Hardware specs and what hardware is appropriate for FHSW Discussion about hardware specifications and what hardware is appropriate for FHSW
A couple of times recently we got into a discussion about loading times and hardware and the game chat is not the best time and place for such discussions so I'm starting this thread here.
First of all, for FHSW those are the things that really matter:
For smooth gameplay with high framerate and/or high graphics detail by far the most important part is the GPU. In most cases the CPU shouldn't affect this much, unless it is a really slow one.
For loading times the CPU is the part that matters the most. A fast disk (like a SSD) also reduces loading times to some extent. By the way, the same thing is true for a server, which has to load every map before all the game clients start loading the map (this is the time when the scoreboard is displayed and you see "Loading, please wait").
It is important to note that Battlefield 1942 is an old game and it is not made to utilize more than one CPU thread and therefore it makes no difference how many cores/threads the CPU has. Two cores are more than enough (1 for the game, 1 for all other tasks) and more cores wouldn't make FHSW faster. So what really matters is how fast can it execute one thread and that is affected by: higher maximum frequency and newer CPU architecture (like more cache, etc).
Other things that normally shouldn't matter for FHSW in particular: any RAM size above about 2GB, video memory above 256MB or 512MB (I think).
Nate suggested we discuss our hardware specs, so here's what I have:
CPU: Intel Core i3 540 (3.06GHz, 2 cores/4 threads) running at 4.2GHz (21x200) stable. GPU: I was using a Geforce 7900GS 256MB for a few months until recently. Now I am back to the GPU integrated with the i3 CPU. 733MHz stock, also overclocked to 966MHz. Good enough for most of the maps most of the time. CPU cooler: Scythe Mugen, the fan was replaced with a very quiet one. Keeps the overclocked CPU ~34°C when idle, ~50°C when 1 core is under load (e.g. FHSW) and ~86°C under a CPU stress test. I'm thinking of adding more fans now Edit: those are the temperatures from the sensors in the cores. The motherboard reports a CPU temperature that is 10-11 degrees lower. RAM: A-Data 2x2GB DDR3-1600 CAS 9 MB: Gigabyte H55M-UD2H PSU: Chieftec 550W HDD: 250GB Hitachi + 160GB ExcelStor Mouse: A4tech XL-750BK Headset: Creative Fatal1ty And then some oldies but goodies: SB: Creative Soundblaster Live 5.1 (SB0100) Monitor: IBM C220P (previously I've been through a couple of DELL P1130 until they died, but it doesn't matter! They are available used for literally dirt cheap and they are really good for as long as they last ) Keyboard: Ortek mechanical keyboard
Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
Message edited by starking018 - Monday, 2014-12-08, 4:27 PM
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4ghz. GPU: Geforce GTX260 RAM: 2x2GB G-Skill MB: Gigabyte P35-DS3 HDD: 3x320GB, 1x600GB. My main hd is a Western Digital 'Blue' which I found on the street a few months ago. The other two are IDE and a laptop hdd. FHSW loading times are nothing special (painful). OS: Windows 7. 4GB is a minimum if you're running this. Mouse: microsoft comfort 6000 (minus the rubber grip) KB: Razor Blackwidow Monitor: Toshiba 40''Smart TV Sounds: average logitech speakers.
edit - For some reason i had XP compatibility mode on. 1min 45s loading time now for a local game.
Message edited by wewak - Tuesday, 2014-12-09, 5:09 AM
LOL What is the purpose of your postings, guys? Is this a special competition with the best specification winning some kind of mystery prize? Or just to boast of how awesome your computers are? You haven't even mentioned average loading time on your machines or Internet connection type which might be related to disconnection problems in case of some players.
Mine is CPU: Phenom x16 OC 6,5 GHs (GigaHorses) Super Mega Pro Uber B&W Edition GPU: GeHorse gtx 1942 RAM: 128GB MB: Yes PSU: 4.2 kW (+home power plant driven by 2 pairs of horses) HDD: 32 Petabytes Sound: Yes Monitor: 100"
I agree, without some kind of reference (loading time/fps) just posting your hardware is a bit useless.
Here's some map loading time data:
Game: FHSW+S&T Pack Map: A Day of Zitadelle (Conquest) Local game Time was measured from the point I click on "Create Local Game" to when I see the map info screen
I have FHSW installed on two drives: C:\ (SSD) and D:\ (standard HD)
SSD (no compatibility mode): 1min30s HD (no compatibility mode): 1min30s HD (Win XP SP3 comp. mode): 2min35s HD (Win 98/Me comp. mode): 3min36s
As I've said a couple of times on this forum already removing the compatibility mode gives you an extreme speed boost, more than 1 minute for me.
It's important to note that the first map load always takes longer, at least for me. For example it takes me 1min40s to load the map for the first time, second and all subsequent times it's 1min30s. It also appears that the SSD has no effect on the loading time for me.
I don't check my fps very often but it's very map-dependent, on desert maps I'm over 100 on MdS below 10 when both fleets meet.
