|
On April 05 2013 13:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:28 WedRine wrote:On April 05 2013 12:21 Myrmidon wrote:On April 05 2013 11:23 WedRine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to post but, I'd just like to know how well a laptop with these specs [look below] would run SC2, like what fps to expect at different settings and so on. thanks
Specs
Processor: AMD Quad-Core A10-4600M, 2.3 GHz
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 (2 x 4 GB)
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7660G/7670M double GPU
(1 GB DDR3 dedicated)
OS: Windows 8 64bit
EDIT:
Or would this run better?
Specs
Processor: Intel Core i5-3210M, 2.5GHz
RAM: 6 GB DDR3
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 4000
OS: Windows 8 64bit Both not that great. The first one would have lower min fps as the game wears on and you're trying to micro in large battles, but you could turn up some key graphics settings like shaders to medium or even high with little impact on frame rates. For the second, you'd be stuck with low settings, but you'd probably (unless the cooling is really pathetic and it can't maintain Turbo speeds) maintain better min fps than the first laptop could even on low. Actual fps varies so much and depends on so many things in game that raw numbers are maybe not that useful anyway. Since the 2 laptops i asked about earlier sounded somewhat disappointing I tried to look a bit further and I stumbled upon this one [look below] It's a bit more expensive, but I would like to know if it's worth the extra cost. Would it run better than the others? I'd really like to know what fps I could expect, just a rough estimate would be nice, because I really have no clue at all. SpecsProcessor: Intel Core i7-3632QM, 2.2GHz RAM: 8 GB DDR3 HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA Resolution: 1366 x 768 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645 (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) OS: Windows 8 64bit Exact FPS I cant really say, but it should be way way way better than the others for SC2. imo with laptops it is i7 or dont bother going for a gaming idea for modern games. From what I can tell that cpu is like twice as powerful as the i5 you were looking at and it also has a dedicated GPU which is midrange.
Thanks I guess I'll buy this one then! - I know fps is hard to calculate but are we talking above or under 30 fps with these specs?
|
|
|
On April 05 2013 14:14 WedRine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On April 05 2013 13:28 WedRine wrote:On April 05 2013 12:21 Myrmidon wrote:On April 05 2013 11:23 WedRine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to post but, I'd just like to know how well a laptop with these specs [look below] would run SC2, like what fps to expect at different settings and so on. thanks
Specs
Processor: AMD Quad-Core A10-4600M, 2.3 GHz
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 (2 x 4 GB)
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7660G/7670M double GPU
(1 GB DDR3 dedicated)
OS: Windows 8 64bit
EDIT:
Or would this run better?
Specs
Processor: Intel Core i5-3210M, 2.5GHz
RAM: 6 GB DDR3
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 4000
OS: Windows 8 64bit Both not that great. The first one would have lower min fps as the game wears on and you're trying to micro in large battles, but you could turn up some key graphics settings like shaders to medium or even high with little impact on frame rates. For the second, you'd be stuck with low settings, but you'd probably (unless the cooling is really pathetic and it can't maintain Turbo speeds) maintain better min fps than the first laptop could even on low. Actual fps varies so much and depends on so many things in game that raw numbers are maybe not that useful anyway. Since the 2 laptops i asked about earlier sounded somewhat disappointing I tried to look a bit further and I stumbled upon this one [look below] It's a bit more expensive, but I would like to know if it's worth the extra cost. Would it run better than the others? I'd really like to know what fps I could expect, just a rough estimate would be nice, because I really have no clue at all. SpecsProcessor: Intel Core i7-3632QM, 2.2GHz RAM: 8 GB DDR3 HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA Resolution: 1366 x 768 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645 (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) OS: Windows 8 64bit Exact FPS I cant really say, but it should be way way way better than the others for SC2. imo with laptops it is i7 or dont bother going for a gaming idea for modern games. From what I can tell that cpu is like twice as powerful as the i5 you were looking at and it also has a dedicated GPU which is midrange. Thanks I guess I'll buy this one then! - I know fps is hard to calculate but are we talking above or under 30 fps with these specs?
Wait until somebody else chimes in before you buy, that was just my opinion and im probably not the best expert.
EDIT: And it should be well above 30 fps in 1v1/2v2, I think.
|
On April 05 2013 12:25 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 12:21 Myrmidon wrote:On April 05 2013 11:23 WedRine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to post but, I'd just like to know how well a laptop with these specs [look below] would run SC2, like what fps to expect at different settings and so on. thanks
Specs
Processor: AMD Quad-Core A10-4600M, 2.3 GHz
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 (2 x 4 GB)
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7660G/7670M double GPU
(1 GB DDR3 dedicated)
OS: Windows 8 64bit
EDIT:
Or would this run better?
