP setup and I can't remember for sure, but doesn't task manager allow you to assign tasks to different processors ? could someone running an X2 confirm.

IvanAndreevich

07-16-2005, 09:58 PM

I used to have a dual XP setup and I can't remember for sure, but doesn't task manager allow you to assign tasks to different processors ? could someone running an X2 confirm.

YES. Processor affinity -
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Windows_Server_2003/Q_21478867.html

Soulburner

07-16-2005, 10:01 PM

Yes you can, and you don't need an X2 to do it, you can use a P4 w/HT as well.

Right click the process and Set Affinity -> 0 or 1.

Major

07-16-2005, 10:02 PM

Well just for kicks, someone with an X2 and BF2. Try opening BF2 then assigning processor affinity through task manager to CPU1. Then check the fps out.

OR any Bench like 3dmark or Auqamark and see if it makes any difference.

Kosmic71

07-16-2005, 10:08 PM

Open console and put in game.lockfps 999. Unlocks it.
Enter Renderer.drawFps 1 to get fps.

Wow! I didn't know that...thanks man. :D

Kosmic71

07-16-2005, 10:19 PM

Off topic, but, its a nice little sig that I saw and made me laugh. :D

http://renealberti.bluedomino.com/BF2/betafield2.jpg

[XC] leviathan18

07-16-2005, 10:30 PM

they are not too far away from the pc they use almost the same procesor as the mac uses.

unreal engine is going out for xbox 360 and ps3 and those are multicore cpus and multicpus so we are going to have a lot of games with multithreaded support that is for sure....

i dont know how ppl can recomend or say single core are better just think single core is dead just look into the future is like why choose a athlon64 if there is almost no apps supporting 64 bits and i think CUZ is the future some day 64 will be the rule dual core is going to be the rule faster than you can imagine right now 2006 we are going to have longhorn and all the dual core adopters are going to see advantages

TMM

07-16-2005, 10:43 PM

Depends on: HDD speed, amount of RAM.

^^ indeed. A fast harddrive and a lot of ram will help you alot with BF2. That said my sig rig only beat my friends comp by a few seconds loading time wise in BF2 and he has a 2.2ghz AthlonXP and 512mb ram.
But it takes his computer longer to "settle down" at the start of a game - his is a bit jolty for a minute or two because BF2 eats into the pagefile because his 512mb ram gets filled.

HKPolice

07-16-2005, 10:47 PM

Unreal3 is basically the only PC game that will support multithreading in the short term. Not many ppl play UT2004 online anyways - more play CSS or BF2 and I have a feeling it'll be the same for UT2007 - great for an hour or so, but gets boring after. Serious Sam2 should support dual cores as well, but again, I am skeptical of it's gameplay as with the previous serious sam titles.

It doesn't matter if a game comes out tomorrow that supports dual or quad cores, 64bit, and optimizations for SLI. Even if it looks photorealistic and has a physics engine that makes source look like Doom2 - if the gameplay is crappy, no one will remember it after a month. What I'm waiting for is the next encarnation of the Source engine and CSS - Maybe BF3? Those will definantely support dual cores + 64bit + whatever in 2007? I'm guessing.

Again, we are not saying that single cores are better indefininately, but for the short term, there is no tangible reason for going dual cores from a gamers' perspective. If you're doing photoshop or other multithreaded apps - dual cores is a must, but for everything else, single cores are enough.

they are not too far away from the pc they use almost the same procesor as the mac uses.

unreal engine is going out for xbox 360 and ps3 and those are multicore cpus and multicpus so we are going to have a lot of games with multithreaded support that is for sure....

i dont know how ppl can recomend or say single core are better just think single core is dead just look into the future is like why choose a athlon64 if there is almost no apps supporting 64 bits and i think CUZ is the future some day 64 will be the rule dual core is going to be the rule faster than you can imagine right now 2006 we are going to have longhorn and all the dual core adopters are going to see advantages

Major

07-16-2005, 11:00 PM

@HKPolice, I agree if your goal is to have a great game machine then save the money you would spend on an X2, and put it in the video card or cooling instead.

