Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (86 users) | |
|
| geokilla Canada. July 09 2011 09:53. Posts 1470 | Profile # |
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+ |
|
|
| Alabasern United States. July 09 2011 09:55. Posts 2818 | Profile Blog # |
I'm no expert but your GPU is the bottleneck.
User was warned for this post |
| |
|
 JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 09:57. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
His GPU isn't the bottleneck, or even close, especially at that resolution.
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 09:59:32 |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| rXs July 09 2011 09:59. Posts 223 | Profile # |
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. |
| | "you play hard to get; I play hard to get rid of." |
|
|
| Alabasern United States. July 09 2011 09:59. Posts 2818 | Profile Blog # |
Driver complications or hardware problems?
|
| |
|
| Bambipwnsu Canada. July 09 2011 10:00. Posts 628 | Profile Blog # |
Post some s/s of system under load with temperature readings...
run prime95 with coretemp/cpuz open
run furmark |
| |
|
| Trumpstyle Sweden. July 09 2011 10:02. Posts 99 | Profile # |
| 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%. |
|
|
| geokilla Canada. July 09 2011 10:11. Posts 1470 | Profile # |
Load temperatures never go above 60C for both CPU and GPU. I run Folding@Home when I'm not gaming so it's definitely not overheating. If it was overheating, my PPD would've dropped dramatically. And yes Folding@Home is turned off when I game.
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 Canada. July 09 2011 10:11. Posts 628 | Profile Blog # |
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:13:14 |
| |
|
| JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 10:15. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
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.
Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:17:14 |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| Hokay United States. July 09 2011 10:19. Posts 673 | Profile # |
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:24:11 |
|
|
| JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 10:22. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
Ok... until the OP states what game situations he's slowing down in, can we stop talking about what does and doesn't work in potentially different situations? For all we know, he could be having trouble on Kulas Extreme...
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:24:42 |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| geokilla Canada. July 09 2011 10:23. Posts 1470 | Profile # |
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...Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:26:13 |
|
|
| JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 10:27. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
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. |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| Peekay.switch Canada. July 09 2011 10:44. Posts 285 | Profile Blog # |
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. |
|
|
| JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 10:50. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
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. |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| geokilla Canada. July 09 2011 10:58. Posts 1470 | Profile # |
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 10:59:06 |
|
|
| JingleHell United States. July 09 2011 11:01. Posts 11262 | Profile Blog # |
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.Last edit: 2011-07-09 11:08:41 |
| | http://jinglehelltech.blogspot.com -- Pics of my rig in Profile |
|
|
| theBlues El Salvador. July 09 2011 13:13. Posts 621 | Profile Blog # |
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...
Last edit: 2011-07-09 13:16:41 |
| | Change a vote, and change the world |
|
|
| Tokadub United States. July 09 2011 13:19. Posts 168 | Profile # |
Maybe you have a virus or a ton of background applications running that you don't know about?
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...
Last edit: 2011-07-09 13:26:02 |
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
