EPT£1500 Computer not living up to potiental? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
| ||
|
Sgany
United Kingdom790 Posts
OC to 4.5 on air, ( use alcohol/wipe off ) spread a dot of x23-7783 paste ( works better than silver ) go into bios to disable cpu throttling ( there's 2 options there ) one drops the multiplier, the other one halts execution... Is my current setup able to handle such a high Overclocking? I am not experienced with any kind of overclocking and do not have any of this paste or any kind currently. | ||
|
PhiGgoT
Vietnam151 Posts
| ||
|
ProjectVirtue
Canada360 Posts
my rig is pretty similar, but from 2 years ago, i had to get a kw PSU to supply computers hunger for energy =\ (course i'm overclocking from 2.4 to 4.0 which eats more but yeah) | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
he does have an ACF7... he could raise it a tiny bit to 3.5 -4.00 | ||
Aesop
Hungary11305 Posts
1) I personally don't think overclocking your CPU will fix anything. Your low framerate doesn't result from not overclocking your CPU. 2) Did you try any regular video benchmarks? I am out of touch with what benchmarks to use, but if you look at GFX / CPU reviews, you might find a few. If your system is also underperforming there, it might be a general problem, if not, it should be related to SC2. | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
the other one will temporarily halt execution | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
| ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
The stock i7 950 is inferior or simply equal to the stock Lynnfields (i5 760 and i7 870) on socket 1156 simply because the Lynnfields have a much more aggressive turbo boost. Its also part of the reason why you see the Lynnfields annihilating AMD in game related benchmarks since its never running at its "stock" speeds. You shouldn't be too surprised about 40-60 FPS ingame because Starcraft 2 isn't threaded enough for the processor to show its true power unfortunately... A GTX580 isn't going to change much seeing how CPU dependent RTS and strategy games are. What you can do to improve ingame performance is by turning off some useless settings like animated unit portraits, which for me was the thing that made ultra unplayable to playable. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On January 28 2011 23:55 Womwomwom wrote: Doesn't particularly sound like your system is "underperforming" that greatly, its exactly the reason why there is little point buying high end computer hardware for games these days. Starcraft 2 only manges to use two cores so its heavily dependent on clock speed, which means the 8 threads on your processor are absolutely useless. The stock i7 950 is inferior or simply equal to the stock Lynnfields (i5 760 and i7 870) on socket 1156 simply because the Lynnfields have a much more aggressive turbo boost; the reason people buy socket 1366 is for PCI lanes. Its also part of the reason why you see the Lynnfields annihilating AMD in game related benchmarks since its never running at its "stock" speeds. A GTX580 isn't going to change much seeing how CPU dependent RTS and strategy games are. What you can do to improve ingame performance is by turning off some useless settings like animated unit portraits, which for me was the thing that made ultra unplayable to playable. It does come with HT as a feature ( can be disabled to run the cpu cooler and allow you to OC a tiny bit more if not )...the i7(nehalem ones) at 2.66 is equal to the phenom ii at 3.25 as for instructions per clock that video card should draw less power than the 480 due to optimization yeah, sc2 is mostly cpu the turbo function can be turned off in bios power saving features will slow the comp down (found in bios press F8 or whatever that brings up a blue screen at start) | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Power saving features should be largely irrelevant to computer performance and I doubt his PSU is inadequate. This isn't AMD having trouble with Cool n Quiet, we're talking about today's Intel and a guy who bought a ROG motherboard. For such high quality settings, I'm not surprised he's "only" getting this performance and I don't see how everyone has come to the conclusion that his computer is severely underperforming - it isn't and if you think it is, it has less to do with his computer and more to do with Starcraft 2 itself: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/37789-nvidia-geforce-gtx-580-review-16.html http://techreport.com/articles.x/19934/11 This is with a i7 920 at 4ghz and a i7 965, respectively, mind you. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20 This is with Anandtech turning the settings to pretty much the bare minimum (1024 x 768 at medium quality settings) to test the Sandy Bridge processors in a 3v3 battle. The max these got were around 60, and these processors are as fast as the i7 980x in single threaded tasks. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
The FPS seems about right based on what he's telling us if he's really running the game at maximum... ( from those two pictures you linked... ) unless he tells us he's running at 1920x1080 ( takes only half the processing power compared to 2560x1600 ) | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
Just because it turns on doesn't mean its at peak performance. | ||
|
Basic
Canada288 Posts
My suggestion would be trying to get your hands on a better power supply. Ebay will get you one for around $100 if you are looking in the right places. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On January 29 2011 02:56 purecarnagge wrote: you guys keep referencing othre processors and other tests and blah blah. All of those computers had more than a 600w PSU. He needs to be at 800. I don't know how the hell he thought he could get by on 600w PSU. Just because it turns on doesn't mean its at peak performance. You shouldn't be giving tech advice if you think a corsair 600w can't run a single GTX 580 and a 1366. You think these two components pull 300 each or something? Cause let me tell you, they don't... | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1601 Posts
PSU is a bit on the weak side, but probably only 10% chance of being a problem. If you're not overheating then... It is because this game is designed to only utilize 2 cores at a time. In reality it only uses one mainly. So, no matter how much shit we all shove into a case it won't greatly improve your performance. | ||
|
eight.BiT
United States240 Posts
From:http://www.anandtech.com/show/4012/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580-the-sli-update ![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4012/33985.png) Which would mean the GTX580 would be too much for a 600w? | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
| ||
|
eight.BiT
United States240 Posts
On January 29 2011 04:15 mav451 wrote: The GTX580 is represented by the orange bar. Their test system is a i7 920 @3.3Ghz. Ah, I was looking at the bottom GTX580SLI. Oops. | ||
| ||
