EPTSimple Questions Simple Answers - Page 234
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20300 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
My post stated that i have a 212+ in the second line, too. I'm asking if the H50 would be a significant upgrade from the 212+, one that is worth paying $35 for, if I use it with push/pull fans that i already have (so no "well youd have to buy some fans to make it better", the cm blademasters is a terrible fan anyways). | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Edit: That includes the Hyper 212+. | ||
|
domane
Canada1606 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On November 19 2012 02:34 domane wrote: Is there a significant difference in gaming between a 6570 ddr3 and a 6670 ddr3? Not really, unless you count a roughly 15% difference (somewhere in that range, depends on the load) as significant. | ||
|
Vestrel
Canada271 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On November 20 2012 14:40 Vestrel wrote: What kinds of motherboard models would an Intel DZ77GA-70K be comparable to? Should be around most higher-end Z77 motherboards like Asus P8Z77-V, MSI Z77A-GD6x (x being a number), Gigabyte Z77X UD4 (UP4), etc. in the $150+ range, intended for SLI / Crossfire configs and/or enthusiast overclocking and benching. In this range, motherboards have different selections of high-end features. For the DZ77GA-70K, it's two Ethernet ports backed by Intel network controllers. | ||
|
Vestrel
Canada271 Posts
| ||
|
BarbarGWC
Germany3 Posts
can someone tell me how many fps I can expect from my old PC? I am wondering if there are any issues I might be able to solve to get the game better playable or if my PC is just too weak. Ok, here is my hardware: CPU: P4 3,2 GHz (Northwood) GPU: ATI HD 2600 XT AGP 256 MB 1,5 GB PC3200 RAM Mainboard: ASUS P4P800 SE Maxtor 7200 rpm 80 GB harddrive (very small indeed, used to run a second one which broke) I am trying to play SC II on lowest Settings (I think I added everthing possible to lower the graphics to the Variables.txt) on 1680*1050 resolution (lower resolution didn't change anything). I would like to play 1vs1 with at least playable fps. The game runs fine until there are some more units involved in bigger battles, then the fps drop to about 5. I tried testing which might be my system's bottleneck by watching CPU, RAM, GPU and VRAM usage, but they all didn't really seem to max out. For example, i often loaded the last few minutes of the "Zero Hour" mission. As soon as there are ~15 Zerg units and 30 marines battling, I am at ~5 fps. CPU runs at ~60%, RAM is quite full, but still had ~150 MB free. GPU was running at no more than 20-25% and VRAM was maybe 2/3 full. Can I expect to get smoother gameplay or is my PC definately too old? Is there a bottleneck in my PC? (if yes, why does it not run at maximum?) What's the lowest specs people can somewhat smoothely play 1 vs 1? I would really appreciate any help! | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On November 20 2012 21:19 BarbarGWC wrote: + Show Spoiler + Hi everybody, can someone tell me how many fps I can expect from my old PC? I am wondering if there are any issues I might be able to solve to get the game better playable or if my PC is just too weak. Ok, here is my hardware: CPU: P4 3,2 GHz (Northwood) GPU: ATI HD 2600 XT AGP 256 MB 1,5 GB PC3200 RAM Mainboard: ASUS P4P800 SE Maxtor 7200 rpm 80 GB harddrive (very small indeed, used to run a second one which broke) I am trying to play SC II on lowest Settings (I think I added everthing possible to lower the graphics to the Variables.txt) on 1680*1050 resolution (lower resolution didn't change anything). I would like to play 1vs1 with at least playable fps. The game runs fine until there are some more units involved in bigger battles, then the fps drop to about 5. I tried testing which might be my system's bottleneck by watching CPU, RAM, GPU and VRAM usage, but they all didn't really seem to max out. For example, i often loaded the last few minutes of the "Zero Hour" mission. As soon as there are ~15 Zerg units and 30 marines battling, I am at ~5 fps. CPU runs at ~60%, RAM is quite full, but still had ~150 MB free. GPU was running at no more than 20-25% and VRAM was maybe 2/3 full. Can I expect to get smoother gameplay or is my PC definately too old? Is there a bottleneck in my PC? (if yes, why does it not run at maximum?) What's the lowest specs people can somewhat smoothely play 1 vs 1? I would really appreciate any help! Oh man. Your PC is ancient (but you already know that). The FPS drop is to be expected. Your CPU is extremely old and slow. The reason you're only seeing 60% CPU usage is that Windows is reporting average usage across both logical cores (your P4 is 1core 2threads), and SC2 only loads 1 core close to 100%. You need to upgrade completely. There's nothing you can optimize any further, you're heavily CPU limited. Sorry to say that. But if you have ~$140 to spend, you can make a gigantic upgrade (something like Pentium G620 + any LGA 1155 motherboard + 4GB DDR3 RAM) | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On November 21 2012 01:41 Wabbit wrote: Sorry to say that. But if you have ~$140 to spend, you can make a gigantic upgrade (something like Pentium G620 + any LGA 1155 motherboard + 4GB DDR3 RAM) It would be more than that in euros (obviously, just saying...). A new motherboard would require a new graphics card as well, because the old one is AGP. | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
EDIT: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000_8.html#sect4 HD 2000 doesn't do well at 1680x1050... the HD 2000 @ 1.1GHz in the i5 2400 was barely getting 20 FPS. So I can't figure out if the G2120 has HD 2500 or not, as that would be the better choice. | ||
|
Imbajoe
United States857 Posts
| ||
|
BarbarGWC
Germany3 Posts
