AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8Ghz
Gigabyte MA770-UD3 Revision 2.1
ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 860/4000
Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800
OCZ GameXStream 600W
Cooler Master Hyper 212+
Forum Index > Tech Support |
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8Ghz Gigabyte MA770-UD3 Revision 2.1 ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 860/4000 Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800 OCZ GameXStream 600W Cooler Master Hyper 212+ | ||
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
SC2 is only using two of your cores, by the way, so of course it isn't maxing out CPU usage. SC2 only using 2 cores is pretty much well known. But seriously, even the rather limited 768MB 460, especially with a solid OC on it, can handle very nice framerates at that tiny resolution. And even the 768MB 460, slightly weaker as it is, is a fairly solid card. | ||
rXs
223 Posts
Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800 this might be it... DDR3 1333 or 1600 is the standard now... or you could just reduce your settings? If you think having better graphics is better than not lagging then maybe you need an upgrade. | ||
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
| ||
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
run prime95 with coretemp/cpuz open run furmark | ||
Trumpstyle
Sweden114 Posts
| ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
I can't just upgrade to DDR3. I'd need a whole new motherboard, which would cost at least $100. Plus DDR3 RAM would be another $60 minimum. Then I also have to get rid of my current motherboard and RAM, which is probably worth at most $60. The GTX460 is a solid card for the price. It fits my needs perfectly as I game on 1280X1024 and it's the biggest resolution I can go to. SC2 uses only 2 cores... Well that would probably explain the lag then. Even if I upgraded to a Phenom II X6, it wouldn't change anything >.> | ||
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:02 Trumpstyle wrote: Pretty sure it's cpu. You need intel cpu to run SC2 at highest settings with good fps. SC2 only take advantage of 1.5 cores that's why you see it not using 100%. no @geokilla I have a 955@4.0 and I've had no lag problems whatsoever even while streaming at modest quality settings. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 09:59 rXs wrote: this might be it... DDR3 1333 or 1600 is the standard now... or you could just reduce your settings? If you think having better graphics is better than not lagging then maybe you need an upgrade. http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html That shows Phenom 2's at that clock struggling pretty significantly at high army counts. Especially if you use higher CPU settings, it's going to cause some issues. RAM isn't going to make more than a minimal difference. It's noticeable, but at most, DDR2 to DDR3 for gaming purposes is about 5% or so. That's not even really the difference between playable and unplayable. Heat could be slowing him down more, if he's overheating, but even without heat issues, he just can't expect massive performance out of that CPU in the lategame. Although knowing exactly what sort of game situations cause this would help. And @Bambi, your higher clock will help some, and since two of your cores aren't doing anything for SC2, what they do isn't that big of a deal. | ||
Hokay
United States738 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:02 Trumpstyle wrote: Pretty sure it's cpu. You need intel cpu to run SC2 at highest settings with good fps. SC2 only take advantage of 1.5 cores that's why you see it not using 100%. No, but Intel is better. I have an amd 955 3.2ghz and run at 1920x1080 at 60-100 FPS with an ATI 5850 until a 200 vs 200 battle happens and it drops down to 30ish, but it is still very playable. I now play on lower settings at it's 40ish fps during maxed out battles . The OP shouldn't have really bad fps during huge battles at his resolution. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I'm thinking heat, but most likely CPU heat over GPU heat, since GPU heat would most likely involve artifacting. But I'm guessing the CPU is involved, for the reasons I've stated. Oh wait, he's checked temps, nevermind. That's rare these days. | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:19 Hokay wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2011 10:02 Trumpstyle wrote: Pretty sure it's cpu. You need intel cpu to run SC2 at highest settings with good fps. SC2 only take advantage of 1.5 cores that's why you see it not using 100%. No. I have an amd 955 3.2ghz and run at 1920x1080 at 60+ FPS with an ATI 5850. It drops down to 30ish fps during big battles against zerg during 200/200. I even stream while playing SC2 without much problems as well at 720p. Quality? I'm playing on pretty much near max quality. If you're playing at medium, then obviously you don't lag. Is there a way to force multi-core support? The game's been out for so long and Blizzard still hasn't implemented this. Quad cores are so common nowadays >.> It is lagging in the big battles. Like mass marine marauder vs mass colossi and stalkers and zealots or high templars. Or mass marine tank vs mass mutas zerglings. Basically anything that is huge. Those early 60 supply vs 60 supply battles, I'm fine and don't lag. It could also be the HDD, but it's a WD 1TB Black. One of the fastest 7200RPM hard drives available... | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:23 geokilla wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2011 10:19 Hokay wrote: On July 09 2011 10:02 Trumpstyle wrote: Pretty sure it's cpu. You need intel cpu to run SC2 at highest settings with good fps. SC2 only take advantage of 1.5 cores that's why you see it not using 100%. No. I have an amd 955 3.2ghz and run at 1920x1080 at 60+ FPS with an ATI 5850. It drops down to 30ish fps during big battles against zerg during 200/200. I even stream while playing SC2 without much problems as well at 720p. Quality? I'm playing on pretty much near max quality. If you're playing at medium, then obviously you don't lag. Is there a way to force multi-core support? The game's been out for so long and Blizzard still hasn't implemented this. Quad cores are so common nowadays >.> It is lagging in the big battles. Like mass marine marauder vs mass colossi and stalkers and zealots or high templars. Or mass marine tank vs mass mutas zerglings. Basically anything that is huge. Those early 60 supply vs 60 supply battles, I'm fine and don't lag. It could also be the HDD, but it's a WD 1TB Black. One of the fastest 7200RPM hard drives available... Right, that's definitely your CPU. See the benchmarks I posted earlier. Your CPU at that clock just strains a bit. You can reduce the CPU graphics settings, like physics. | ||
Peekay.switch
Canada285 Posts