Specs
Processor: Intel Core i5-3210M, 2.5GHz
RAM: 6 GB DDR3
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 4000
OS: Windows 8 64bit Both not that great. The first one would have lower min fps as the game wears on and you're trying to micro in large battles, but you could turn up some key graphics settings like shaders to medium or even high with little impact on frame rates. For the second, you'd be stuck with low settings, but you'd probably (unless the cooling is really pathetic and it can't maintain Turbo speeds) maintain better min fps than the first laptop could even on low. Actual fps varies so much and depends on so many things in game that raw numbers are maybe not that useful anyway. On April 05 2013 12:16 EtherealDeath wrote:
Suddenly as of when I started OC'ing, I'm getting random 1500-2000 ms ping to router spikes every 5-10 minutes. WIreless adapter is a PCI one. What could be the problem? Bad drivers maybe. Try newer ones if available. Possibly if it's a spike that long, it's from trying to scan different channels for a different access point. (you can't take a peek around on other frequencies while continuing normal operation in the one you're currently using) Try to turn roaming settings to be less aggressive. Can I just turn roaming / auto connecting off entirely? Also, how do I even go about doing that. Can't seem to find out ~~
Could easily be something else entirely, but go to control panel and right-click the wireless adapter -> configure -> advanced settings and look around. Also maybe disable any low-power modes if available. Again, may not be related to anything here.
On April 05 2013 14:14 WedRine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On April 05 2013 13:28 WedRine wrote:On April 05 2013 12:21 Myrmidon wrote:On April 05 2013 11:23 WedRine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to post but, I'd just like to know how well a laptop with these specs [look below] would run SC2, like what fps to expect at different settings and so on. thanks
Specs
Processor: AMD Quad-Core A10-4600M, 2.3 GHz
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 (2 x 4 GB)
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 7660G/7670M double GPU
(1 GB DDR3 dedicated)
OS: Windows 8 64bit
EDIT:
Or would this run better?
Specs
Processor: Intel Core i5-3210M, 2.5GHz
RAM: 6 GB DDR3
HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 4000
OS: Windows 8 64bit Both not that great. The first one would have lower min fps as the game wears on and you're trying to micro in large battles, but you could turn up some key graphics settings like shaders to medium or even high with little impact on frame rates. For the second, you'd be stuck with low settings, but you'd probably (unless the cooling is really pathetic and it can't maintain Turbo speeds) maintain better min fps than the first laptop could even on low. Actual fps varies so much and depends on so many things in game that raw numbers are maybe not that useful anyway. Since the 2 laptops i asked about earlier sounded somewhat disappointing I tried to look a bit further and I stumbled upon this one [look below] It's a bit more expensive, but I would like to know if it's worth the extra cost. Would it run better than the others? I'd really like to know what fps I could expect, just a rough estimate would be nice, because I really have no clue at all. SpecsProcessor: Intel Core i7-3632QM, 2.2GHz RAM: 8 GB DDR3 HD: 1 TB 5400 rpm. SATA Resolution: 1366 x 768 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645 (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) OS: Windows 8 64bit Exact FPS I cant really say, but it should be way way way better than the others for SC2. imo with laptops it is i7 or dont bother going for a gaming idea for modern games. From what I can tell that cpu is like twice as powerful as the i5 you were looking at and it also has a dedicated GPU which is midrange. Thanks I guess I'll buy this one then! - I know fps is hard to calculate but are we talking above or under 30 fps with these specs?
Usually well over 30 fps, sometimes below.
For SC2 a quad-core i7 doesn't actually help much at all, but it's a little better usually (possibly worse, depending on the system). On Ivy Bridge usually the CPUs can just run at Turbo Boost speeds most of the times on a moderate load like a game, but it depends on the laptop, how the manufacturer configured it, and the cooling.
If you don't mind running lowest settings, it might not be any substantially faster than the i5-3210M laptop. Anyway, the GT 645M is decent and should be good for high settings on that resolution. Just turn down the physics settings if you care about min fps; that goes for any system.
|
How do I increase the size of my hibernation partition? Specifically, I've upgraded one of my computers from 4gb to 8gb and it has intel rapid start on it (and, as a 4gb system with intel rapid start, had a 4gb hibernation partition). I need to make that partition 8gb now for intel rapid start to keep working.
I imagine you can't actually do this, that I would have to delete the partition and then recreate it or something.
|
Something like ye olde partition magic used to be able to resize partitions.
|
When I boot my computer about one in ten times windows wants to checkdisc my SSD (64g OCZ vert x2). It never finds much and I have no noticeable issues when the computer gets running.
Is this something I should look into further or no big deal?
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
|
Yeah I bought just before all that came to light, I checked at the time and Im pretty sure my model came out before OCZ started cheaping out on parts and causing all those problems.