I was seriously wondering about the CPU usage, as it actually shows the usage of each core, which are both about the same when playing SC2. If I'd play a 1080p stream, both CPU threads stay at 100 % all the time. Also I don't believe the PC is worth upgrading, I might consider changing mainboard+cpu+processor+ram at some time, but probably not now. Thanks also for posting the link to the HD 2000/3000 benchmarks, I am now trying to run SC2 on my laptop. I expected its Intel HD 2000/3000 (I'm not sure) to be far too weak, but as it seems, it might work. I tried running WC3 on the laptop sometime, but the scrolling didn't look smooth at all. But I guess those could've been different software aspects. Let's see how long that optimization and download for SC2 will take, 20 minutes for 0,2 % ... | ||
|
Kride
Finland2 Posts
Keyboard? Is it good for playing sc2? Or should i buy steal series g7 or g6v2? Or can you offer me some less than hundred Euro mechanical keyboards? Thank you! -Kride | ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3292 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On November 21 2012 04:18 Imbajoe wrote: How much difference does the speed of RAM make? Currently I have 4GB of DDR3 1333 MHz RAM, would it be a noticeable difference if I only upgraded in terms of speed, to of 4GB of DDR3 1866 MHz RAM? It makes some difference if you want to maximize the performance of integrated graphics or run memory benchmarks. For pretty much everything else, the effect is marginal for modern processors (several percent difference in some very particular workloads on large data sets like certain encoding/decoding, for many other applications under 1% difference, often within the margin of benchmark experimental error / consistency). Branch predictors are too smart these days, and most instructions and data end up in cache, so processors are not too constrained by waiting on memory access these days on most workloads. Here are a couple slightly dated but relevant articles to peruse: http://techreport.com/review/20377/exploring-the-impact-of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3 On November 21 2012 10:28 MysteryMeat1 wrote: Can someone explain to me the difference in I3 Cores. the only thing i need for my computer and with different I3s going on sale im quite confused as to which one to buy. My video card is an asus 7850 hd radeon 2 gb and im buying a new monitor about 21 inch lcd monitor if that matters Anything with an M at the end—ignore, is "mobile" version for laptop motherboards. Anything with a T at the end—ignore, is a higher-cost, lower-performance, TDP-constrained (i.e. limited heat output) version for certain specific applications. Anything Core i3-5xx (x is in the place of a number)—ignore, is two generations old and for socket 1156. Anything Core i3-2xxx—Sandy Bridge, previous generation, uses socket 1155. Anything Core i3-3xxx—Ivy Bridge, current generation, uses socket 1155. Just look at the clock speeds for the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge models. At equivalent clock speeds, Ivy Bridge is some 5-10% faster than Sandy Bridge and uses a little less power. So if a Sandy Bridge model is significantly cheaper, it is a better value, but at similar prices you probably want just an i3-3220. i3-3240 is slightly better because the clock speed is slightly higher; this means that paying some $20 more for one is not a good deal. Look around. | ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3292 Posts
On November 21 2012 11:46 Myrmidon wrote: It makes some difference if you want to maximize the performance of integrated graphics or run memory benchmarks. For pretty much everything else, the effect is marginal for modern processors (several percent difference in some very particular workloads on large data sets like certain encoding/decoding, for many other applications under 1% difference, often within the margin of benchmark experimental error / consistency). Branch predictors are too smart these days, and most instructions and data end up in cache, so processors are not too constrained by waiting on memory access these days on most workloads. Here are a couple slightly dated but relevant articles to peruse: http://techreport.com/review/20377/exploring-the-impact-of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3 Anything with an M at the end—ignore, is "mobile" version for laptop motherboards. Anything with a T at the end—ignore, is a higher-cost, lower-performance, TDP-constrained (i.e. limited heat output) version for certain specific applications. Anything Core i3-5xx (x is in the place of a number)—ignore, is two generations old and for socket 1156. Anything Core i3-2xxx—Sandy Bridge, previous generation, uses socket 1155. Anything Core i3-3xxx—Ivy Bridge, current generation, uses socket 1155. Just look at the clock speeds for the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge models. At equivalent clock speeds, Ivy Bridge is some 5-10% faster than Sandy Bridge and uses a little less power. So if a Sandy Bridge model is significantly cheaper, it is a better value, but at similar prices you probably want just an i3-3220. i3-3240 is slightly better because the clock speed is slightly higher; this means that paying some $20 more for one is not a good deal. Look around. Ah that makes sense, I was told to get an I3-3220 ivy bridge but some of the other coreI3 were going on sale so i just wanted to know a bit more to make an informed decision. Thanks soo much! | ||
|
AznBoy00
Canada166 Posts
| ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On November 21 2012 14:24 AznBoy00 wrote: Hey guys I would like to know in streaming, how much upload speed is equal to x bitrate for 0.5; 1; 1.5; 2; 5; 10...and so on, just to have an idea on which isp I should switch to stream since I have barely 0.85mbps upload speed... Your upload speed is the bitrate. In your case, 0.85 mbps (or 850 kbps). Note that the bitrate from the stream is variable and the value you set in your streaming program will not be the maximum possible bitrate being produced. Because of this, and because you need to keep some bandwidth free for other things (like SC2!), it's recommended to use a bitrate that is at most 75% of your upload speed. So to get a 3 mbps stream, you'd need roughly 4 mbps upload bandwidth. | ||
| ||