And I play in 1680x1050. Your spec should be fine. I'd diagnose everything one at a time: RAM with MemTest CPU with Prime 97 Update your drivers, do some malware scans (SpyBot/Ad Aware/Malware Bytes) I'm a big fan of clean installing, defragmenting. Obviously have no clue why your computer is being slow, maybe temperature on your GPU? Probably your best bet. Just scrambling some thoughts together, whatever people tell you, it shouldn't lag at all. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:44 Peekay.switch wrote: I have the exact same spec, but with a 580 and DDR2 1033mhz and do not lag in big battle. And I play in 1680x1050. Your spec should be fine. I'd diagnose everything one at a time: RAM with MemTest CPU with Prime 97 Update your drivers, do some malware scans (SpyBot/Ad Aware/Malware Bytes) I'm a big fan of clean installing, defragmenting. Obviously have no clue why your computer is being slow, maybe temperature on your GPU? Probably your best bet. Just scrambling some thoughts together, whatever people tell you, it shouldn't lag at all. You have the exact same specs, but with totally different specs, and have different results? I'm astounded, really... the resolution makes a fairly minimal difference to the CPU's difficulties, as long as your GPU is up to par for that resolution. The memory might be helping you some, and different settings could be causing some issues. @OP: Are you using Vsync? If you hit a sudden framedrop due to not being able to maintain a framerate for Vsync, that can cause it to seem worse, as your framerate drop will be severe every time it occurs. Also, it sounded like you were experiencing some input lag from the wording in the OP, Vsync can do that as well. That particular setting could be causing the drastically different results from other people with similar CPU's, as without the 60 down to 30 drop with Vsync, it wouldn't seem so bad. | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
Anyways, looks like I got my answer. Now I just need to find a way to force multicore support. Otherwise I'll have to turn down the CPU parts of the graphics. Can't believe Blizzard is so fail. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:58 geokilla wrote: No Vsync. Vsync on and Vsync off doesn't change anything. All Vsync does is limit the max FPS that your can get. So if your monitor is a 120Hz one, then it will limit the max FPS to 120FPS. If it's a 60Hz monitor, then it'll limit it to 60FPS. Anyways, looks like I got my answer. Now I just need to find a way to force multicore support. Otherwise I'll have to turn down the CPU parts of the graphics. Can't believe Blizzard is so fail. I'm actually aware of what Vsync actually does, and it sounds like you aren't. It synchronizes your maximum framerate to some direct proportion of your displays refresh rate. In other words, with a 60hz display, it will display at a number you can divide into 60 evenly. So if it can't cap your framerate at 60, it drops to 30. Instantly. Thus why I said Vsync can cause problems if you can't maintain FPS stable at your refresh rate. The purpose, by the way, is to prevent screen tearing. | ||
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
If temps are normal (phenom around 30 degrees idle, 50 max at full load) and graphics card around 40 idle 70 load then it might be a driver issue, a directx issue or even something in the bios settings bottlenecking the pc (cores disabled, low fsb, etc) also the benchmark used by these hardware sites is not realistic at all, they fill a screen with 1600 worth of supply motherships and all types of units and have them duke it out. at 1920x1200 even... Not comparable to 1280x1024 No way representative of a normal 1v1 full army battles... | ||
Tokadub
United States168 Posts
Try typing "msconfig" in the run or search progams and files. Click on startup and make sure you don't have a bunch of useless programs that are running when you turn on your computer. There is no reason why your computer should be lagging at that resolution. Have you tried backing your settings away from ultra? If you try on low settings and you still lag something is seriously wrong. You may also be overheating do you use an aftermarket cpu cooler? You say that you don't exceed 60 degrees on your cpu, but really you want to be under 55 degrees with AMD CPUs. Ideally you should be under 50 degrees. It could just be your graphics card too... the 1gb 460 model is way better then the 768 MB version. At that resolution though that's pretty bad performance if it is the video card. Edit: oh you have the cooler master hyper 212+ cpu cooler. That's what I use and my max temperature is 47 degrees. So that wouldn't be the problem if you installed it properly unless your case has the worst air flow in the world. Oh and also it shouldn't be your cpu because I am using an even worst processor the AMD Phenom II x4 925 and I'm only at 3.5 GHZ. I run on ultra settings at 1920 x 1080 resolution and I have no lag in giant 4v4 battles. But I am using a much better GTX 560 ti so... | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 13:13 TheBlueMeaner wrote: man everyone is pulling "facts" out of their arse, how is a 3.8ghz phenom quad core a slow processor? specially at that low low resolution, the fault for sure is somewhere else, checking the temps is the only inteligent response I've seen. If temps are normal (phenom around 30 degrees idle, 50 max at full load) and graphics card around 40 idle 70 load then it might be a driver issue, a directx issue or even something in the bios settings bottlenecking the pc (cores disabled, low fsb, etc) also the benchmark used by these hardware sites is not realistic at all, they fill a screen with 1600 worth of supply motherships and all types of units and have them duke it out. at 1920x1200 even... Not comparable to 1280x1024 No way representative of a normal 1v1 full army battles... Tell me then, exactly how the resolution matters significantly to the CPU when you're using discrete graphics? It's fairly minute, the only reason CPU tests are done at low resolution and graphics is to be 100% sure they don't bottleneck from graphical issues. For someone making such self assured statements and blanket insulting people, you seem to be fairly clueless. Yes, there's other things that could cause the issues, but if he only has issues in large battles (yes), with a GPU that isn't going to be bottlenecked at that resolution (check), it's a CPU issue of some kind. If it isn't heat (correct), that pretty much means he should lower CPU settings and see if that helps. | ||
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