I've never kept a processor for more than 4-6 months in my game rig anyway. I play hand me down. In a few months when something new comes down the pipeline, I'll upgrade my game rig OR the server and the kids will all benifit too ! lol

ULJarad

07-16-2005, 11:24 PM

I've always wondered, how do X2 handle Alt+Tabbing out of games, specifically BF2? Alt+Tabbing takes 5-10 seconds, but if I get an IM or something interrupts it takes unnusually longer, either half a minute.

brandinb

07-17-2005, 12:46 AM

well im pretty sure all a dual core cpu does now is take video driver overhead and windows background apps out of the picture allowing one cpu to purely be dedicated to the game while the other core fiddles around with direct x and windows crap so you get a optomized single core experence. its like playing on linux with directx and good graphics drivers lol.

it should handle alt+tabbing like a dream but thats up to game programers to make it go smoothly as some games are just better then others even tho there is plenty of ram free. but battlefield works very well considering it will use more then a gig of memory it still alt+tabs fast on my 1gb ram machine..
________
MEDICAL CANNABIS (http://medicalmarijuana.us/)

koei

07-17-2005, 01:22 AM

I remember reading in the readme that they advise against Alt+Tabbing since it may cause the game to not load back up properly after tabbing back. Doubt making it work was any part of their priority not to mention how fast it tabs. Problem with dual core CPUs is vastly in the area of load balancing support. There aren't many applications or games around that would handle the task properly. So the gains from having a dual core chip isn't so noticable at the moment which is a shame.

I can imagine some point in the future where that problem will be a thing of the past where OS and drivers will have built in load balancing support. Only then would the golden age of multi-threaded processing have arrived where the capability of the multi-core processor can be used and used efficiently.

ULJarad

07-17-2005, 01:32 AM

Well, as mentioned, a second core would be currently dedicated to anything but the game. I figured that if one is doing the game and one is free for Windows and its resources, the transition would be very smooth. Yeah, the readme says alt+tab is bad, but that's not going to stop me from doing it to find out what IP and pw to join with.

Its been said multithreaded games will take twice as long to do. My friend dabbles in the art of coding and made a program similar to SuperPI. I was asking him how long it would take to make it multithreaded and he just started throwing this jabble at me and concluded that he wouldn't try, even though it took him about a month to make his program rock solid as is.

terror_adagio

07-17-2005, 07:29 AM

Well if the game isn't written to take advantage dual core the only way there could be a difference is if one core is handling the OS and background apps and services and the second core handles launches the game - however without multithreaded support I'm not sure this would really happen right now.

Thats exactly what is happening. I cannot explain it, but going from a single core to a dual core definitely feels smoother overall in apps and games, and loading has decreased.

terror_adagio

07-17-2005, 07:31 AM

Unreal3 is basically the only PC game that will support multithreading in the short term.

Um, Unreal 3.0 tech will be used it other games, aside from Unreal based games, you know. So more than one PC game.

There are three non-Unreal games already this year that support dual core.

And lets not forget XBOX 360 games, which may or may not be ported to PC that will naturally support multiple cores.

I've always wondered, how do X2 handle Alt+Tabbing out of games, specifically BF2? Alt+Tabbing takes 5-10 seconds, but if I get an IM or something interrupts it takes unnusually longer, either half a minute.

If I am gaming in BF2 then decide to quit and exit, right after I click Exit, I'm in Windows in literally 0.5 seconds, with no screen delay or adjustment.

I haven't tried ALT-Tab in BF2, but I have with a few other games, and I do it alot during install of games, and it is very responsive, no delay is noticable.

well im pretty sure all a dual core cpu does now is take video driver overhead and windows background apps out of the picture allowing one cpu to purely be dedicated to the game while the other core fiddles around with direct x and windows crap so you get a optomized single core experence. its like playing on linux with directx and good graphics drivers lol.

Yeah, basically. Its especially handy with HL2, as you have Windows in the background doing its stuff, then you have Steam, and then you have either HL2 or CS. Dual core is especially more responsive in that situation than when I had a single core.

I'm looking forward to future ATI drivers, as I'm hoping they were have special coding, ala, nVidia's new drivers for dual core.

