Can someone tell me if my CPU is performing to it's full potential

[SlasnerSb]

Specs

E7200 core 2 duo processor at 2.53ghz
2X 2gb ddr2 ram
2x HDRadeon4870(crossfirex) at 1gb a piece
P5Q turbo motherboard
Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Currently I've been play Starcraft 2 quite a bit and the only way I can run the game smoothly is if I run it on medium graphics. What I'm gathering from most forum's is that a pc similar to my own should be able to run the game on high or ultra without any problems. Is there a way for me to diagnose whether my pc is having an issue thats keeping it from running at its full potential?

Please let me know if there are any specs that I have left out.

 

[crisium]

The game is very CPU dependent. You need to be in the 3GHz range or else you're gonna suffer no matter what your GPU is.

 

[fffblackmage]

Your CPU is performing to it's C2D @ 2.53GHz potential, which is crappy performance in SC2.

SC2 just does better if you have a CPU clocked as high as possible. This is a good opportunity to explore OCing.

 

[toyota]

an E7200 will deliver playable framerates in basically any game but it is not going to fully push a 4870 crossfire setup. of course the more cpu intensive a game is the more performance is being lost. as crisium and fffblackmage have said you certainly need to oc that E7200 for SC2.

 

[SlasnerSb]

So I have safely overclocked my CPU to 3.8ghz without going over 60c and still my pc only gets about 30 fps, 20 if pylon power is displayed(if you know what that means). Does this type of performance make sense for my specs? These frame rates are for ultra settings. My pc actually gets even worse fps if the settings are on high, strangely enough.

 

[SlasnerSb]

bump

 

[Udgnim]

try disabling Crossfire

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Do you have the latest drivers installed? 10.9? 10.9a the hotfix? 10.10 will be out in a week or two.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Looks like a crossfire. issue. My Q8200 @2.8ghz is typically at 45~60 with drops to 30 in intense situations. All with a 4830 512mb, which is no match for 4870CF.

Custom maps like Nexus Wars, however, suck. I'm at 10fps in huge battles. This game needs multithreading bad. Hopefull they dont take 10 years to fix it like they did to reduce CPU load from 100% to 3% on modern CPUs.

 

[Udgnim]

Looks like a crossfire. issue. My Q8200 @2.8ghz is typically at 45~60 with drops to 30 in intense situations. All with a 4830 512mb, which is no match for 4870CF.

Custom maps like Nexus Wars, however, suck. I'm at 10fps in huge battles. This game needs multithreading bad. Hopefull they dont take 10 years to fix it like they did to reduce CPU load from 100% to 3% on modern CPUs.

I have no idea how busy Nexus Wars is, but I've seen SC2 use up more than 512 MB VRAM in single player. the 10 FPS drops could be the result of your PC needing to use system RAM as video RAM.

 

[biostud]

which resolution? how much vram?

 

[Udgnim]

which resolution? how much vram?

1680*1050, 4870 512, no AA

all in-game settings at max except Shaders one level below Ultra

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I have no idea how busy Nexus Wars is, but I've seen SC2 use up more than 512 MB VRAM in single player. the 10 FPS drops could be the result of your PC needing to use system RAM as video RAM.

Thats an insane amout of Vram for whats going on. I only run it on med/high, which I think my GPU is more than capable of.

Nexus wars can have as many as 200-300 units on a single frame. I'm sure others hit this low too as everyone begins to lag out..

 

[crisium]

Considering the CPU requirements of this game, it is quite embarrassing that Blizzard didn't make it use more than 2 cores. Actually, I think it's rather shameful that their coders are so poorly equipped. If it could use 3 or 4 cores than you wouldn't need such an aggressive clock rate.

 

[BFG10K]

Currently I've been play Starcraft 2 quite a bit and the only way I can run the game smoothly is if I run it on medium graphics.

That’s a graphics card issue.

 

[crisium]

That’s a graphics card issue.

Incorrect.

Minimum FPS has almost no change across different GPUs.

Now observe this:

Yeah, you see what I mean about a 2.5GHz CPU not being up to snuff compared to more than 3GHz?

Starcraft 2 is a different beast than other PC games. Let's be careful before calling out a GPU issue if we're not positive.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BFG10K View Post
That’s a graphics card issue.
Incorrect.

The ironing. Op has OCed his cpu from 2.53 to 3.8ghz, which apparently had no effect on his frame rates. Also he implies that turning the graphics settings from medium to high make his fps worse. He has a crossfire issue. Most likely drivers, in my opinion.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Incorrect.

Minimum FPS has almost no change across different GPUs.

Now observe this:

Yeah, you see what I mean about a 2.5GHz CPU not being up to snuff compared to more than 3GHz?

Starcraft 2 is a different beast than other PC games. Let's be careful before calling out a GPU issue if we're not positive.

This is the truth... you need a 4.4ghz+ i7 for solid 60fps in starcraft 2.. ALTHOUGH,, if you can get an i5 to 4.5ghz+ it will work the same. because on a clean setup, starcraft 2 won't spill over much..

 

[tweakboy]

Starcraft II I thought III was out. Well its also a horribly unoptimized engine. Its not like MW2 engine or UT3 engine or BF2 engine. thx for the benchies...

 

[BFG10K]

Let's be careful before calling out a GPU issue if we're not positive.

The OP implied his framerate goes up when he drops to medium details. That's a GPU issue.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

The OP implied his framerate goes up when he drops to medium details. That's a GPU issue.

Not in this game though. Many of the details on medium are strictly CPU based settings, like physic and model details.

 

[toyota]

Not in this game though. Many of the details on medium are strictly CPU based settings, like physic and model details.

actually there are lots of games where the settings affect cpu too. pretty low end cpus are listed for minimum requirements in most games and they can usually play on low settings without issue.

 

[Seero]

So I have safely overclocked my CPU to 3.8ghz without going over 60c and still my pc only gets about 30 fps, 20 if pylon power is displayed(if you know what that means). Does this type of performance make sense for my specs? These frame rates are for ultra settings. My pc actually gets even worse fps if the settings are on high, strangely enough.

I don't think crossfire is better off compare to disabling one. The pylon grid cause bad FPS is a known issue on ATI cards. Try to disable a card and see if it helps as it should have no problem handing high. At ultra try to manually set shader to high and see if it helps.

 

[OCGuy]

OP my clocks are higher, but you have 1/2 the cache. I think that is what is killing you.

That game runs smooth for me.

 

[BFG10K]

Not in this game though. Many of the details on medium are strictly CPU based settings, like physic and model details.

In-game settings still affect the GPU the most overall, and Starcraft 2 is no exception. Games have had physics settings for years.

As for model details, I can’t see how that would affect the CPU. The CPU isn’t drawing the models, the GPU is. Do you have any benchmarks that show that changing that setting by itself is scales by CPU power, but doesn’t affect the GPU?

Here are medium scores: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blizzard-entertainment-starcraft-ii-benchmark,2611-5.html

There’s a clear CPU limitation. If medium details reduced the CPU load like you claimed then the GPUs should be performing in accordance to their rank, but they aren’t. They’re flat-lining.