[ man everyone is pulling "facts" out of their arse, how is a 3.8ghz phenom quad core a slow processor? specially at that low low resolution, the fault for sure is somewhere else, checking the temps is the only inteligent response I've seen. If temps are normal (phenom around 30 degrees idle, 50 max at full load) and graphics card around 40 idle 70 load then it might be a driver issue, a directx issue or even something in the bios settings bottlenecking the pc (cores disabled, low fsb, etc) also the benchmark used by these hardware sites is not realistic at all, they fill a screen with 1600 worth of supply motherships and all types of units and have them duke it out. at 1920x1200 even... Not comparable to 1280x1024 No way representative of a normal 1v1 full army battles... Tell me then, exactly how the resolution matters significantly to the CPU when you're using discrete graphics? It's fairly minute, the only reason CPU tests are done at low resolution and graphics is to be 100% sure they don't bottleneck from graphical issues. For someone making such self assured statements and blanket insulting people, you seem to be fairly clueless. Yes, there's other things that could cause the issues, but if he only has issues in large battles (yes), with a GPU that isn't going to be bottlenecked at that resolution (check), it's a CPU issue of some kind. If it isn't heat (correct), that pretty much means he should lower CPU settings and see if that helps. Well, mr I like to call other people clueless, starcraft 2 is a cpu dependent game, so most of its performance will come from a better cpu once you reach a certain level of graphics card. For this game a larger resolution will actually result in a larger cpu usage since the bulk of the game is on the cpu rather that the graphics card. what you are saying applies for games that are gpu bottlenecked such as metro 2033 or crysis, where once a certain level of cpu is reached, the bulk of the game will go to the gpu. Please check your statements before you come here dropping "knowledge bombs", I was only pointing to the obvious culprits at a first glance, saying "yeah dude your cpu is the bottleneck" when the cpu is completely capable is what I was calling out as wrong... | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The CPU isn't doing the rendering. It's doing calculations needed before the rendering can happen, but the resolution only has a slight, if any, effect on that. | ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
On July 09 2011 13:58 Myrmidon wrote: For the same aspect ratio the same units will be shown on screen regardless of resolution. Why would a higher resolution put significantly more strain on the CPU? (I'm more than willing to hear a plausible explanation here, but I can't see why on first glance.) we should stop derailing the thread, I am not 100% sure why it happens, but it does, maybe its the fact that eventhough the same units are shown at every resolution there are certain effects that tax both the gpu and cpu making the cpu work harder at a higher resolution, even at 1920x1080 where other games would stop being cpu dependant, starcraft 2 still taxes the cpu heavily. Its a very special behaviour that starcraft 2 exhibits, no idea why, but it does. the point is, the OP's cpu is more than capable of running sc2 at any resolution without it being an issue, it certainly is a hardware or software issue that is stunting performance... | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
Reason I went with the 768MB version and not the 1GB version is because I figured at 1280X1024, it's got all the VRAM it'll need. Plus it was $40CAD cheaper. Then the price dropped a month later thanks to the release of the GTX 560 Ti. It was a bigger price drop than I anticipated =.=" Even though my CPU tops out at 60C under Folding@Home load, keep in mind that Starcraft 2 does not stress the CPU nearly as much as Folding@home does, so in reality, the temps for the CPU when playing SC2 are probably at like 50C. The load that Folding@Home puts on the CPU and GPU is comparable to OCCT/Prime95 and Furmark imo. Stop derailing the thread please. If you guys want to talk about bottlenecks for SC2, create your own thread. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 09 2011 14:15 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2011 13:58 Myrmidon wrote: For the same aspect ratio the same units will be shown on screen regardless of resolution. Why would a higher resolution put significantly more strain on the CPU? (I'm more than willing to hear a plausible explanation here, but I can't see why on first glance.) we should stop derailing the thread, I am not 100% sure why it happens, but it does, maybe its the fact that eventhough the same units are shown at every resolution there are certain effects that tax both the gpu and cpu making the cpu work harder at a higher resolution, even at 1920x1080 where other games would stop being cpu dependant, starcraft 2 still taxes the cpu heavily. Its a very special behaviour that starcraft 2 exhibits, no idea why, but it does. the point is, the OP's cpu is more than capable of running sc2 at any resolution without it being an issue, it certainly is a hardware or software issue that is stunting performance... How is discussing his issue and possible causes derailing the thread? Please, show me benchmarks where the resolution makes a significant difference to framerate with different CPU and everything else identical. I'd love to see one, because there's no good reason for it to happen that I can think of, and anything that defies logic, I like to see a benchmark for. Call me crazy that way. "it certainly is a hardware or software issue that is stunting performance..." I never would have guessed. Thank you for that particularly deep contribution. Like I said, it could be something besides the CPU, but until he posts back saying lowering CPU settings didn't help, my analysis seems pretty reasonable to me, and I haven't seen anything to make it seem less so yet, so pardon me for continuing to operate under the assumption that the only step by step logic in the thread might be on a decent track. On July 09 2011 14:18 geokilla wrote: I've checked everything. Only thing I didn't do is clean install. Honestly, that's the last thing I want to do. Clean installs are so annoying. Reason I went with the 768MB version and not the 1GB version is because I figured at 1280X1024, it's got all the VRAM it'll need. Plus it was $40CAD cheaper. Then the price dropped a month later thanks to the release of the GTX 560 Ti. It was a bigger price drop than I anticipated =.=" Even though my CPU tops out at 60C under Folding@Home load, keep in mind that Starcraft 2 does not stress the CPU nearly as much as Folding@home does, so in reality, the temps for the CPU when playing SC2 are probably at like 50C. The load that Folding@Home puts on the CPU and GPU is comparable to OCCT/Prime95 and Furmark imo. Stop derailing the thread please. If you guys want to talk about bottlenecks for SC2, create your own thread. Noone has derailed your thread. Are you saying lowering CPU settings didn't help at all? Did you use a replay to test that, or are you just still experiencing frame drops? You need a consistent test to use to determine if it actually didn't help, or if it just didn't help enough. Watch a replay through twice, monitoring framerates, recording if you have the ability to do so, with different CPU settings on each run through the replay. Is it actually not helping, or just not helping enough? Oh, and make sure you watch from the same point of view both times through. Lock the camera on your view or your opponents. | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
please relax it. also what do you mean by big battles? what exactly are your sc2 settings? it very well could be your cpu but we don't have much to work with here. you also need to define lagging like hell in terms of fps. also cpu usage isn't the greatest way to determine whether your cpu is being used at it's highest capacity possible or else you'd never want your cpu to be below 100% | ||
Lmui
Canada6155 Posts