Ugly n Grey

07-17-2005, 07:39 AM

Alt tabbing or anything else on a dual core is smoother, faster and works well because you are not contending for resources with a game or what have you. It's like trying to carry a fridge with your buddy and not wanting to put it down to get the door open and then his twin brother shows up.....nice....

jinu117

07-17-2005, 09:39 AM

IvanAndreevich

07-17-2005, 10:23 AM

Ever since I got 2 GB's of RAM, alt tabbing out of BF2 is very fast :)

ULJarad

07-17-2005, 11:10 AM

I alt tab out of BF2 a lot with dual core. Very fast :) Only quirky thing is mouse pointer disappearing till you click on it once. But than it happened while on single core too. You know considering how long it takes to connect, look for good servers, often I just alt-tab out to do quick e-mail check, etc.
Oh, that happens to me in GTA:SA. Simply click somewhere on the screen.

Do you think BF2 advantage of more memory or a combination of fast and a lot of memory? Because I can throw in my other computer's PC2700 for 1.5gb. Think it might help?

LowRun

07-17-2005, 11:45 AM

It's like trying to carry a fridge with your buddy and not wanting to put it down to get the door open and then his twin brother shows up.....nice....

You caused :lol: here with this one, very nice analogy.

Unrealcpu

07-17-2005, 12:24 PM

Ever since I got 2 GB's of RAM, alt tabbing out of BF2 is very fast :)

i have 2gb of ram too and my fx55 is running at 3.42 gighertz.

Try ALT Tabbing then surfing the interenet , i bet its butt ass slow :D

IvanAndreevich

07-17-2005, 12:39 PM

Unrealcpu
Try setting priority of IE to high or BF2 to lower and that would be that.

ULJarad

07-17-2005, 12:49 PM

Well it's not like I alt+tab out to browse the internet. Not everyone I know has Xfire, and with it, the ability to talk ingame. I sometimes get an IM that freezes my game for a few seconds then minimizes to the IM. I blast off the guy IMing me then max the game and sometimes never loads properly again, forcing me to shut down BF2 and load it up again. I wouldn't know what to do if my clan didn't use xfire, having to alt+tab each time for an IP. =/

dmo580

07-17-2005, 01:15 PM

Like when you guys play BF2 or whatever, do you set affinity to 0 or 1 or what.....

IYP

07-17-2005, 01:48 PM

just oc a 4800+ to 2.8 and theres your stock fx57 with 2 cores....

Gogar

07-17-2005, 05:03 PM

Don't you guys just love it when you're flying a plane and get an aim message? :( or a fully loaded chopper lol

I read somewhere hard disk performance was better for the X2 especially when using native command queing.
I'm guessing it's something with the hdd drivers normally interrupting the already busy cpu making things slower, while the X2 can just keep everything chugging along at the same time.
I wish Doom3 would multi thread the loading&decompressing :rolleyes:

terror_adagio

07-17-2005, 05:39 PM

I personally play BF2 just normally, not touching CPU priority.

burningrave101

07-17-2005, 05:41 PM

Tomshardware.com has a nice article about the future of gaming and dual-core processors (http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050708/index.html). It basically says that since no games are programmed to use dual-core, there is no immediate advantage of having an X2 over a single core. By the time games start being programmed with dual-core advantages, the X2's will have evolved much nicer then their current 1st generation. That's my reasoning for soon purchasing an FX55 or 57 san diego.

There is a flaw in that theory though. Current generation games are not multithreaded but Windows is. Unless you closed every single application running in the background you would never have 100% of a single core CPU dedicated to the game your playing and even then there are Windows services and other things that run in the background. With a dual core CPU the game can be handled by one of the cores while the second core takes care of those background services which eliminates that fight for CPU cycles.

Has anyone not noticed how the X2's are faster in most games then A64/FX's that are clocked 200Mhz faster?

terror_adagio

07-17-2005, 05:42 PM

There is a flaw in that theory though. Current generation games are not multithreaded but Windows is. Unless you closed every single application running in the background you would never have 100% of a single core CPU dedicated to the game your playing and even then there are Windows services and other things that run in the background. With a dual core CPU the game can be handled by one of the cores while the second core takes care of those background services which eliminates that fight for CPU cycles.

Has anyone not noticed how the X2's are faster in most games then A64/FX's that are clocked 200Mhz faster?

