Jump to content
Ssnake

SB Pro PE performance with various grahics cards

Recommended Posts

I have a new Dell - the stats say I have an AMD Radeon 6700 card with 1 Gig of memory.

Are there better cards out there?

This is an OEM card and I understand they normally do not put the latest best video cards in the computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a ThinkPad T520 with the NVidia NVS 4200M chip set. To get it to run SP Pro PE 2.6 well, I had to go into the CMOS and switch the video mode from NVidia Optimus to Discrete. I'd suspect that other laptops with new NVidia chips are going to be similar.

Note this discussion: http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/573258-w520-discrete-graphic-chip-enabled-when-external-monitor-used.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a ThinkPad T520 with the NVidia NVS 4200M chip set. To get it to run SP Pro PE 2.6 well, I had to go into the CMOS and switch the video mode from NVidia Optimus to Discrete. I'd suspect that other laptops with new NVidia chips are going to be similar.

Note this discussion: http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/573258-w520-discrete-graphic-chip-enabled-when-external-monitor-used.html

I have a Thinkpad X201T i7 620LM (2GHz 8GBram) with the intel HD and I find runs SB2.640 much smoother than my desktop (i7 965x 3.2GHz 6GBram) which has a nVidia GTX580, but I had put that down to the laptop having a SSD, I have not tried it on an external moitor yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prejudice guys ... impossible with four core amd 640 ati radeon 6850 ... steel beasts with big battles 40 military units. I go 5 frame rate and frame rate battlefield 2 .... I get to my system and windows 7 64 ... I to someone or something .. sorry my bad english ... thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post in your native language. Maybe it is easier then to decipher what you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scusate.ho amd 640 quad core con scheda video ati radeon 6850 1 gb e 6 gb di ram steel beasts con 25 unita militare per parte mi va a 5 framerate e durante la battaglia mi scende a 2 framerate e un problema mio..o il gioco che pensante...grazie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - so you have a massive loss of frame rate. I agree that with a modern CPU and a Radeon 6850 this should not be the case.

  1. Check the "Details" settings in Steel Beasts (Alt+D while you play), and make sure that the slider for ground clutter isn't at 100% but rather at 40% or less. That alone may help.
  2. Check the driver settings. It may be that you need to reduce the Antialiasing or some other factor
  3. Try a lower screen resolution
  4. What are the visibility ranges in the scenario - reduce them to 4,000m or less and see if it still is a problem

Or is it the problem that you have good frame rates until you have about a company of combat vehicles in a scenario?

Try to run SB Pro in Windowed mode (Alt+W). Maybe there are error messages from some other application in the background? While you are at it, start the task manager to see if there are other applications that may be computationally intensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

niente o provato ma cala la prestazione 5 framerate in battaglia fina 2 framerate con piu unita militare ma quali sono i requsiti di sistema?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Running a ATI Radeon HD 4890 on Windows XP 32 bit.

I have pretty low frame rates and the weird thing is that I see that the GPU is never fully utilized when in 3D. Before I start the mission the GPU does go up to 100% (!?)

Some data: (logging when running the frame test scenario, gunners position GPS not zoomed, in the 'build up' position)

- 16:59:25 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 58,56

Frames Per Second - 60,00

Free Video Memory - 978,48

Free Texture Memory - 1095,85

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2238,00

GPU Activity % - 91,98

- 16:59:26 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 70,75

Frames Per Second - 60,00

Free Video Memory - 978,48

Free Texture Memory - 1095,85

GPU t - 66,50

FAN Speed RPM - 2237,00

GPU Activity % - 99,99

- 16:59:27 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 80,50

Frames Per Second - 60,00

Free Video Memory - 978,48

Free Texture Memory - 1095,85

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2245,00

GPU Activity % - 99,99

- 16:59:28 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 87,81

Frames Per Second - 47,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2237,00

GPU Activity % - 84,96

- 16:59:29 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 61,00

Frames Per Second - 22,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2240,00

GPU Activity % - 64,44

- 16:59:30 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 78,06

Frames Per Second - 24,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2239,00

GPU Activity % - 43,74

- 16:59:31 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 56,12

Frames Per Second - 23,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2243,00

