How does Live 2004 Run on Your Systems?

[bishibashiboy]

probably had nothing to do with AGP8X at all.
What chipset do you have moop?

[moop]

probably had nothing to do with AGP8X at all.
What chipset do you have moop?

intel 875P canterwood

[Guest]

Hmm...pretty good Bordeaux.
Too bad most of us don't have a system like yours though

If possible, could some ppl give some fraps scores @ 1024x768 no AA no AF, at max details as this is probably what the majority of us will be playing at? Thanks!

Yeah, I'll be glad to. It will be later today, I work till 5:30.

[Bordeaux]

Hmm...pretty good Bordeaux.
Too bad most of us don't have a system like yours though

If possible, could some ppl give some fraps scores @ 1024x768 no AA no AF, at max details as this is probably what the majority of us will be playing at? Thanks!

Yeah, I'll be glad to. It will be later today, I work till 5:30.

HMMMM, it had me as a guest. Anyway, I'll get some non AA,AF benchmarks later today.

[moop]

1024x768x32 vsync off

2003-11-15 17:20:46 - nba2004
Frames: 20433 - Time: 329719ms - Avg: 61.970 - Min: 37 - Max: 322

as you can see the radeons are doing a great job w/ 4xAA/8xAF considering that the hit is only 5 fps.

[moop]

i'm getting a semi-consistent freeze during the 4th quarter.... still trying to find out what the problem is.

[bishibashiboy]

Well finally got the game last night and played it for a bit at max details.
My avg framerates hovered around 35fps @ 1024x768 AND at 1280x1024. The game overall gets the same framerates for me as Live 2003 when at MAX details. I'm pretty sure i'm cpu bound since no matter what resolution I turn it to (except for 1600x1200) I get the same framerates which means it's not stressing my graphics card.

I've tweaked my settings to exactly same as my Live 2003 ones and at this I get 10fps less than last year's game:

resolution: 1024x768
texture filter: anisotropic (makes no diff whatsoever in this game)
v-sync: on (my refresh rate is set to 85 so it's fine)
triple buffer: on (makes a huge difference, easily 15 fps more)
texture detail: low (high, decreases overall avg fps by 5)
player detail: low (no pancake hands this year so it's all good, and not worth the performance hit IMHO)
bench detail: low (who gives a shit)
environment detail: MAX (i like it this way)
shadows: medium/low (a/b 5 fps drop in framerate at medium as opposed to low)
reflections: low (huge performance killer, easily 10-15fps again this year)
lighting: low (high makes colors looks too overly saturated in this game)

Anyways, with my settings above I get a CONSTANT framerate of 60fps (last year was constant 70fps with these settings) no matter what happens on the screen (fast break, half court, free throws, etc.). It still looks quite decent in my opinion as shadows are not suppozed to be that prevalent anyways, and court reflection is not worth the performance hit. If anybody has their game running relatively slow, give those settings I suggested above a try.

Overall, they didn't tweak the graphics engine too much as I get lower framerates with the same settings. However, it's odd that even when running at MAX details @ 35fps, it actually feels a lot smoother than Live 2003 at the same framerate.

My system:
Athlon xp 1800+ (severe bottleneck now)
512mb ddr2100 (bottleneck)
Abit Kr7a-133R (old kt266a chipset)
Sapphire Radeon 9500pro @ 330/297

[Guest]

Lighting has no medium??????? But every other setting has?

[TechnoNRGKid]

Bishi!
Remember me?

We went through this discussion with lots others for live 2003.
The return....

I just got live 2004 today after waiting sooo long for it.
I stopped playin 2003 cause of the probs it had.

I havent tested the frames out yet, cause i noticed an occasional stutter at times when playing, even with everything set to low.
Ima run it in a few , with mIRC not in the background
Gonna grab fraps too.
so they got rid of the time demo in the game?

So far, watchin the cpu play, i like what im seeing. seems i can max it out with out any major slow downs, minus that occasional stutter i mentioned.
so lemme see.

Bordeaux
damn man, thats a killer sys!

Bishi, refresh ya mem on my specs....

Athlon xp 1700+ ( 1.4ghz default, clocked @ 1.52ghz now )
Samsung PC2100 DDR 256MBs ( page file locked at 1024Mbs lol )
GeForce 4 TI 4200 64mbs DDR
Phillips Sonic Edge 5.1 Sound Card
Maxtor Hardrive 5200RPMS
BIOSTAR M7VIW Motherboard with KT266A VIA CHipset<--
LG 40x12x40 CD-RW
Bouts to install a second 44x CD-ROM Drive

tell yas in abit...

