BFBC2 good fps but gameplay isn't smooth

[MRip]

I have a Q6600 @ 3.2, a 560ti and 4gb memory. I feel like no matter how low the graphic setting are in bfbc2 the game feels like it stutters just a little bit like it's skipping frames or something. Fraps can show me a steady 60-70 fps but the game "feels" like I'm getting around 30. It just isn't smooth. I think my hardware should be able to handle this game on high and I'm starting to get a bit peeved. I also get kind of the same thing in Witcher 2 where the fps is decent but Geralt's body movements are choppy particularly his hair. Difference is that in bfbc2 all 4 cores are just about maxed but in Witcher they aren't anywhere close. Is there some performance bug I'm not aware of? Thanks!

edit - 'I've looked into this and found that it could be one or more of a number of things. Going to mess around tonight and report back.

 

[SMOKEU]

Does it do that for both single player and online modes?

 

[SteveLord]

Its your Q6600 holding you back. The game is very taxing on the CPU. Once I got rid of mine, it became a whole new game.

 

[Original1993]

Steve, i got a Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz and it runs fine, my PD 930 even played it acceptably

people are saying its the audio engine of the game, apparently it effectively deactivates one core, so ur effectively tri-core gaming on that game, but like i said my PD 930 played it fine, ive got lower specs than you, so i must say i think its a bug, trying turning vsync off, if that gives you no results, turn up maximum pre-rendered frames in the NVIDIA control panel, just a couple of things u can try, i dno if they're gonna work

 

[SteveLord]

With those specs? Forgive me.....but I just don't believe you unless you run it at a very low resolution.

My old Q6600 at 3ghz, 8GB of RAM and an 9800GTX+, then ATI 4890, then ATI 6870 ran it playable, but not as smooth as one would think at 1680x1050 on low details with all known game tweaks applied.

 

[MRip]

Hey guys. I messed around with every tweak I could find and things did improve somewhat but it's still not as smooth as I think it should be. As mentioned above I think I'm cpu limited. I'm a bit upset because going from an e8400 to a q6600 didn't produce much if any gameplay improvement even though the game uses all 4 cores. Oh well.

 

[Xterra]

people are saying its the audio engine of the game, apparently it effectively deactivates one core, so ur effectively tri-core gaming on that game

I highly doubt that statement. On another box in the house i have an e8400 @ stock 3.0Ghz, 8 gigs of ram and a 5850 and it runs battlefield smooth as can be.

Back to the OP: When playing multiplayer games, "smoothness" can apply to a number of different things such as latency, frame rates, etc. I have always noticed in the battlefield series stretching back to BF1942 that the latency registration of the game doesn't have the finesse of say CS 1.6 or Call of Duty. I am willing to bet that your gameplay experience is being affected by an oversold server box.

 

[Original1993]

With those specs? Forgive me.....but I just don't believe you unless you run it at a very low resolution.

My old Q6600 at 3ghz, 8GB of RAM and an 9800GTX+, then ATI 4890, then ATI 6870 ran it playable, but not as smooth as one would think at 1680x1050 on low details with all known game tweaks applied.

thats right, 1024x768 i play it on, 1280x1024 begins to make my 9500 suffer, i get 40 fps med on 1024x768, 23 fps on low on 1280x1024, so ur right about resolution

 

[vixro]

Played it on a Q9550 @ 3.5ghz with x-fi prelude, ran smooth but every now and then I would get a fps lag spike. After upgrading to a 2600K the difference was night and day. Game runs fantastic now... uses all 8 threads too! 4.8ghz

 

[BugFreak]

When COD:BO ran bad on my old machine I switched the PhysX back and forth from the CPU and GPU to find what worked best. You might try changing that around to see if it makes a difference.

 

[repilce]

well BF doesn't use Physx, so that will have nothing to do with it.

on the point of cpu, I would have went E8*** to Q9*** instead of Q6**** as most games would probably like the speed you could get out of the 45nm chips (even dual) rather than the two extra cores.

Although, I do have a tough time believing it's your cpu.. Right now I play it on a 1090T @ 3.5 with a GTX 570, in DX11 mode I can still hang 70-80 FPS with all maxed.

But I have ran it very playable on a 965@ 3.8 as well with a GTS250, not settings maxed of course, very respectable settings.. most med/high with lower AA/AF

 

[jsharpley]

I doubt it's your cpu bottlenecking you. I ran it fine on a q8300 @ 2.8 ghz at 1920*1080 and a radeon 4890. It ran quite smoothly.

While playing, check your task manager (control+alt+shift). Look at the process list and find out how much CPU % the apps are using. You might find that punkbuster is using up a lot of CPU resources, somewhere in the range of 20-30%, when it should be <5 %. If that's the case, update punkbuster and you might solve the problem.

 

[pwnmachine]

cpu bottleneck, believe it or not my previous 9650 was still giving me bottlenecks and stutters. frosbite is HEAVYILY cpu reliant due to the cpu based destruction.


It was only until i added my 2500k when i finally was getting the desired performance out of the game.

5970 + q9650 = 60fps
5970 + 2500k = 120fps

 

[repilce]

nvm.. posted before I saw the edit..