GPU Activity % - 37,92

- 16:59:32 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 80,50

Frames Per Second - 24,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2238,00

GPU Activity % - 37,63

- 16:59:33 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 69,04

Frames Per Second - 23,00

Free Video Memory - 942,18

Free Texture Memory - 1059,55

GPU t - 66,00

FAN Speed RPM - 2244,00

GPU Activity % - 38,28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Running a ATI Radeon HD 4890 on Windows XP 32 bit.
Should be pretty capable. I have a lesser card (4870? 4850?) and am happy with it.
I have pretty low frame rates and the weird thing is that I see that the GPU is never fully utilized when in 3D. Before I start the mission the GPU does go up to 100% (!?)

That's not very remarkable, actually. At mission start the GPU is maxed out because it gets flooded with the geometry and texture data of the virtual world. Once that everything is loaded into video memory, the graphics card will be underutilized.

This is the case because SB Pro doesn't yet use all the shader effects and render gizmos that are built into the card. GPUs are parallel computers. If SB Pro uses only a part of its functionality, it reports being "under-utilized" when those functions that SB Pro actually needs may be maxed out.

Some data: (logging when running the frame test scenario, gunners position GPS not zoomed, in the 'build up' position)

- 16:59:25 -

GPU Clocks (MHz) - 850,00

Main CPU Usage - 58,56

Frames Per Second -

Sorry, I'm just zoning out with that. There's so much superfluous info in it (what your clock speeds and RAM MHzes are is really irrelevant, the same applies to CPU usage), it's difficult to make out if there's anything of importance in it.

What would be really important to know is the screen resolution, and what the driver settings are (antialiasing settings) and the Details settings in SB Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be really important to know is the screen resolution, and what the driver settings are (antialiasing settings) and the Details settings in SB Pro.

Screen resolution is 168x1050. Detail settings in SB are on default. I tried the AA settings on 'Application Controlled', 4x and 8x, didn't make a significant difference.

Cheers,

-Rump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Application Controlled doesn't work. You'd have to create an application-specific profile in the graphics card driver, or force general settings. (Which means that SB Pro is currently using the general settings.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

what about those new ultraportable 11' or 13' laptops, any chance to run the game on it, even at low resolution?

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's anywhere within the recommended specs it should run okay. I play on my laptop, but I have to turn the graphics all the way down. It's not the latest model, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about those new ultraportable 11' or 13' laptops, any chance to run the game on it, even at low resolution?

I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, color me skeptical. While integrated graphics chipsets by Intel have made remarkable progress in the past years (they used to simply crash SB Pro, then they ran with like two frames per second, now you can get about 15 frames per second with them), the weak point is the Atom CPU. It's enough to browse the web and write emails and maybe run office applications. But that's about it.

Yes, they get better, but still there's a price to pay for high portability and high independence from wall plugs. You can't have low power consumption and a great game performance at the same time. (and by writing "great" (on a netbook) I mean "barely acceptable, so-so" in comparison to a cheap desktop PC or a full-blown notebook with an NVidia or ATi graphics chipset).

We have no "minimum hardware" specs. We recommend a hardware that will allow you to play SB Pro with a good experience. Use less at your own risk. You won't have to use better hardware for a substantially better experience either. But our "recommended" hardware specs are to be understood as a reasonable middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Application Controlled doesn't work. You'd have to create an application-specific profile in the graphics card driver, or force general settings. (Which means that SB Pro is currently using the general settings.)

OK, I'll see if I get some improvement with the settings. Will report back if I see significant difference.

Thanks,

-Rump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, color me skeptical. While integrated graphics chipsets by Intel have made remarkable progress in the past years (they used to simply crash SB Pro, then they ran with like two frames per second, now you can get about 15 frames per second with them), the weak point is the Atom CPU. It's enough to browse the web and write emails and maybe run office applications. But that's about it.

Yes, they get better, but still there's a price to pay for high portability and high independence from wall plugs. You can't have low power consumption and a great game performance at the same time. (and by writing "great" (on a netbook) I mean "barely acceptable, so-so" in comparison to a cheap desktop PC or a full-blown notebook with an NVidia or ATi graphics chipset).

