|
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.
|
+ Show Spoiler +[
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...
|
WTF Did you do to the formatting of that post? Trying to quote you it died hardcore.
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.
|
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.)
|
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...
|
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.
|
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.
|
resolution shouldn't really effect cpu performance as far as i know and a 3.8ghz phenom ii should be pretty capable of pretty high settings, but you find out what's wrong through process of elimination.
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%
|
It's not the CPU bottlenecking for sure and I can actually back that up.
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.
|
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.
|
Make sure indirect shadows is off... I have almost the same system and I run at 1920x1080 with Np Leave Vsync disabled.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.htmlShould 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!
|
I play with everything maxed, with the exception of indirect shadows. 1920x1080 Phenom II 4c 2.8ghz, Nvidia gtx460. 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
|
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
|
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+
|
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.
|
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.
|
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+.
|
|
|
|