If it randomly fails Im not super bothered, its 64g so there is no room to store anything important.
I would just like to know if the random chkdsks are going to break it prematurely or hurt performance.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
Im pretty sure my model came out before OCZ started cheaping out on parts and causing all those problems.
Im not sure if that's even possible, there were widespread issues that took a long time to fix
If it's still running, i dont think they would do any harm.. maybe run a benchmark and see if you are getting scores you are supposed to, but it might be indicative of a problem
|
On April 05 2013 16:43 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + Im pretty sure my model came out before OCZ started cheaping out on parts and causing all those problems. Im not sure if that's even possible, there were widespread issues that took a long time to fix If it's still running, i dont think they would do any harm.. maybe run a benchmark and see if you are getting scores you are supposed to, but it might be indicative of a problem
Maybe I am wrong, it was 2.5 years ago but I remember feeling like I was in the clear. Good idea, ill do some benchmarks, see whats up.
|
Idle temps seem very high. I'm in a micro-atx case (elite 341) with 1 fan out the side panel blowing in, one out front panel out, one out back panel out. cpu cooler gemini m4 for i7 990x (don't ask :X), PNY GTX 460 SE (XLR8) 1GB.
CPU 45C OC'd just a hint, 3.6Ghz from 3.47Ghz, to get RAM to 1600
[RAM DDR1600, 12gb. no temp readings]
Motherboard: 45C (Asus Maximus Gene III)
Graphics: 67C(???????? I run dual screen 1080p and 768p but wtf)
HDD: 42C
Intelburntest stable. MSI Kombustor stable. explanation: micro atx case, insufficient cooling. Your thoughts?
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
45c is a kinda normal idle temp for a 990x @3.6ghz I'd assume. Maybe a bit high, but just because i dont know numbers - but you have shitty case/cooling so it should be expected. What are your load temps on CPU? It's common to see something like 40c idle, 85c load on a Bloomfield quad @4ghz, you have die shrink and are running at lower clocks but it's still a 6-core CPU.
It's nothing like a Sandy Bridge CPU, where you can see idle's like less than 5c above room temperature, but 85c load temps. Bloomfield got hot with added clocks/voltages even at idle and i wouldnt be suprised to see gulftown 6-cores like that too
My GPU idle's at 60c and again it's completely normal as they can run fine into the 90's and fan profiles tend to stay towards low noise on GPU's until temps break into the 70's or 80's at least.
Intelburntest stable. MSI Kombustor stable insufficient cooling Unless you have problems at load or with other temperatures this is pretty much a contradiction. Your HDD is 14c hotter than mine though and i am unsure what motherboard temps are supposed to be or how they are measured.
with 1 fan out the side panel blowing in, one out front panel out, one out back panel out.
This is confusing to me, what do you mean? You are exhausting air from both front and back, intake from side?
|
On April 05 2013 17:11 Ktk wrote:Idle temps seem very high. I'm in a micro-atx case ( elite 341) with 1 fan out the side panel blowing in, one out front panel out, one out back panel out. cpu cooler gemini m4 for i7 990x (don't ask :X), PNY GTX 460 SE (XLR8) 1GB. CPU 45C OC'd just a hint, 3.6Ghz from 3.47Ghz, to get RAM to 1600 [RAM DDR1600, 12gb. no temp readings] Motherboard: 45C (Asus Maximus Gene III) Graphics: 67C(???????? I run dual screen 1080p and 768p but wtf) HDD: 42CIntelburntest stable. MSI Kombustor stable. explanation: micro atx case, insufficient cooling. Your thoughts?
Graphics mobo and HDD sound pretty high for idle. Get all the fans blowing in except the back one and see what happens.
Also if you have been doing some testing programs, what were your load temps?
|
I'm going to be staying in China for a few weeks soon. Will I be able to play HotS on the NA server from China? I have the (NA?) version of HotS installed.
|
Popped in old trusty (my HD 6965) and am without artifacting. I think we've decided on the culprit.
|
On April 05 2013 16:35 Blaec wrote:Yeah I bought just before all that came to light, I checked at the time and Im pretty sure my model came out before OCZ started cheaping out on parts and causing all those problems. If it randomly fails Im not super bothered, its 64g so there is no room to store anything important. I would just like to know if the random chkdsks are going to break it prematurely or hurt performance.
I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but the hardware change that OCZ did on Vertex 2s was to use different flash ICs. The market changes, and for a smaller operation like OCZ that doesn't make them themselves, they just give you what they can get, sometimes.