We have no "minimum hardware" specs. We recommend a hardware that will allow you to play SB Pro with a good experience. Use less at your own risk. You won't have to use better hardware for a substantially better experience either. But our "recommended" hardware specs are to be understood as a reasonable middle ground.

are you talking about processor when you say atom cpu? Some of those laptops use Intel® Core™ i7 Processor, should'nt that be enough? (i have actually no idea what the requirement are...and my computer knowledge is quite limited :/ )

thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a Core i7 (even an i5 ... maybe even an i3) would be much better suited. Still, I'm not convinced that the Intel graphics chipsets are a suitable option for a good Steel Beasts experience in the next two or three years. SB Pro won't remain forever quite as frugal with the graphics cards' requirements as it is right now.

So Intel would need to overcompensate this growth in demands from our end.

I'm not saying that it will never work, and what a "good" experience is depends a bit on the user expectations of course. I just want to caution against unrealistic expectations. I'd like to avoid a situation where someone bought such a small thing "because you said that it would work, and now it doesn't!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, a Core i7 (even an i5 ... maybe even an i3) would be much better suited. Still, I'm not convinced that the Intel graphics chipsets are a suitable option for a good Steel Beasts experience in the next two or three years. SB Pro won't remain forever quite as frugal with the graphics cards' requirements as it is right now.

So Intel would need to overcompensate this growth in demands from our end.

I'm not saying that it will never work, and what a "good" experience is depends a bit on the user expectations of course. I just want to caution against unrealistic expectations. I'd like to avoid a situation where someone bought such a small thing "because you said that it would work, and now it doesn't!"

so, for now (before those major upcoming graphic updates are released), i7 computers should be enough to run sb at least at low res?

I know you cannot be sure, but your opinion is welcome :)

a computer lifetime is no more than 3 years anyway ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to an extent the two questions are independent.

The main CPU certainly has some role in performance but the graphics chip is what you need to consider with regard to graphics.

You can end up with a high performance CPU chip (say i7) and a very poor graphics chip which leads to poor graphics.

On a desktop and most "real" laptops the graphics card is an independent piece of hardware with its own specifications and video RAM. So in my laptop for example there is 8Gb reserved for the CPU and another 1GB just for graphics (there also a second chip with 512MB if I want to accept longer battery life at the expense of poorer graphics).

These tend to give "good" results (dependent of the exact componenents).

Lower down the size scale (because there is a trade off for small size / portability) the graphics chip may have to share the RAM that the CPU uses which means overall performance suffers purely because there isn't enough room to fit a "proper" graphics card in and battery life considerations.

At the "ultra portable" end there may not even be a discreet graphics chip and the CPU maybe asked to do both the main number crunching and the graphics routines.

As a general rule:

- Desktops have better grpahics performance than Laptops.

- Laptops have better graphics performance than "netbooks", etc.

Its a trade off, basically you can't have your cake (ultra portability, low power consumption) and eat it (great graphics performance) too.

So its very hard to give generic advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I'm quite happy with the performance of my laptop/Tablet and it runs SBProPe better than my desktop and that is the only "game" that I have on it.

I must bench mark it and see how it performs to quantify it.

Lenovo X210T

i7-620LM(2GHz), 8GB RAM, 160GB SSD, 12.1in 1280x800 LCD, Intel HD Graphics, Intel 802.11agn wireless, WWAN, Bluetooth, Modem, 1Gb Ethernet, UltraNav, Secure chip, Fingerprint reader, Camera, 8c Li-Ion, Win7 Ult 64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little older,

Asus PT6SE mobo, i7 965 3.2GHz, 6GB Ram, 2x 1TB stripe raid 7400rpm HDD, Nvidia GTX580 1.5GB, onboard sound, 1Gb/s network, LG Bluray writer, Win7 Ult 64.

I just had a thought about the small pauses/ freezes which don't happen on the laptop but do on the desktop, The Windows Home Server connector software polls the server every so often, I don't have that software on my laptop.

When I run SB or any game I usually stop any un-needed processes / services but I do leave the WHS connector software running. I'll give that a try when I get home this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...