As it's summer I'm running my phenom II x4 940 at stock undervolted, 3.0ghz with a AMD 6850 and 4gb ddr2 RAM. I play on maxed settings at 1680x1050 and I don't experience lag problems in 1v1, the only minor lag occurs in the presence of a mothership and only in large army 2v2 does it start lagging noticeably. I would imagine that the problem is the the CPU overheating considering it is summer and the 955 isn't (AFAIK) much more efficient than a 940 especially overclocked. Edited for clarity and grammar. | ||
Peekay.switch
Canada285 Posts
On July 09 2011 10:50 JingleHell wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2011 10:44 Peekay.switch wrote: I have the exact same spec, but with a 580 and DDR2 1033mhz and do not lag in big battle. And I play in 1680x1050. Your spec should be fine. I'd diagnose everything one at a time: RAM with MemTest CPU with Prime 97 Update your drivers, do some malware scans (SpyBot/Ad Aware/Malware Bytes) I'm a big fan of clean installing, defragmenting. Obviously have no clue why your computer is being slow, maybe temperature on your GPU? Probably your best bet. Just scrambling some thoughts together, whatever people tell you, it shouldn't lag at all. You have the exact same specs, but with totally different specs, and have different results? I'm astounded, really... the resolution makes a fairly minimal difference to the CPU's difficulties, as long as your GPU is up to par for that resolution. The memory might be helping you some, and different settings could be causing some issues. Sigh... I have the exact components as him, and before my 580 I had a 9600GT and my memory was clocked at 800Mhz for the longest time, and I managed to not lag at all with ~High to ~Ultra settings. I also used a GTX 280 for a short amount of time and I don't recall any lag at ~Ultra. My point was that people in this threads had concerns of his build, specifically his CPU, I just wanted to share that I had a very identical build and didn't have any of those issues and that it's not normal for him to be having those. Figured I might give my opinion on how I would go about finding what's wrong as well. | ||
ZenGraffix
United States96 Posts
Leave Vsync disabled. | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 10 2011 04:58 mahnini wrote: question for the 955 owners in this thread. how does it handle big team fights, let's say 150 supply 4v4? or 3v3? or 200/200 2v2? http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html Should be pretty near the same, iirc the 955 and 965 aren't really much different, aside from a couple hundred Mhz @stock. Not sure if the engine's been optimized since then though. There's also some CPU bottlenecked GPU results in that article. That's a pretty brutal scenario they used for those tests, high supply stuff. | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:03 JingleHell wrote: Show nested quote + On July 10 2011 04:58 mahnini wrote: question for the 955 owners in this thread. how does it handle big team fights, let's say 150 supply 4v4? or 3v3? or 200/200 2v2? http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html Should be pretty near the same, iirc the 955 and 965 aren't really much different, aside from a couple hundred Mhz @stock. Not sure if the engine's been optimized since then though. There's also some CPU bottlenecked GPU results in that article. That's a pretty brutal scenario they used for those tests, high supply stuff. yeah not too good of an indicator of overall cpu performance but still 40 fps in a 4v4 could be what the op is talking about. that's why we need details! | ||
ZenGraffix
United States96 Posts
Double Check indirect shadows ... if that doesnt help right click your desktop and choose your Nvidia control panel "adjust image settings with preview" set it to let application decide. Gl | ||
Shagg
Finland825 Posts
On July 09 2011 09:53 geokilla wrote: My system specs are the following, and I'm lagging like hell in the big battles. It's costing me so much games it's so annoying. I already bought a new mouse because my current mouse doesn't cut it anymore as it too lags a lot. I play on 1280X1024 resolution with everything set to high or ultra. My friend said it might be my CPU that's causing the lag, but it doesn't seem like it. According to task manager, when I'm watching replays, my CPU usage never went above 70%. It does however seem that the CPU usage isn't being spread out evenly so the game doesn't seem to have good multi-core support. AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8Ghz Gigabyte MA770-UD3 Revision 2.1 ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 860/4000 Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800 OCZ GameXStream 600W Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Rolling almost same setup tho 500W PSU and Mugen 2 for cooling processor and 945 as the processor @ 3.4Ghz and cant say that I lag in big battles on ultra. Have you installed the Dual Core Optimizer from AMD and got the latest drivers for the graphics card? You should download Defraggler or use the defrag program in windows that aint as good to defrag your HDD. If those dont help I dont rly know what to do :/ Edit: Took the OC part away XD | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:11 ZenGraffix wrote: I play with everything maxed, with the exception of indirect shadows. 1920x1080 Phenom II 4c 2.8ghz, Nvidia 460. 60frames+ all game long. The cpu never goes over 70%, Double Check indirect shadows ... if that doesnt help right click your desktop and choose your Nvidia control panel "adjust image settings with preview" set it to let application decide. Gl is this including large team fights? i don't think a gtx460 would have trouble with any settings at that res and a have a hard time believing a 2.8ghz phenom ii is maxing everything at a consistent 60fps+ | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:12 Shagg wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2011 09:53 geokilla wrote: My system specs are the following, and I'm lagging like hell in the big battles. It's costing me so much games it's so annoying. I already bought a new mouse because my current mouse doesn't cut it anymore as it too lags a lot. I play on 1280X1024 resolution with everything set to high or ultra. My friend said it might be my CPU that's causing the lag, but it doesn't seem like it. According to task manager, when I'm watching replays, my CPU usage never went above 70%. It does however seem that the CPU usage isn't being spread out evenly so the game doesn't seem to have good multi-core support. AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8Ghz Gigabyte MA770-UD3 Revision 2.1 ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 860/4000 Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800 OCZ GameXStream 600W Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Rolling almost same setup tho 500W PSU and Mugen 2 for cooling processor and 945 as the processor @ 3.4Ghz and cant say that I lag in big battles on ultra. Have you installed the Dual Core Optimizer from AMD and got the latest drivers for the graphics card? You should download Defraggler or use the defrag program in windows that aint as good to defrag your HDD. If those dont help I dont rly know what to do :/ OC your card maybe? His GPU is already OC'ed like a beast, 860 is way above stock for a 460, and that card is way more than enough for his resolution. Stock is 675Mhz, EVGA factory OC on the Superclock edition is 763, and the bigger OC EVGA runs is 800 or 810, I believe. | ||
Shagg