Because of a process node shrink, they ended up sometimes using chips with double the memory as they'd been previously using, which means that for a given SSD capacity (e.g. 60 GB) they only need half the number of chips. This means leaving some (more) positions blank. For the lower-capacity models, this results in fewer chips being wired to the controller. SSD controllers have multiple I/O channels wired to the memory chips, and it can access them simultaneously, so if you have some unpopulated channels, that means lower performance. If you have fewer chips per channel, that also reduces performance, but not by as much.
So there was a big deal about people getting worse performance than previous drives had.
As for reliability, that was all first-gen SandForce-based SSDs. Second-gen didn't fare so well in the beginning either.
On April 05 2013 17:11 Ktk wrote:Idle temps seem very high. I'm in a micro-atx case ( elite 341) with 1 fan out the side panel blowing in, one out front panel out, one out back panel out. cpu cooler gemini m4 for i7 990x (don't ask :X), PNY GTX 460 SE (XLR8) 1GB.
My guess is that side intake, front intake, back exhaust is better than your current config. You can also try removing the unused back expansion slot covers.
|
On April 05 2013 13:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 12:22 waffling1 wrote:
My computer won't boot if I plug in my graphics card.
I bought a new CPU and mobo and PSU
i5-3570k
Gigabte Z77X-UD3H
PC Power and Cooling Silencer Mk III Series 400W
I'm running on this system right now so the mobo and cpu are fine.
My old GPU is Radeon 5830, which I've tested to work fine on my other computer.
When I plug in my graphics card without power cables, relying only on the mobo's power for the GPU, the system boots with the GPU fans running at max constantly.
When I plug in my graphics card with the power cables into the PSU, the PC won't boot.
What should I do to fix it and why is it doing this?
I think I have the drivers correct. (I can't use my windows driver finder because my OEM windows 7 is messed up due to new mobo and resetting CMOS)
I heard unplugging everything including CPU, resetting CMOS and plugging everything back in could work. Why? Is this likely?
Is my PSU wattage too low? It's 30 amps on the single 12V rail. This doesn't seem likely.
Thank you in advance.
If it boots with it in the mobo, but not with it plugged in, odds are not enough power. Google shows that it needs 35-40amps and a 500watt psu if you are using a higher end system.
arg, I went with the 400W. People were saying it was enough for single card systems, even with overclock.
Hm I found that different pins were omitted for the two cables I was using. They are both ground, but still, they are different. Maybe this is the issue? I can't test it right now because I don't have enough cables. Have you guys seen 8 pin PCIe cables that are like this? It seems like a manufacturing error.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1tBEtDC.jpg)
|
On April 06 2013 16:55 waffling1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On April 05 2013 12:22 waffling1 wrote:
My computer won't boot if I plug in my graphics card.
I bought a new CPU and mobo and PSU
i5-3570k
Gigabte Z77X-UD3H
PC Power and Cooling Silencer Mk III Series 400W
I'm running on this system right now so the mobo and cpu are fine.
My old GPU is Radeon 5830, which I've tested to work fine on my other computer.
When I plug in my graphics card without power cables, relying only on the mobo's power for the GPU, the system boots with the GPU fans running at max constantly.
When I plug in my graphics card with the power cables into the PSU, the PC won't boot.
What should I do to fix it and why is it doing this?
I think I have the drivers correct. (I can't use my windows driver finder because my OEM windows 7 is messed up due to new mobo and resetting CMOS)
I heard unplugging everything including CPU, resetting CMOS and plugging everything back in could work. Why? Is this likely?
Is my PSU wattage too low? It's 30 amps on the single 12V rail. This doesn't seem likely.
Thank you in advance.
If it boots with it in the mobo, but not with it plugged in, odds are not enough power. Google shows that it needs 35-40amps and a 500watt psu if you are using a higher end system. arg, I went with the 400W. People were saying it was enough for single card systems, even with overclock.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/414
^ That shows 303 watts (from the wall) for a 5850, and 352 watts (from the wall) from a 5870, under a full gaming load on a hexacore (130W tdp) processor. For reference your cpu has a 77W tdp. The 5830 should be halfway between the two (believe me, it has more draw than a 5850), at say 325W. Note this is full system power draw. Also, the from the wall measure means that before efficiency comes into play you're looking at: 325*0.85 ~= 276W load power on the psu. If include the difference in cpu tdps (bad practice, but it'll do) we get 223 if your system is similar. Not to mention that model is capable of doing over 440w.
In short your psu is not an issue unless it's defective. Ignore the idiots that post on the forums.
EDIT: Clarity in first paragraph.
|
@waffling1: If it does not boot, it is something else, not your PSU. Found this in a Radeon 5830 review:
"[...] System in IDLE = 176 Watts, System with GPU in FULL Stress = 325 Watts
The monitoring device is reporting a maximum system wattage peak at roughly 325~350 Watts [...]"
In the review, they used an overclocked CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
