EPTOn September 15 2010 12:42 FragKrag wrote:
Hard drive has nothing to do with frame rates
Hard drive has nothing to do with frame rates
It can, but I'll agree that in this case, it does not.
32bit vs 64bit Win7 for SC2 - Page 3
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
It can, but I'll agree that in this case, it does not. | ||
|
Snuggles
United States1865 Posts
My friend has the same exact problem. The SAME exact problem. And we fixed it. for some weird ass reason if you're using a 32-bit OS, the CPU will not run properly. I do not understand why, I am not a computer guru, yet out of luck of the draw we fixed it. Just upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit and it will run perfectly fine. My friend was using XP 32bit, with an even better processor than yours, a similiar video card in terms of performance, yet he had horrible lag even in games like WoW. I can practically guarantee you that if you upgrade to 64 bit, your problem will be solved. Seeing how no one else but you and my friend have this problem, I'm really excited I that I can help you because I'm not a crazy techy guy hehe. EDIT: Btw, my computer guru friend who fixed the problem said something about it having to do with a 32-bit OS not allowing an AMD quadcore use all 4 cores, instead only 2, so a 64-Bit OS fixes that. I don't think he even understood why it didn't allow the quadcore to run properly, but we've tested it and it was indeed the problem with the OS. | ||
|
Jakalo
Latvia2350 Posts
| ||
|
ArbAttack
Canada198 Posts
Stop listening to all these bad advice because this I know from experience: GTX260 is your bottleneck. Wouldn't matter even if you pair up a i7-980X with your GPU, those framerates are what you'll get. Simple as that. CPU, PSU, RAM, HDD, etc. all have nothing to do with your problem. Want better framerates at 1920x1080 on med-high? Get a better GPU. | ||
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
On September 16 2010 03:53 Snuggles wrote: Dude, please read my post man. My friend has the same exact problem. The SAME exact problem. And we fixed it. for some weird ass reason if you're using a 32-bit OS, the CPU will not run properly. I do not understand why, I am not a computer guru, yet out of luck of the draw we fixed it. Just upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit and it will run perfectly fine. My friend was using XP 32bit, with an even better processor than yours, a similiar video card in terms of performance, yet he had horrible lag even in games like WoW. I can practically guarantee you that if you upgrade to 64 bit, your problem will be solved. Seeing how no one else but you and my friend have this problem, I'm really excited I that I can help you because I'm not a crazy techy guy hehe. EDIT: Btw, my computer guru friend who fixed the problem said something about it having to do with a 32-bit OS not allowing an AMD quadcore use all 4 cores, instead only 2, so a 64-Bit OS fixes that. I don't think he even understood why it didn't allow the quadcore to run properly, but we've tested it and it was indeed the problem with the OS. Dude it seems like this guy may have your answer. Side note for those of you who don't know, 32 bit editions can also only utilize about ~3.7-3.9 gigs of RAM(the remainder if you have 4 is hidden by either BIOS or Windows allocating it somewhere). You need 64bit for fully utilizing multiple cores, 4+ gigs of RAM, etc. Other fun fact...most major software is not yet programmed to utilize the other 32bits in the bus(32+32=64, or, 64 bit bus. Twice as much room for the processor to chat with the other hardware) So while SC2, Windows, and some choice software is programmed to take advantage of the 64 bit bus and the extra cores, most stuff(Firefox, for example) does not actually use the extra resources available, and in some cases, will run worse on it. | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
... DUDE. ... DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE! That really stops looking like a word when you see it too much. | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10342 Posts
Fact: StarCraft II will not run any "better" on 64 bit hardware. 64 bit Windows runs 32 bit applications (such as StarCraft II) in an emulation layer called Wow (Windows on Windows). There is very little performance hit from this, but definitely no benefit. Unless a program is specifically built as a 64 bit binary (99% of the programs you use, including all your games, are 32 bit), it will neither use 64 processor instructions nor be able to use more than 2 GB of RAM. Fact: Windows will only use up to 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit system, minus reserved memory ranges. Upgrading to 64 bit will allow Windows access to the full amount of your RAM, however, individual programs are limited to addressing 2GB at most unless they are 64 bit programs. Thus, 64 bit Windows lets you run more programs at once if your programs use a lot of memory. On that note however, due to the word size, 64 bit programs will consume slightly more memory than their 32 bit counterparts. Fact: Anything newer than Windows ME is able to use multiple cores just perfectly, including Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc. 32 bit or 64 bit has no influence on this at all. Fact: 64 bit is not "faster" than 32 bit. It just provides a larger address size for 64 bit programs to be able to access more address space (memory). With hand optimization, some algorithms will perform faster on 64 bit hardware due to extra registers, but the difference is negligible for most programs. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
 Anyways R1CH is right is the theme. 64bit games are a few in numbers like Crysis, and usually it requires you to look up where to download the 64bit version of it. The Larger memory allocation is a benefit to things like a 2+SLI/Crossfire set up but usually the benefit is nullified by not as many optimizations as the original version of the game. | ||
|
Draken
Canada61 Posts
Is there any drawbacks to getting the 64 version? | ||
|
Snuggles
United States1865 Posts
On September 16 2010 05:10 R1CH wrote: God, so much misinformation in this thread from "friends" and what not. Fact: StarCraft II will not run any "better" on 64 bit hardware. 64 bit Windows runs 32 bit applications (such as StarCraft II) in an emulation layer called Wow (Windows on Windows). There is very little performance hit from this, but definitely no benefit. Unless a program is specifically built as a 64 bit binary (99% of the programs you use, including all your games, are 32 bit), it will neither use 64 processor instructions nor be able to use more than 2 GB of RAM. Fact: Windows will only use up to 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit system, minus reserved memory ranges. Upgrading to 64 bit will allow Windows access to the full amount of your RAM, however, individual programs are limited to addressing 2GB at most unless they are 64 bit programs. Thus, 64 bit Windows lets you run more programs at once if your programs use a lot of memory. On that note however, due to the word size, 64 bit programs will consume slightly more memory than their 32 bit counterparts. Fact: Anything newer than Windows ME is able to use multiple cores just perfectly, including Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc. 32 bit or 64 bit has no influence on this at all. Fact: 64 bit is not "faster" than 32 bit. It just provides a larger address size for 64 bit programs to be able to access more address space (memory). With hand optimization, some algorithms will perform faster on 64 bit hardware due to extra registers, but the difference is negligible for most programs. Duuuuu- j/k lol Wait so having the wrong kind of OS isn't the problem? Or maybe its not the real problem? I'm practically computer illiterate when it comes to CPU and whatnot, so please forgive me =(. Although we have fixed our friends computer, (went from 15 frames on low to like 100+ on ultra), it'd be nice to figure out what the hell was wrong with the thing. I mean we literally ran out of ideas, and decided to randomly upgrade the OS from XP 32bit to Windows 7 64bit. Even now me and my buddy are scratching our heads as to what was wrong. But from reading the OP it definitely sounded like we have the same exact problem. If I'm reading what R1CH said right, than basically whatever OS you have greater than ME 32bit or 64 bit will not have any effect on the game application, and there should be no problems with having the CPU being utilized to its fullest extent. While me and my friend were trying to fix his computer we had this graph-like program to keep track of fan speed, CPU usage, etc. At first we tested things out using World of Warcraft. Going in between 2 cities in WoW, Dalaran and Stormwind City we found that in Dalaran, a city with a lot of CPU intensive things going on, only 20-30% of the CPU was being used up resulting in a ton of lag, in Stormwind City, a city with a lot less things going on, the normal 50 - 60% CPU usage was being used up. Going onto Starcraft, the game would lag horribly (even on low settings) as more and more units flooded the map, however, only 20-30% of the CPU would be used. Normally for a computer to be bottlenecked by its CPU, the CPU should be running at 100% all the time trying to desperately keep up right? When we switched to Windows 7 it was at its normal 50 - 60%, and ran smoothly all sorts of different graphics settings because we had a good graphics card all along the ride. So even if it is a fact that the OS and whether or not 64 bit and 32 bit doesn't have anything to do with it... changing the OS did fix the lag issues... somehow. Hopefully we can pinpoint the cause, because I don't think many people are aware of this problem (google searched the crap out of this problem already). If the OP changes his OS and solves his problem in that way, then we'll know for sure. If it doesn't fix it, then jeez what could it be. I know that I'm not a very good reliable source of information seeing how I'm not a computer guru of any sort, but all that testing we did is legitimate. After all we did spend 3 weeks of our spare time trying to fix his computer so he could go raiding in WoW and do 3v3's on SC2 =_= | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
Well, if your computer doesn't support 64 bit architecture it won't work at all. For the most part 32 bit and 64 bit will run just the same, if you have less than 4GBs of RAM there's not much reason to care as far as I know. | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10342 Posts
On September 16 2010 06:06 Snuggles wrote: Wait so having the wrong kind of OS isn't the problem? Or maybe its not the real problem? I'm practically computer illiterate when it comes to CPU and whatnot, so please forgive me =(. Although we have fixed our friends computer, (went from 15 frames on low to like 100+ on ultra), it'd be nice to figure out what the hell was wrong with the thing. I mean we literally ran out of ideas, and decided to randomly upgrade the OS from XP 32bit to Windows 7 64bit. Even now me and my buddy are scratching our heads as to what was wrong. But from reading the OP it definitely sounded like we have the same exact problem. I imagine this is much more the result of going from a multiple year old XP install loaded down with background crap, old drivers, leftover programs, etc to a completely clean Windows 7 install with the latest drivers for everything than having anything to do with the OS itself. Sure, Windows 7 has some newer technologies and kernel improvements that make it slightly faster, but you won't see huge drastic changes such as 15fps to 100fps just from an OS change. Most likely you had some messed up drivers on the XP install. | ||
|
SONE
Canada839 Posts
EDIT: clean all video* drivers. | ||
|
deViation-
Canada85 Posts
Comment that might help you guys in pinpointing the problem: When I installed my new Motherboard, CPU and RAM, I simply transfered my hard drive from my old computer to my new and connected them using the SATA cables. They worked immediately with the first boot (although a bunch of updates via Win7 installed themselves, like USB drivers, etc) Could this be a problem? Or should it not matter? Alot of you asked questions, here are the answers: Give SC2 a higher priority in task manager. Cool idea, will try that.What about your hard drive? The Caviar Greens have a decent buffer 32MB but it only runs at 5200RPM. I bet that's your problem. Try upgrading to a faster 7200RPM drive and you should see improvements. I was using the same hard drive on my previous computer and I was not having the same problems. I highly doubt its the hard drive, unless AMD motherboards act differently with hard drives vs Intel motherboards.With that kind of a system, why would you not opt for a 64-bit OS? My version of Win7 is semi-legit. I got the 32-bit version because my previous system was not able to run on 64-bit. Upon upgrading my motherboard, RAM and CPU, I didn't bother to change from 32bit to 64bit.Before wasting your time with anything else, try to OC your processor. I will try this option if nothing else works, but my dualcore@1.86GHz didn't have any problems, so I fail to see why my quadcore@2.8Ghz would be a bottleneck.For the record, you are using dual channel ram, on a 32bit Operating system that only supports 3.25 GB of ram. Thanks, but I was already aware of this, as shows my second post on page 1 of this thread.What FPS are you getting? i believe ctrl-alt-f shows your FPS in starcraft2, also try disabling some settings that can cause severe performance issues for some setups like VSYNC. FPS shows a max of 20, which drops down to 15 and sometimes lower during battles. I get 20 FPS at the start too, while looking at my 6 SCVs when its not graphically intense at all.Easy question...you plugged your GPU's auxillary power in right? Yes, I plugged in 2 6-pin PCI-e power connectors directly into the video card.I originally had an Nvidia card in my build and it just didn't jive with the AMD. So, I returned that card and installed an ATI and now it runs like a champ (knock on wood). Has anyone else experienced problems with Nivia and AMD combinations?Do amd cpus still need the dual core fix shit installed? I have no idea what this dual core fix shit is, if it was required I didn't install it.Try setting power options at high performance. Will try this.GTX260 is your bottleneck. Wouldn't matter even if you pair up a i7-980X with your GPU, those framerates are what you'll get. In my previous system I had the same video card, and I was getting better framerates than currently. Although I will take your comment as a possible cause.If you just bought it, why didnt you go for a GTX460 I bought the video card around 4 months ago before the GTX460's price was reduced. | ||
|
Draken
Canada61 Posts
I will try this option if nothing else works, but my dualcore@1.86GHz didn't have any problems, so I fail to see why my quadcore@2.8Ghz would be a bottleneck. Correct me if i am wrong, but you are using higher resolution and settings than your previous setup thus you can't really compare the two. (I am actually very surprised you can run SC2 smoothly on a 1.8 in the first place.) | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
| ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On September 16 2010 08:25 deViation- wrote: I'd like to thank everyone trying to help me solve my problem. Comment that might help you guys in pinpointing the problem: When I installed my new Motherboard, CPU and RAM, I simply transfered my hard drive from my old computer to my new and connected them using the SATA cables. They worked immediately with the first boot (although a bunch of updates via Win7 installed themselves, like USB drivers, etc) Could this be a problem? Or should it not matter? This must be it. You brought the hard disk from the old system to your new system so there is a very good chance that you got some serious driver conflict and as Rich said many left over from previous program. Really, do a clean install of Win7 and see what happen. For the record, GTX260 is a powerful card, no way it is your bottleneck. Even if it is, it wouldn't be this serious. You can at least run SC2 on High smoothly! | ||
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
you can check your ping speed with pingtest.net I was having horrible lag, and when i got a VPN to get out of my Uni's connection limitations, lag disappeared. because other than that, your computer seems fine. | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10342 Posts
| ||
|
QuothTheRaven
United States5524 Posts
On September 16 2010 07:04 R1CH wrote: I imagine this is much more the result of going from a multiple year old XP install loaded down with background crap, old drivers, leftover programs, etc to a completely clean Windows 7 install with the latest drivers for everything than having anything to do with the OS itself. Sure, Windows 7 has some newer technologies and kernel improvements that make it slightly faster, but you won't see huge drastic changes such as 15fps to 100fps just from an OS change. Most likely you had some messed up drivers on the XP install. I can't stress enough how absolutely massive the performance gain can be with a fresh windows install. If you go from a 5-10 year old XP install to a fresh XP install, it can be like getting a whole new computer. | ||
| ||