CPU: AMD Athlon II X3 3.2 GHz RAM: 8 GB GPU: ATI Radeon HD 5700 1GB SSD: 256 GB HD: 512 GB OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64bit
Don't know the brands and I'm too lazy to check. :P My Youtube Channel aka eYe.ris
@wewak: If you get a Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33GHz), which you can find for about the same price as your CPU, you will get more speed in most applications (e.g. Battlefield) except for a few cases where some applications really utilize all cores fully. FHSW would load much faster. Also, that's a nice keyboard for gaming you have there, unlike most other keyboards that are advertised as such.
@Mr_J: I have no particular purpose in posting the full specs other than to answer a few questions that Nate was asking while playing on the server.
About loading times: I have Windows XP, so I don't have to use any compatibility mode. Now that you mentioned it and showed these test times I understand why it takes so long for most players to load.
For some reason if I start a local game the game crashes, so I started A Day of Zitadelle on a dedicated server. I don't have S&T pack. I have a shortcut on my desktop to join directly to the server, so I measured from clicking this shortcut to the welcome window: 1:21 every time.
I think the issue on Monster des Stahles and other maps with battleships is not directly related to graphics, but to the CPU. I tested it on my dedicated server and it showed that the server CPU utilization goes very high and performance goes very low, and the server doesn't use the GPU. When the server performance goes down it goes down for everyone on the server, so it probably wouldn't help even if you had a faster CPU. It's a bug that needs to be fixed. Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
For loading times the CPU is the part that matters the most. A fast disk (like a SSD) also reduces loading times to some extent. By the way, the same thing is true for a server, which has to load every map before all the game clients start loading the map (this is the time when the scoreboard is displayed and you see "Loading, please wait").
Lately our server hardware has been moved to a machine which includes an Opteron CPU. TBH I was expecting major improvement in terms of loading speed but my measurements indicate the loading time is even greater since the update. Tough thing...
BTW This test made by one of Polish players proves that HDD read speed doesn't really affect the loading speed: You are fine as long as you don't use a portable game stored on a slow USB flash stick or your HDD data got heavily fragmented.
CPU: i7 6700K 4GHz, might do some OC in the future Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: 16 GB DDR4 GPU: still my old ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB, have not decided what to put in there yet MB: Asus Maximus VIII Ranger
QuoteEndless_Nameless ()
Game: FHSW+S&T Pack Map: A Day of Zitadelle (Conquest) Local game Time was measured from the point I click on "Create Local Game" to when I see the map info screen
I have FHSW installed on two drives: C:\ (SSD) and D:\ (standard HD)
SSD (no compatibility mode): 1min30s HD (no compatibility mode): 1min30s HD (Win XP SP3 comp. mode): 2min35s HD (Win 98/Me comp. mode): 3min36s
Loading time on this map now: SSD (no compatibility mode): 40s
FPS: Monster des Stahles/USS Alabama Seat 1/Chase Rear camera Old: 32 FPS New: >100 FPS I used Dxtory to measure FPS.
As suspected by starking the CPU is probably the most limiting factor for FHSW. I think one the reasons is the huge amount of objects that can rotate. For battleships think about how many brownings/oerlikons/bofors are placed on them and every single one can rotate in two directions. There are also invisible objects who rotate to make certain things working like switchable ammo. So there are a lot of calculations going on and I don't think DICE had this in mind when they coded the engine. My Youtube Channel aka eYe.ris
today tested with ssd fhsw0.61 with soundpacki5 6600k default
HDD - 1min17s SSD - 55s
Nice to post these results here. The loading time is really good. However, if comparing the effects of different storage is desired then you better take caching into consideration. The first time you load a map some of the data goes into caches (in RAM, on the disk itself, etc.) which can speed up loading after that (it's quite noticeable for me). For me, re-loading after a game crash or when changing maps matters more than the first loading. So, if you try loading another FHSW map first, or even the same FHSW map and then (without doing other disk operations in between) load again and measure the time, then I think that the HDD time would be a lot closer to the SSD time. Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
Indeed differences can be smaller, next and next loading angaur reduced to 55s for HDD.
Still as before of course, most important is CPU, and his Single Thread efficiency
I'm curious depending on RAM speed, so apparently fast ddr4 might improve cpu efficiency even 15%
I dont know whether it has a influence for Fhsw in this case but possibly. Best Bf1942 version for FHSW: http://www.mediafire.com/file/818jqqez94ka80h/BF1942-HD.rar
I repeated (another map battle of angaur)restart and 2nd loads:
HDD - 1min03s SSD - 50s
Indeed differences can be smaller, next and next loading angaur reduced to 55s for HDD.
Nice, so even in the best case for the HDD it was still about 10% slower than the SSD.
Quotewaldhurzak ()
I'm curious depending on RAM speed, so apparently fast ddr4 might improve cpu efficiency even 15%
I dont know whether it has a influence for Fhsw in this case but possibly.
You could test how memory speed influences things if you go into the BIOS/UEFI settings and set a lower DRAM speed while making sure you keep the same timings (you better know what you are doing there). Another, possibly easier way to do it (no need to manually change any BIOS/UEFI settings) is to physically remove one of the RAM modules (assuming you have two in dual-channel mode) so that it goes into single-channel mode, which reduces memory bandwidth in half.
I suspect that the effect would be very small. If halving the RAM speed has a small effect on the time (increase), then a hypothetical doubling of the speed would have an even smaller effect (decrease). Air Troll a.k.a. starking018