Finland825 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:14 JingleHell wrote: Show nested quote + On July 10 2011 05:12 Shagg wrote: On July 09 2011 09:53 geokilla wrote: My system specs are the following, and I'm lagging like hell in the big battles. It's costing me so much games it's so annoying. I already bought a new mouse because my current mouse doesn't cut it anymore as it too lags a lot. I play on 1280X1024 resolution with everything set to high or ultra. My friend said it might be my CPU that's causing the lag, but it doesn't seem like it. According to task manager, when I'm watching replays, my CPU usage never went above 70%. It does however seem that the CPU usage isn't being spread out evenly so the game doesn't seem to have good multi-core support. AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.8Ghz Gigabyte MA770-UD3 Revision 2.1 ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 860/4000 Mushkin DDR2 4GB @ DDR 800 OCZ GameXStream 600W Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Rolling almost same setup tho 500W PSU and Mugen 2 for cooling processor and 945 as the processor @ 3.4Ghz and cant say that I lag in big battles on ultra. Have you installed the Dual Core Optimizer from AMD and got the latest drivers for the graphics card? You should download Defraggler or use the defrag program in windows that aint as good to defrag your HDD. If those dont help I dont rly know what to do :/ OC your card maybe? His GPU is already OC'ed like a beast, 860 is way above stock for a 460, and that card is way more than enough for his resolution. Stock is 675Mhz, EVGA factory OC on the Superclock edition is 763, and the bigger OC EVGA runs is 800 or 810, I believe. Ah yea how didnt I see that XD my bad :p but he should check if he has the Dual-Core Optimizer installed and latest drivers + defrag his hdd. Also run Malwarebytes or other software to check for viruses etc. Got my Evga 768MB SC model clocks at 830/3990. | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:14 mahnini wrote: Show nested quote + On July 10 2011 05:11 ZenGraffix wrote: I play with everything maxed, with the exception of indirect shadows. 1920x1080 Phenom II 4c 2.8ghz, Nvidia 460. 60frames+ all game long. The cpu never goes over 70%, Double Check indirect shadows ... if that doesnt help right click your desktop and choose your Nvidia control panel "adjust image settings with preview" set it to let application decide. Gl is this including large team fights? i don't think a gtx460 would have trouble with any settings at that res and a have a hard time believing a 2.8ghz phenom ii is maxing everything at a consistent 60fps+ Without scenarios, giving an FPS figure is pointless. I have an overclocked 2500k and GTX 460, its definitely not possible to get constant 60+. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:18 skyR wrote: Without scenarios, giving an FPS figure is pointless. I have an overclocked 2500k and GTX 460, its definitely not possible to get constant 60+. http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page7.html That shows a massive CPU bottleneck with a 920@3.7, with minimum frames well below 60, and a 920, even at lower clocks, is straight up faster than those Phenom 2s. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=47 So yeah, proof of concept. | ||
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5962 Posts
On July 10 2011 05:18 skyR wrote: Show nested quote + On July 10 2011 05:14 mahnini wrote: On July 10 2011 05:11 ZenGraffix wrote: I play with everything maxed, with the exception of indirect shadows. 1920x1080 Phenom II 4c 2.8ghz, Nvidia 460. 60frames+ all game long. The cpu never goes over 70%, Double Check indirect shadows ... if that doesnt help right click your desktop and choose your Nvidia control panel "adjust image settings with preview" set it to let application decide. Gl is this including large team fights? i don't think a gtx460 would have trouble with any settings at that res and a have a hard time believing a 2.8ghz phenom ii is maxing everything at a consistent 60fps+ Without scenarios, giving an FPS figure is pointless. I have an overclocked 2500k and GTX 460, its definitely not possible to get constant 60+. Yup, used to run my phenom 550 dual core on 1920 and on stock 3.1 GHz. It rarely if ever dropped below 40 fps but no way you can get constant 60+ with a slower chip. | ||
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
On July 10 2011 04:58 mahnini wrote: question for the 955 owners in this thread. how does it handle big team fights, let's say 150 supply 4v4? or 3v3? or 200/200 2v2? i ve oced my 955 but 2on2 u can play same settings as 1on1, doesnt really matter, 4on4 is a different matter as it lags after certain supply rates but i play only on ultra with some options on lowest (shadows/physics and effects on medium) | ||
h41fgod
Sweden377 Posts
On July 10 2011 04:58 mahnini wrote: question for the 955 owners in this thread. how does it handle big team fights, let's say 150 supply 4v4? or 3v3? or 200/200 2v2? I play a lot of 4v4 and 2v2. Never an issue at all. I have had 4v4 200+200+200+50 on 150+200+200+100 (ish) battles with no issues. @OP: Is your harddrive full? And the fact that your cpu hits 70% is strange, mine doesnt even hit 30%. | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
The CPU only spiked up to 70% like once. It usually hovers around 40%. This was with the replay going a 4X speed, which is obviously more taxing than playing at faster speed. The HDD is nowhere close to full at all. Only C drive is close to full. I defrag and do virus and antispyware scan every week using Disk Defragmenter, Kaspersky Internet Security, and SuperAntiSpyware. Here is the SS of my settings. I didn't play yesterday and I won't be playing today as well as I'm going out in the afternoon, unless something happens like they dip or whatever. Games are only unplayabe when they drop below 30FPS, which is the kind of lag I'm talking about. Mouse lag, I can easily fix with a new mouse. Already got a Razer DeathAdder sitting here. Just not opening it yet because I'm hoping for something to go on sale on Wednesday at NCIX. Also waiting for the new Cooler Master Sentinel mouse. Now that I think about it, if I only lag in games but not in replays, could it be a mouse lag and not the CPU/GPU be causing the lag? | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 10 2011 13:54 geokilla wrote: Now that I think about it, if I only lag in games but not in replays, could it be a mouse lag and not the CPU/GPU be causing the lag? that's quite the detail there. now i just think it's your internet connection. | ||
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
