EPT2. Check temperatures of your hardware (GPU) under load
3. Your voltages are fine. 12V is getting a bit low, but that shouldn't the problem here.
4. Give SC2 a higher priority in task manager.
32bit vs 64bit Win7 for SC2 - Page 2
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
2. Check temperatures of your hardware (GPU) under load 3. Your voltages are fine. 12V is getting a bit low, but that shouldn't the problem here. 4. Give SC2 a higher priority in task manager. | ||
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
Just a guess here since the rest of your components are beastly  | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
| ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosquo
Germany154 Posts
On September 15 2010 10:38 Melancholia wrote: Also, you should get a GHz reading while running SC2, I had a problem that seems similar that turned out to be because my CPU was being throttled. On a side note, if hertz are cycles per second and RPM is rotations per minute, shouldn't a 2.8 GHz processor have 168000000 RPM? I know my interpretation must be wrong, but this seems to run against what makes sense intuitively. Afaik, the rpm number the ASUS probe displays is for the CPU fan. | ||
|
NeVeR
1352 Posts
| ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
On September 15 2010 16:23 Chaosquo wrote: Afaik, the rpm number the ASUS probe displays is for the CPU fan. Ah. Well, we don't need that. | ||
|
Draken
Canada61 Posts
I remember seeing some benchmarks of different processors / video cards running SC2, and in this case i would say the bottleneck is your processor. In fact I am pretty sure of it. 2.8 is good for 1680x1200 and such, but for 1900x it is a bit at the limit of what is necessary to run the game smoothly on high. The video card is fine, just overclock your processor to 3.5ish and you should see a clear difference. | ||
|
NathanSC
United States620 Posts
On September 15 2010 17:51 Draken wrote: Before wasting your time with anything else, try to OC your processor. I remember seeing some benchmarks of different processors / video cards running SC2, and in this case i would say the bottleneck is your processor. In fact I am pretty sure of it. 2.8 is good for 1680x1200 and such, but for 1900x it is a bit at the limit of what is necessary to run the game smoothly on high. The video card is fine, just overclock your processor to 3.5ish and you should see a clear difference. Starcraft 2 sees little benefit in frame rate beyond 2 cores. His processor is a quad core. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2 Besides, the engine for Starcraft 2 only uses the CPU for physics. The rest is the GPU. Overclocking, while an option, is not the likely solution. The only circumstance I'd be inclined to agree that overclocking is the solution is if Starcraft 2 only has affinity with 2 cores, which I haven't read anywhere yet. Research into overclocking shows the opposite is true, and you gain very little benefit in terms of FPS. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/3 | ||
|
Draken
Canada61 Posts
Yes SC2 don't take advantage of multicore beyond 2, you will get more performance from a dual 3.4 than a quad 2.8, and this is exactly why OCing efficient (when the processor is the bottleneck), because ultimately all that matters is the speed and not the number of processors. The solution is to OC to a higher speed. | ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
Ryps
Romania2740 Posts
Try Overclocking your CPU to 3.4 and it should make a difference. Should run on Ultra without low FPS. | ||
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
Easy question...you plugged your GPU's auxillary power in right? | ||
|
Toyomaha
United States144 Posts
Also, I was having issues with my RAM and I ran the Windows Memory Diagnostic and it failed. I would run it just in case and make sure that your memory is fine. These are just 2 problems I had that may be helpful to you b/c they sound somewhat similar to the issues you are having. Good luck! | ||
|
Providence
United States125 Posts
I did recently go from 4gb to 8gb, where oddly the only improvement I see was in the campaign premission screens on the hyperion. So odd how SC2 works. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
I just build a new PC as well( 4 days ago) similar spec as yours only with a Phenom II X4 965 and a GTX 460 and I'm play above 60fps all the time at Ultra setting. What I suggest now is: Format the hard disk, install a fresh version of Win7 (32 or 64 doesnt matter). Install all the lastest driver for your hardware Then If it still lag, you may want to borrow your friend's graphic card and try it on your system. I cant think of any problems beside unstable graphic card and software problem( that's why your need a format). Its not the process for sure. Blizzard is famous of making beautiful game with least demanding hardware and the Phenom II is a powerful CPU. Edit: My specs in case you need a reference. Same MB as you ASUS 870TD.... Phenom II X4 965 Asus GTX 460 1GB 1TB Western Digital 6GB/s Sata 3 (forget the exact name so I put some info of my HD on) 4GB RAM DDR3 Win 7 Ultimate 64bit | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
They use 1v7 AI with "several dozen units". They article also calls their settings "Very High" when they should have gone into more detail if the settings were Ultra or High, shaders, shadows, etc. Again Bit-tech, much like Guru3D, is not very transparent about their settings. Also they do not mention creep highways, motherships, water maps, air units (shadows), or anything else that would put their benchmark in context. The few sites that did do CPU overclocking (LegionHW, PCGameHW, and especially Techspot) - all show very good gains for CPU overclocking. The other thing to note is that Bit-Tech is doing 2-core vs. 4-core on Gulf-town chip. If they wanted relevant, real-world results they should have compared either Clarkdales or Wolfdales, which are the best dual-core chips on the market. If they had tested with either of those, their conclusions at least would have had some merit - but since they "synthesized" a 2-core (out of a true 6-core Gulftown), then really their benchmark is not really meaningful. They are other more suspect lines in that article like this: We used an Intel Core i7-980X to maximise the core count available, but we disabled Hyper-threading and power saving states. A Hyper-threading core is not a 'real' core, it's just a piece of software trickery that opens up 'what's left' of the available CPU pipeline so could easily have created inconsistencies in our tests. We ran the game entirely run from the hard disk - no slower optical media was involved. Why in the world are they bringing up optical media? I'm mean wow, how far as bit-tech fallen? | ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
Do amd cpus still need the dual core fix shit installed? | ||
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
On September 16 2010 00:08 Providence wrote: I'm starting to wonder if it's the AMD processor. My brother has the same issue with his pc, get huge dips in fps during large engagements even on low setting (same issue whether on low or ultra settings), yet my laptop with an intel processor (inferior in every way to his comp build) is able to play steadily even in max supply 4v4 games. From what I'm seeing, the only common denominator is that it's an AMD processor. I also have a desktop which uses a GTX 260, same as his, but mine still works very well. I did recently go from 4gb to 8gb, where oddly the only improvement I see was in the campaign premission screens on the hyperion. So odd how SC2 works. I run an AMD Phenom II x4. No problems here. | ||
| ||