^^^ Spoken for the truth.

burningrave101

07-17-2005, 05:44 PM

I've also heard rumors that Elder Scrolls IV will be optimized for dual core CPU's.

And isn't nVidia getting ready to release new ForceWare drivers that are optimized for dual core as well? I dont know what kind of performance advantage they will give but i'm sure it will be something.

terror_adagio

07-17-2005, 06:11 PM

Hans.Gruber

07-17-2005, 06:23 PM

From http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_042d.html

Also worth noting is that the mission load times were significantly reduced with the 4800+ compared to those of the FX-55.

Difference is just few seconds, but it's a difference made by second core.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_055h.html

btw. i tried to find a review where load times improved MUCH more (i saw it few days ago), but that simhq was best that i could find..

HKPolice

07-17-2005, 06:44 PM

Errrr no, read more reviews. Same clocked X2 vs a single core = 2-5fps benefit in games, does not make up for 200Mhz difference.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%2064%20x2%204800%20launch_05080510055 1/7418.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%2064%20x2%204800%20launch_05080510055 1/7422.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%2064%20x2%204800%20launch_05080510055 1/7423.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%2064%20x2%204800%20launch_05080510055 1/7424.png

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

There is a flaw in that theory though. Current generation games are not multithreaded but Windows is. Unless you closed every single application running in the background you would never have 100% of a single core CPU dedicated to the game your playing and even then there are Windows services and other things that run in the background. With a dual core CPU the game can be handled by one of the cores while the second core takes care of those background services which eliminates that fight for CPU cycles.

Has anyone not noticed how the X2's are faster in most games then A64/FX's that are clocked 200Mhz faster?

jinu117

07-17-2005, 07:27 PM

Oh, that happens to me in GTA:SA. Simply click somewhere on the screen.

Do you think BF2 advantage of more memory or a combination of fast and a lot of memory? Because I can throw in my other computer's PC2700 for 1.5gb. Think it might help?

Not sure of fast memory. Probably size of memory impacts more is my guess. 1.5gb might help more but I don't think that number sounds like dual channeling... (you might get smoother play vs higher fps).
As for e-mail reading, it still makes my system stutter... now like quarter a second instead of full second or so when new e-mail comes in. (both in CS:S and BF2) I think its just time moving the process over to get better load balancing though which might get better once windows 64 really hits the road.

ULJarad

07-17-2005, 07:37 PM

Not sure of fast memory. Probably size of memory impacts more is my guess.
7.2k MB/s isn't enough? :(

jinu117

07-17-2005, 08:56 PM

7.2k MB/s isn't enough? :(

No no... what I meant was more bandwidth will help how ever small it might be. More of issue will be when you ever have to use pagefile to load texture, etc that will slow down your play... (hey pagefile is going to be much slower than your memory no matter what). As long as you have 0 stutter etc that is sufficient memory (which is more than 1gig at 1600x1200 with bunch of options high) It really depends on your graphics setting IMO

terror_adagio

07-18-2005, 03:02 AM

From http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_042d.html

Difference is just few seconds, but it's a difference made by second core.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_055h.html

btw. i tried to find a review where load times improved MUCH more (i saw it few days ago), but that simhq was best that i could find..

Goes to show how a few seconds can really show the difference!

Unrealcpu

07-18-2005, 04:48 AM

With 2gb of ram on my fx55 i can quit and it takes 0.3 sec LOL. to get to the windows desktop. However when i surf the net while BF2 is in the background makes my computer sloww as crap. Look at the sig. I bet with a Dual X2 you will neveer have this issue.

NickK

07-18-2005, 09:04 AM

Don't have a problem tabbing out of BF2 - infact I wish BF2 wouldn't pause when it's tabbed out.. that way I can start the game or connect to the map and then tab out to do something else until the map's loaded.

That's with 2Gb (4x512Mb) and an overclocked X800XL.

silG

07-18-2005, 10:21 AM

^^ indeed. A fast harddrive and a lot of ram will help you alot with BF2. That said my sig rig only beat my friends comp by a few seconds loading time wise in BF2 and he has a 2.2ghz AthlonXP and 512mb ram.
But it takes his computer longer to "settle down" at the start of a game - his is a bit jolty for a minute or two because BF2 eats into the pagefile because his 512mb ram gets filled.

512mb?! :stick: