Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Starcraft 2 Personal System Requirement: Help me Determine Bottleneck

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 29, 2010 3:01:54 AM

Good evening all,
This is definitely my first post here. Two years ago I've build a custom PC, here are the specs:
- CPU: Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20 Ghz 2 MB L2 Cache
- RAM: 2 GB (2 x 1 GB) DDR2 667 MHZ.
- Video Card: PNY's NVIDIA 9600 GT 512 MB GDDR3 RAM. Running game at 1280x720 as per my Sony Television.
- Sound Card: Sound Blaster Audigy SE.
- OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit.


Overall, the game runs pretty fine on full Ultra settings with some slowdown when theres a large amount of units and building on screen. However, the load times in between missions/the battlecruiser seem long (about 5 minutes at times, 10 second loadtime between sections of the ship). At one point the game crashed after using it for about 5 hours, Blizzard's error console says not enough system resources. I haven't had it crash yet after that though. I also noticed though that the memory usage for game alone was about 1-1.3 GB. Looked at temperatures as well all are in check, CPU running around 41c, GPU running 61c. My guess is there isn't enough free RAM for Starcraft 2 to work with, but I just want to confirm my suspicions to all of you. I don't think its the card (I could be wrong), and sound is working perfectly. I did notice though the recommended system requirement for the game is a 2.4 ghz dual core processor.

What you all think? Also, is it worth dual booting 64 bit? I would not mind doing that either.

Thanks in advance.
July 29, 2010 7:28:47 AM

RAM and CPU are probably your main culprits. RTS games tend to be more CPU-hungry than most, so an upgrade in that department will help. Also, the "Not enough system resources" error means you've run out of available RAM.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 12:11:27 PM

@ Herr_Koos
Could you please explain us how is the ram one of the problem?
@cpatel1987
Your main problem is the CPU. You should try at least overclock it especially but it's really easy to do so.
Second problem is the videocard.
You are barely meet the recommended specifications.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 29, 2010 12:22:43 PM

hefox said:
@ Herr_Koos
Could you please explain us how is the ram one of the problem?
@cpatel1987
Your main problem is the CPU. You should try at least overclock it especially but it's really easy to do so.
Second problem is the videocard.
You are barely meet the recommended specifications.



OP specifically mentioned the "Not enough system resources" error. That can only be RAM.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 12:28:14 PM

Recommended is 2 GB.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 12:32:31 PM

hefox said:
Recommended is 2 GB.


The recommendation does not take into account how much other stuff could be running in the background.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 3:11:05 PM

Then even 64 GB it's not enough. I'm sure he is not doing video editing in the background. The minimum is 1 GB so it's should be fine.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 3:57:30 PM

cpatel1987 said:
Good evening all,
This is definitely my first post here. Two years ago I've build a custom PC, here are the specs:
- CPU: Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20 Ghz 2 MB L2 Cache
- RAM: 2 GB (2 x 1 GB) DDR2 667 MHZ.
- Video Card: PNY's NVIDIA 9600 GT 512 MB GDDR3 RAM. Running game at 1280x720 as per my Sony Television.
- Sound Card: Sound Blaster Audigy SE.
- OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit.


Overall, the game runs pretty fine on full Ultra settings with some slowdown when theres a large amount of units and building on screen. However, the load times in between missions/the battlecruiser seem long (about 5 minutes at times, 10 second loadtime between sections of the ship). At one point the game crashed after using it for about 5 hours, Blizzard's error console says not enough system resources. I haven't had it crash yet after that though. I also noticed though that the memory usage for game alone was about 1-1.3 GB. Looked at temperatures as well all are in check, CPU running around 41c, GPU running 61c. My guess is there isn't enough free RAM for Starcraft 2 to work with, but I just want to confirm my suspicions to all of you. I don't think its the card (I could be wrong), and sound is working perfectly. I did notice though the recommended system requirement for the game is a 2.4 ghz dual core processor.

What you all think? Also, is it worth dual booting 64 bit? I would not mind doing that either.

Thanks in advance.


You should try first to OC the cpu. Increase your FSB from 200 to 266 (FSB 800 -> 1066) without increasing the voltage and see if is working fine.
m
0
l

Best solution

July 29, 2010 6:23:24 PM

hefox said:
Then even 64 GB it's not enough. I'm sure he is not doing video editing in the background. The minimum is 1 GB so it's should be fine.


The *minimum* specs also list XP as the OS; move to 7 Ultimate, and you have a lot less RAM to work with due to all the OS stuff running in the background.

If he noticed the game running with 1.3GB of his 2GB total used up, that explains both his slow loading speeds (massive page faults as data can't fit into the RAM he has, so data needs to be placed in Virtual Memory on the HD, then moved back into RAM when needed, which is slow as molasses) and the system resources error (out of RAM space when a new object is needed to be allocated).

His CPU may be affecting his speed somewhat, but his primary upgrade right now should be RAM.
Share
July 29, 2010 6:34:26 PM

gamerk316 said:
The *minimum* specs also list XP as the OS; move to 7 Ultimate, and you have a lot less RAM to work with due to all the OS stuff running in the background.

If he noticed the game running with 1.3GB of his 2GB total used up, that explains both his slow loading speeds (massive page faults as data can't fit into the RAM he has, so data needs to be placed in Virtual Memory on the HD, then moved back into RAM when needed, which is slow as molasses) and the system resources error (out of RAM space when a new object is needed to be allocated).

His CPU may be affecting his speed somewhat, but his primary upgrade right now should be RAM.


Lol and this is why I don't overclock, I knew I chose the wrong mobo if I ever wanted to. Its an ECS-G31T v 1.0. I tried your suggestion, bricked the computer (blank screen with HDD light constantly on). Had to clear the CMOS and now also repairing Windows because for whatever reason I get a Windows Fails to start screen. Oh well it happens not too worried.

I guess I'll try RAM first, that doesn't work well least I have more RAM anyway. Then CPU since thats a nonreturnable.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 7:40:23 PM

Definetly RAM. Then CPU. Your GPU should be fine.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 8:37:21 PM

Well, for starters cpatel, trying a 200->266 OC out of the gate on stock volts is overly ambitious. You should be more gradual, like starting off with a 10-15%, and then going up 5% at a time as long as it's stable. Also, I remember seeing on gamespot or maybe here that the FPS difference between Ultra and High is almost half, so you may try bumping down the detail.
As for the loading issue, keep win7's Resource Monitor running in the background and see what's going on while it's loading. If there's no disk I/O or CPU usage, it may be that it's waiting on BNet's server for some crap. I remember with the beta, my loading times varied quite a bit with the same conditions for no reason on my end (/w a Q9450, 8GB RAM, 4870).
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 10:04:55 PM

Best answer selected by cpatel1987.
m
0
l
July 29, 2010 10:10:14 PM

dupaman said:
Well, for starters cpatel, trying a 200->266 OC out of the gate on stock volts is overly ambitious. You should be more gradual, like starting off with a 10-15%, and then going up 5% at a time as long as it's stable. Also, I remember seeing on gamespot or maybe here that the FPS difference between Ultra and High is almost half, so you may try bumping down the detail.
As for the loading issue, keep win7's Resource Monitor running in the background and see what's going on while it's loading. If there's no disk I/O or CPU usage, it may be that it's waiting on BNet's server for some crap. I remember with the beta, my loading times varied quite a bit with the same conditions for no reason on my end (/w a Q9450, 8GB RAM, 4870).


You know whats interesting about this, and maybe its because its reloading the graphics for whatever reason when I turn down detail in game, but when
I do turn down the detail to high during a missions, the slowdowns are more frequent.
m
0
l
!