Is it a delay of unit response times? > internet Is it the feeling of sluggishness? > input delay Just low frames? > CPU/GPU not functioning as it should. OP never tried lowering settings and coming back with some feedback... | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On July 10 2011 13:54 geokilla wrote: + Show Spoiler + I'm talking about 1vs1 big battles. I stated in the OP what kind of battles I'm talking about, and the supply amount. The CPU only spiked up to 70% like once. It usually hovers around 40%. This was with the replay going a 4X speed, which is obviously more taxing than playing at faster speed. The HDD is nowhere close to full at all. Only C drive is close to full. I defrag and do virus and antispyware scan every week using Disk Defragmenter, Kaspersky Internet Security, and SuperAntiSpyware. Here is the SS of my settings. I didn't play yesterday and I won't be playing today as well as I'm going out in the afternoon, unless something happens like they dip or whatever. Games are only unplayabe when they drop below 30FPS, which is the kind of lag I'm talking about. Mouse lag, I can easily fix with a new mouse. Already got a Razer DeathAdder sitting here. Just not opening it yet because I'm hoping for something to go on sale on Wednesday at NCIX. Also waiting for the new Cooler Master Sentinel mouse. Now that I think about it, if I only lag in games but not in replays, could it be a mouse lag and not the CPU/GPU be causing the lag? The obvious solution is to turn down the quality settings for everything that doesn't matter (3D portraits, shadow, lighting, etc) and see if anything changes dramatically. Why haven't you tried this. If you've tried turning it down and it still suffers greatly from the same problem, we can perhaps closer determine the problem instead of having a circlejerk about bottlenecks and system specs. Hell, have you checked whether or not you are forcing anti-aliasing through the nVidia drivers? Troubleshooting is easy. All you do is attempt to isolate the problem. If you don't try isolating the problem, it can be a million possible problems with a billion possible solutions - don't they teach this in K-12 science classes? Moderators seriously have to try and force people to stop being vague and putting little effort into solving their problems. Even people saying "build me a system" put so little effort into their posting - the i3/i5 Sandy Bridge builds have been repeated ad nauseum, if you've read the last 10 pages of the Computer Hardware thread you can build a decent machine for close to the lowest price - that I'm surprised other people still try and help them come up with a system. If they're building their own computer, they need to be able to stand on their own two feet and solve basic problems themselves. There is a sticky on the top of the thread yet only 5% of people seem to bother reading it. | ||
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
Your CPU is more then fine, I have a Phenom II X4 965 and never experience any sort of lag in SC II, I cant talk about your graphics card because I am not familiar with it and I want to talk out of experience and not some bullshit test I pulled out of the interwebs. If I was a mod I would ban everyone saying this CPU is the reason for laggs with SCII because this is just stuipidity. Of course Intel is ahead but this AMD Processor is more then capable of handling SC II. Problems you could have are: *) overheating (check your cpu and gpu temperature while running SC II with laggs) which I dont find very likely *) unnecessary background prgograms, disable your antivirus tools and that antimalware tool and other things; you can use programs like Ccleancer toclean up unnecessary files and inspect the windows autostart and clean it up. *) virus or malware; update your software do system checks; reinstall if you think this is the problem )* old/bad drivers remove drivers with special tools and reinstall them; | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
Yes I use CCleaner and yes I have the semi latest drivers. The latest drivers break Folding@Home. And yes I obviously tried turning down the detail a bit before posting. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 10 2011 23:02 geokilla wrote: Do people not read? I said I can't play this weekend. If I can't play, how can I turn down the settings? Yes I use CCleaner and yes I have the semi latest drivers. The latest drivers break Folding@Home. And yes I obviously tried turning down the detail a bit before posting. No, they don't. But that's ok, because people don't put enough detail into their posts for reading to matter anyways. Also, suggestion: Don't be hostile while asking for help, everybody here is a volunteer. | ||
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
on a sidenote, physics and effects turned off / low can help with framerates, same as 3d portrait (useless anyway) from my own experience sometimes it helps to delete the whole documents/starcraft II file, my buddy had "stutters" which went away after that (dont know why) ~ | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On July 10 2011 23:02 geokilla wrote: Do people not read? I said I can't play this weekend. If I can't play, how can I turn down the settings? Yes I use CCleaner and yes I have the semi latest drivers. The latest drivers break Folding@Home. And yes I obviously tried turning down the detail a bit before posting. I don't care if you can't play this weekend, do it when you get home and verify/state everything obvious. The only reason the bottleneck "derail" came up is because you've mentioned so little. So how did turning the settings (turn down CPU heavy settings first, then GPU heavy settings second, I'm assuming you did this?) down help you? I'm convinced that your CPU/GPU combo cannot handle late game Starcraft 2 with those processing settings - after all the Phenom II is just a beefed up Core2Duo and the GPU, while good, probably takes a huge hit from 3D portraits and shiny effects that pop up from late game units (normally protoss). Heck have you checked nVidia's control panel (Forceware?) and verified if you're forcing anti-aliasing and other post-processing features in Starcraft 2? Even if your resolution is so low, if you're forcing anti-aliasing and those quality settings, no wonder your system is struggling. The other people mentioned that your might be having internet problems. If you've tried the other stuff and posted the exact detailed results, we can cross hardware being the problem off and move onto different areas. | ||
Dakk
Sweden572 Posts
On July 09 2011 09:59 rXs wrote: this might be it... DDR3 1333 or 1600 is the standard now... or you could just reduce your settings? If you think having better graphics is better than not lagging then maybe you need an upgrade. I ran SC2 at ultra with a 3-core, 4gb ddr2 ram and a 5850. The RAM is not the issue. It seams as if something here is not working as it should. I need to ask just for sure. You really got the graphics drivers? Is the CPU being detected properly? Something is not working as it should here. | ||
S.O.U.L
Latvia149 Posts
| ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
I don't have any Internet problems. I can stream (rarely do) and play SC2 just fine during non-peak hours. I may get a bit of stream lag, but that's reasonable considering I have only 1mbps upload. Reason I say non-peak is because during peak hours, that's when our crappy Rogers crumbles and everything turns to crap. I only play SC2 during non-peak hours right now, like weekend and mornings and afternoons. As you guys requested, I checked and can verify that I am not forcing AA or anything like that. Yes the CPU and GPU are being used correctly. If it isn't, Folding@Home would be running slow as hell. I freaked out and spent days troubleshooting the last time Folding@Home didn't run properly. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
