BF3 doesn't actually look better if you take out all the shiny graphical ****znitz effects. Textures and models are ugly without all the post-processing effects to cover them up. RO2 has much better graphics when looking at it bare-bones without all the blinding light effects BF3 has. And I think it partly has them to cover up the ugliness of the game underneath.
Poor performance with High End Rig
- Thread starter Knil
- Start date
I lol @ the downvotes. You can't prove I'm wrong, so you hit downvote-button. I know I'm right - I play both games. BF3 is ugly underneath all that eye-hurting effectstorm it's throwing up. Prove me wrong.
RO 2 looks like crap and runs like crap compared to any other UE3 game I've seen. ArmA 2 looks much better and runs better (there's no reason it should run better).
I'm not sure what TWI did to RO2 to make it run so poorly, but I doubt it'll ever get fixed.
I'm not sure what TWI did to RO2 to make it run so poorly, but I doubt it'll ever get fixed.
Been over this topic many times, the game code is whack. There is a problem somewhere.
Q9650 @ 4.2ghz and crossfire 5870's
30-40 fps is the norm, CPU usage 40% and GPU usage 60% and still dips to 20 fps at times.
Bf3 on the other hand never goes below 50 fps and manages 100% cpu usage and 90-100% GPU usage.
Q9650 @ 4.2ghz and crossfire 5870's
30-40 fps is the norm, CPU usage 40% and GPU usage 60% and still dips to 20 fps at times.
Bf3 on the other hand never goes below 50 fps and manages 100% cpu usage and 90-100% GPU usage.
Last edited:
You should understand that there's a difference between graphics and aesthetics. "shiny graphical ****znitz effects" do contribute to BF3 being graphically better as they make things look more real, though BF3 isn't perfect in this either. They made a suggestions topic on how they could improve the graphics to be more lifelike.
Aesthetically speaking, Red Orchestra 2 is much better, simply due to having more details and more polygons that went into the world objects.
Eventually it doesn't matter which game does what better, it matters how much immersiveness it creates.
Last edited:
Putting in this sound card tomorrow,
We'll see if it helps with FPS.
http://us.store.creative.com/Creative-Sound-Blaster-XFi-Titanium-Fatal1ty/M/B0018EFGTM.htm
Edit:
I run about 40-70 FPS maxed out with
I5 2300k
8GB DDR3
HD 5850 MSI Twin Frozr II (long name for a card o.0)
Resolution: 1600x900 (native size)
We'll see if it helps with FPS.
http://us.store.creative.com/Creative-Sound-Blaster-XFi-Titanium-Fatal1ty/M/B0018EFGTM.htm
Edit:
I run about 40-70 FPS maxed out with
I5 2300k
8GB DDR3
HD 5850 MSI Twin Frozr II (long name for a card o.0)
Resolution: 1600x900 (native size)
Last edited:
It would appear that an i5 2500k CPU combined with a GTX 560Ti has some quality that makes that combination work well with this game. I and three others I know personally have this configuration and the game performs well with stock settings of High and slightly tweaked settings on Ultra (mainly putting Shadows on high). It would seem that most posters in the forums with this hardware configuration have seen similar results. Makes one wonder what the key is.....
Probably a balanced CPU/GPU configuration, where the one doesn't bottleneck the other. This guarantees that the information flow is constant at all times and doesn't lock up.
Not that "high end" then.
See my specs. Ultra settings ++ max everything and runs beautiful (even with fraps).
See my specs. Ultra settings ++ max everything and runs beautiful (even with fraps).
Amazing.....
I use
RO2 runs smooth as silk with ULTRA settings across the boards.
FPS 45-65
If you are having troubles... plz triple check your configs and what's running in the background. Also take a look at and try Gamebooster 3.1 by IOBIT (its free and it works).
I use
- E6850 CPU 3 GHz
- 4gb Ram
- Win7 Ultimate 32bit
- GeForce 560ti 1gb - Driver Ver. 285.79
- X-FI Fatality Titanium - Driver Ver. SBXF_PCDRV_LB_2_18_0015
RO2 runs smooth as silk with ULTRA settings across the boards.
FPS 45-65
If you are having troubles... plz triple check your configs and what's running in the background. Also take a look at and try Gamebooster 3.1 by IOBIT (its free and it works).
Last edited:
Ahem. You're aware 8xQ is equivalent of 2xMSAA performance wise? Similarly radeon users would be advised to use FXAA instead (from the RO2 options).
On my rig I need to set the game to use MSAA "ultra" and then use the override to use 8xQ - If RO2 options are No AA or any of the FX modes, options menus become invisible..
IF you have GamerOSD.exe installed on you machine, uninstall it, Reinstall you video drivers, and restart computer.
I just would have thought the 64 bit with everything else you have
I don't think that using 64-bit is really all that neccesary at only 4 GB RAM. The performance gains from using 64-bit are only minimal from what I've seen thus far but this might change if more programs actually use a 64-bit executable instead of offering 32-bit backward compatibility.
And that does make a 64-bit OS chew up a little bit more RAM than the conventional 32-bit OS.
Though if he ever decides to format his PC, he should definitely consider changing to 64-bit just for future programs that require it.
Probably won't help, the game uses CPU for the sound. It doesn't support hardware acceleration.
Yep, sound is processed by the cpu. I have read that it helps to put a soundcard in your system.
I own a creative x-fi xtreme soundcard with ,3rd party drivers.
I have it sometimes for example artillery the game stutters, i know for sure that it has something to do with sound.
I own a creative x-fi xtreme soundcard with ,3rd party drivers.
I have it sometimes for example artillery the game stutters, i know for sure that it has something to do with sound.