[bishibashiboy]

Hey TechnoNRGKid,
yup i remember you! Haven't seen you post in a long time..good to see you back.

Anyways, yeah I'm not getting stellar performance with my rig in Live 2004. No offence to anybody on this board, but any increase in performance they see btwn Live 2003 and 2004 is really all in their heads. It's actually slower than Live 2003 on a fps basis if you check, but curiously seems smoother @ 35fps than last year's game. Go figure.

Anyways, tell me how it goes with your system! I wonder why you get stuttering issues....
As far as I know the r_showfps 1 console command no longer works, so as of right now, the only way I can tell the framerate is by using fraps.
I see you still haven't updated your RAM yet...
Another Cd-rom drive? why?

[JonathanAu]

not really bishi.

On a medium to low end setup, Live 2004 does run better than live 2003.
Live 2003 is barely tolerable at 1024x768 low settings and i'm running Live 2004 now on 1024x768 at almost max details, movements all smooth.

I haven't tried it on high-end rigs yet, but I'm assuming the increase will be less than noticable.

[bishibashiboy]

not really bishi.

On a medium to low end setup, Live 2004 does run better than live 2003.
Live 2003 is barely tolerable at 1024x768 low settings and i'm running Live 2004 now on 1024x768 at almost max details, movements all smooth.

I haven't tried it on high-end rigs yet, but I'm assuming the increase will be less than noticable.

hmm.. well it's that way on my rig anyways..and it seems to be the trend with mid-range to higher-end rigs. If you see diff on yours then I stand corrected

[TechnoNRGKid]

Yep man, same Ram, believe me, im so dissapointed in havin it still.
Just havent had the money to get more, no change that....
just havent had a job to get more.
Im studying right now for my A+ certs, and network+ , so thats about it.
Ima get there though.

A 2nd cd rom drive because i have so much activity with just 1 i need another. i have multiple cd sets ( ya know, cd 1, cd 2, of program(s) )that i sometimes need access to at once or quicker, and im too lazy to keep opening the drive and changing cds.

nba live 2004,
i see it too, 30fps is alot smoother than it was on live 2003.
Nice job by EA.

Im averaging .....
2003-11-26 23:40:07 - nba2004
Frames: 27406 - Time: 690922ms - Avg: 39.665 - Min: 31 - Max: 169
that ran for almost a full 1st quarter.

I can run more later, it gave me onscreen a average of 40fps, estimated i guess. Close enough lol.
and running at these settings..



Player detail is a MUST for me, so i maxed it out.
I notice with bench players, anything lower than the high setting gives you no coach walking the sidelines, i cant have that, and so high seems ideal, maximum i see no difference. Maybe someone can point out the difference to me!


Enviroment, really doesnt seem a big deal at all, after a point, i deff see no difference, so i just left it at medium.

texture detail, k maybe i should of looked closer, but medium seems good enough,i do get a feeling ( with out testing fraps with it ) that theres a performance hit with it too high.

reflections look good, and im still deciding if i should keep it at the setting now, same as nba live 2003 no doubt. i might go up 1 notch, but anything higher, isnt needed, cause you can see the reflections more than enough on medium.

shadows i dont care for with the reflections on. but i might go up one.

Lighting, sucks

with my card, i see no difference with resolutions really. i maxed that to what my monitor allows, crappy monitor i know.

texture filtering, i seen no difference in performance.

Vsync, i think ima throw that on when i get all my settings like i finally want.

anyone who got any details on some of these settings lemme know, like bench players difference from max to high,
same for enviroment and text detail again, heh, dejavu

Time to search the forum for tweakin of perfect settings on the new game sliders!

[bishibashiboy]

I think you could just leave v-sync on. You won't be running this game higher than 60fps on your rig anyways.
Player detail never did it for me. I play at press cam with the camera distance all the way out so i don't really care
Definitely leave the lighting to low. On high it's just way too saturated in this game.

Hey what kinda differences do you see with texture detail on medium as opposed to low?

[TechnoNRGKid]

^ if i look closely , maybe i would, but right now , none.
i might put it too low in a bit.

im running in press box view too, i think its at medium on zoom.
I went to high now with player detail, makes sence, i dont really need max when high is just as good.

the lighting will be glued to low, i seen how it looked up on high, and it was terrible. dunno how ea let that slip by.

i watched the cpu vs cpu a few games, and i love the outcome of the games.
just a small prob with van horn and houston shooting way too many 3s...
like 4-10 , and 5-11 for them to in 1 game. sucks.