Even with an i5 750, I'll get stutters sometimes in big phantom battles. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Monitor your FPS with CPU settings where they normally are, and then do it again with CPU settings set to minimum. If your framerate noticeably improves, it's your CPU. If it doesn't, we'll just have to keep working at it. | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
| ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 09:11 Rachnar wrote:+ Show Spoiler + to max the ressources sc2 draws, storm/colossi fire and all lasers and stuff use a LOT, so try and micro a toss army vs a maxed out other toss a cliking to use the most No. Micro=bad. Repeatability=good. Anyways, those would be the things he'd want to use to test if his GPU was causing frame drops. When you're trying to benchmark, you want to be able to closely repeat the test for as close as possible to identical results, and for CPU, high unit count is good, so max zerglings vs max zealots will cause a fairly hefty resource drain that can be a-moved for a fairly similar situation twice in a row. | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
it's just a cliking too :p | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
But if there's something wrong with the CPU like it's locked or something. Then again, he also said it's not going above 70% usage... If only you had dual screens, could play SC2 on one screen, have monitoring apps on another screen, and take a screenshot -_- | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 09:36 Rachnar wrote: ah ok, but in that case i still think maxed out colossi would to it too ^^ it's just a cliking too :p Maxed out colossi have two major issues for testing it. One, they're supply heavy units. You can't pack as many on the field at a time, making it less stress on the CPU. For two, they kill things FAST, so the test duration would be shorter. With Zerglings vs Zealots, it's going to take a bit longer, giving more time to see if the effects are similar or better with different levels of CPU settings. It's basically just efficiency and level of strain. You go for a really harsh scenario to make problems most likely to show themselves, and you maximize the duration of the stress for a sustained test. | ||
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
If the C2D is lagging at 3.7GHZ, you can bet an Athlon X4 3.8GHZ will too. At the settings you're using, I'd recommend Intel, as amd has nothing that compete higher than what you already have(extra cores mean nothing in terms of a lot of games) | ||
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
On July 12 2011 09:58 Element)LoGiC wrote: Without reading any other posts in the thread, I can say with 100% certainty that it is lagging because of your processor. Memory speeds affect performance very negligibly, and your 460 is slightly better than my video card, and I run SC2 on 1920x1200 on high/ultra. I have a core 2 duo at 3.65GHZ overclocked, and I notice that SC2 hits 100% on both cores in large battles and lags. 1280x1024 is one of the very lowest resolutions you can hit, and your graphics card is probably barely even heating up. If the C2D is lagging at 3.7GHZ, you can bet an Athlon X4 3.8GHZ will too. At the settings you're using, I'd recommend Intel, as amd has nothing that compete higher than what you already have(extra cores mean nothing in terms of a lot of games) Uhm he doesn't have a athlon x4. Its a phenom 955, which is quite a bit faster IIRC. And so what if he wants to use AMD? AMD cpus are often cheaper. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 10:12 Coriolis wrote: Show nested quote + On July 12 2011 09:58 Element)LoGiC wrote: Without reading any other posts in the thread, I can say with 100% certainty that it is lagging because of your processor. Memory speeds affect performance very negligibly, and your 460 is slightly better than my video card, and I run SC2 on 1920x1200 on high/ultra. I have a core 2 duo at 3.65GHZ overclocked, and I notice that SC2 hits 100% on both cores in large battles and lags. 1280x1024 is one of the very lowest resolutions you can hit, and your graphics card is probably barely even heating up. If the C2D is lagging at 3.7GHZ, you can bet an Athlon X4 3.8GHZ will too. At the settings you're using, I'd recommend Intel, as amd has nothing that compete higher than what you already have(extra cores mean nothing in terms of a lot of games) Uhm he doesn't have a athlon x4. Its a phenom 955, which is quite a bit faster IIRC. And so what if he wants to use AMD? AMD cpus are often cheaper. AMD is currently being wrecked on everything except IGP performance. Now that the i3 2310 is out, I don't think they even have that slight edge they had where if you wanted a quad core CPU in the ~$400 range you went AMD... And that was barely an edge, since the i3 2100 basically smashed the contenders for it in almost everything that didn't just require 4 physical cores. This isn't really the place for this though. Edit: I brainfarted, 2310 is definitely an i5, not i3, and it's tricky to squeeze into the $400 range without some good bargain sniping. And the 955 vs a similarly clocked C2D is similar performance in anything that isn't taking advantage of the physical cores, so the rest of his point stands reasonably well. | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
| ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 10:30 Rachnar wrote: BTW jinglehell, i was wondering how much more performance would i have from overcloking my x6 1090t ? cant do so right now but in theorie would it change much for games and all ? Results vary depending on the game's CPU requirements. You pretty much have to check on a game-by-game basis. Most non-RTS games you're likely to run into your GPU's limitations rather than your CPU unless you have a really poorly optimized rig. But that also depends on resolution and settings. There's no one answer, basically. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
But, if you already have the equipment, it's definitely worth it... little benefit it may be. | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect2 | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
I kid i kid + Show Spoiler + not | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
But it also has performance in other applications, so it's still nice. And the bench I posted earlier in the thread shows CPU performance for SC2 specifically. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
Oh... lol... some of the colors look so similar. Nvm | ||
Madoga
Netherlands471 Posts
You have to go down the list systematically to see whats going on. They should've organized that chart differently. At jingle below: Yes, it is . | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The 955 is dead last or near the bottom on the tests. Is it bad that nearly all of my bookmarks are some sort of benchmark results or articles related to computer parts? | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
and yeah it would be basicly for rts games (sc2, civ5, maybe bf3 when it comes out) i guess i will overclock to 4ghz as i have a decent cooling system, and i've found a tutorial on how to do it exactly | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 11:35 Rachnar wrote: lol idk depends on what you consider bad :p and yeah it would be basicly for rts games (sc2, civ5, maybe bf3 when it comes out) i guess i will overclock to 4ghz as i have a decent cooling system, and i've found a tutorial on how to do it exactly Did you find a tutorial, or someone's settings? Bear in mind, the method is more important than the specific settings, because unless your chips are from the same batch, mileage can and will vary significantly. Hell, even within a batch it can vary a good deal. I wouldn't shoot straight for 4Ghz, either, OC a small amount your first go at it, just to get more familiar with it, test for a couple hours stability, and see how your temps do, then see how high you can push stable without a VCore increase, test for longer stability, like overnight, and then work your way up from there in small increments. You'll probably hit a wall where continuing to increase the clock isn't worth the increased voltage at some point. That's the part that really varies chip by chip. And 4Ghz on a 1090T is probably a bit near extreme. | ||
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
Maybe you have to many bloated applications hogging resources. My build is below (your is way better than mine and i run on ultra) AMD Phenom II x3 700e 2.4 GHz (OC'd to 2.8 GHz) Radeon HD 5670 512 MB @ stock settings Cheap 2GB DDR2 800 RAM 250 watt old PSU (pulled from a dell GX280) So you really should have no issues. Maybe you should try re-installing your os. idk. :/ | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
i wont want to do it TOO much anyways as im rather glad of my computer overall, only prob is on ultra when i stream, in the lategame i go down to ~25 fps, which isnt the best, and to pass from 25 to 30+ fps you really feel the difference | ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 11:43 Rachnar wrote: yeah i saw the guy advises to do small overclock first and test with that, and increase it bit by bit for the first try i wont want to do it TOO much anyways as im rather glad of my computer overall, only prob is on ultra when i stream, in the lategame i go down to ~25 fps, which isnt the best, and to pass from 25 to 30+ fps you really feel the difference Well, don't forget to give your memory some love while you're in there, it's not huge, but it can and does provide a bit of a difference, and every little bit helps for tasks like that. | ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
http://www.msi.com/product/mb/GF615M-P33.html | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On July 12 2011 11:57 skyR wrote: 4 phase cooling, don't expect much from it. I'd actually advise not trying at all since low-end MSI AMD boards are known to blow up... Yup, especially with X6's. | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
| ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
| ||
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 12 2011 12:34 Rachnar wrote: it's a x6 1090t black edition, they're "made" for overclocking contrarly to the other non black edition The motherboard is NOT a black edition is what they're getting at... or designed for use with one, more accurately. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On July 12 2011 12:36 Womwomwom wrote: Irrelevant, they're all still 125W TDP processors - the only difference is an unlocked multiplier and probably better chip binning. Most of these low end AMD motherboards weren't designed for something as power intensive as the high end AMD processors. And especially not on MSI VRMs. | ||
iloveav
Poland1463 Posts
You probably have something blocking your CPU. Might be: Temps, virus, physx running on cpu instead of gpu, 2 many services of windows running... A bit hard to say really. A good way to find out, si to get a game you had when u first turned on the PC, and see if it runs at same speed as you remmber or if it runs slower (assuming that its possible, and that you remmber). "Tokadub" : A GTX 560 Ti is not much better than a 460. In fact its based on the 460, and sc2 is more cpu intensive than GPU. After all the unit movement, etc is calculated by cpu. P.S. There is a chance however, there is nothing wrong with your computer, and the lag of the other players backfires on you. Its the Price of the battle.net 2.0. When 5 gamers are slowing down the game, the inconsistency in the packages you recive in your router makes their lag break your gaming fluency. This does not happen in 1v1 as the calculations and packages are far smaller. Dont forget that the games are based on a battle.net server, and not linked directly to the player. Eventually this means, that if a player has a cpu that slows the game, you have to wait untill the calculations are done, those reach the battle.net server, and then bounce to you. Alternativly, there is a chance that you will get a empty signal from b.net, but if a command issued before that by the player reaches the server, this will show a lagging player (disconecting screen). You could use a 1 player vs CPU custom map to see what is the best quality you can use. I hope this might be of some help. | ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
| ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
| ||
JimmyD
United States67 Posts
Check your background settings? Your GPU drivers? | ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On July 28 2011 05:31 JimmyD wrote: I play with a Phenom X4 9750 at 2.4GHz, and a 5850 on low, with GPU folding, hosting a Skype call, MSN, and Foobar2000 at 1920x1080, and get 40-60fps at all times. Check your background settings? Your GPU drivers? Turn up the CPU-related graphics settings like physics calculations (or just everything since the HD 5850 can handle all that) and see how you do. Or maybe he gets into bigger battles than you do lol. | ||
JimmyD
United States67 Posts
On July 28 2011 08:04 Myrmidon wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2011 05:31 JimmyD wrote: I play with a Phenom X4 9750 at 2.4GHz, and a 5850 on low, with GPU folding, hosting a Skype call, MSN, and Foobar2000 at 1920x1080, and get 40-60fps at all times. Check your background settings? Your GPU drivers? Turn up the CPU-related graphics settings like physics calculations (or just everything since the HD 5850 can handle all that) and see how you do. Or maybe he gets into bigger battles than you do lol. I like low quality. Either go full or nothing, really. | ||
| ||
Next event in 4h 37m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Leta 224 Dota 2Dewaltoss 222 Shine 186 Bale 104 MisO 85 GoRush 69 Shinee 33 Terrorterran 26 Sexy 19 ForGG 12 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • practicex 52 StarCraft: Brood War• aXEnki • intothetv • Gussbus • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • Poblha League of Legends Other Games |
StarsWar
Maru vs Stats
Cure vs Classic
Solar vs GuMiho
ByuN vs herO
Big Brain Bouts
BSL
TerrOr vs XuanXuan
Dark vs JDConan
Korean StarCraft League
StarsWar
WardiTV Invitational
CSO Cup
ForJumy Cup
BSL
Zhanhun vs WolFix
Dienmax vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] StarsWar
WardiTV Invitational
ESL Open Cup
Afreeca Starleague
StarsWar
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
Afreeca Starleague
StarsWar
Club NV x Duckling Show…
GSL Code S
Stats vs SHIN
Cure vs GuMiho
|
|