Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VERY LOW FPS with new system build

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 11, 2010 5:06:52 AM

Just built a new system and am experiencing very poor performance in SC2. The system is definitely good enough to run everything on Ultra, but it can't even run the game on high/medium settings. I first suspected the CPU, but I'm now thinking the problem may lie with the video card. I have listed the system specs below. I am running a 1055T, not OCed yet. Even not being OCed, this system should not be having the issues it is having.

AMD 1055T X6 CPU
ASUS M4289GTD Pro/USB3
Corsair 650 watt PSU
ATI Radeon HD 5830 256-bit
WD VelociRaptor 10K RPM HDD
G.Skill Ripjaws 4GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM
Windows 7 Pro x64

All drivers are installed and up-to-date. I even went as far as reinstalling the OS and reinstalling all drivers, but still am getting the exact same results. What could be going on here? My Core 2 Quad 65nm system running an HD 4850, 4gb ddr2 ram, and same HDD ran SC2 with ALL settings set to Ultra, and it ran it with ease, completely smooth. This system struggles just being set on high/medium settings, i mean reallyy struggles. Just really framey and choppy, both multiplayer and single player modes. I let Catalyst Control Center auto-tune the card and i am running 865 GPU clock, 1190 mem clock, and the temp. is not exceeding 55C when in game. What could be going on here? Faulty GPU?

More about : low fps system build

a c 376 U Graphics card
October 11, 2010 5:19:36 AM

The video card should handle the game fine on ultra but SC2 is very CPU intensive and only uses 2 cores. Your 1055T X6 is the same as a Phenom II x2 at 2.8ghz as far as the game is concerned. You should still be averaging around 30 frames per second though.
a c 189 U Graphics card
October 11, 2010 5:25:37 AM

^
Well, just like they've said above... :) 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2010 6:41:15 AM

jyjjy said:
The video card should handle the game fine on ultra but SC2 is very CPU intensive and only uses 2 cores. Your 1055T X6 is the same as a Phenom II x2 at 2.8ghz as far as the game is concerned. You should still be averaging around 30 frames per second though.



Not really, the X6 will turbo Boost 3 of the cores up to 3.3GHz, so its more life a Phenom II X3 at 3.3 GHz. Which would be better than any stock cloaked core2duo proc intel has.

October 11, 2010 2:27:42 PM

SC does mainly use 2 cores, but 2.8 GHz with Turbo Boost, along with my GPU, should definitely be enough. My old system was a q6600, OCed to 3.2GHz. I realize Intel's clock frequencies are somewhat superior to AMD, but I still feel this is very strange. I can't see having to get the 1055T clocked to 3.8GHz right off the bat just to run SC2 on High (not even Ultra).

I checked my GPU while in game and it IS running at the specified GPU and Memory clock speeds while the game is running. The CPU, according to Core Temp, is running at 3.2GHz while the system is under a load.

I did realize AMD was a step down in regards to gaming coming into this, but this is just rediculous. I can't see this being normal, not even for a 2.8GHz X6.
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2010 2:38:48 PM

wheely34 said:
SC does mainly use 2 cores, but 2.8 GHz with Turbo Boost, along with my GPU, should definitely be enough. My old system was a q6600, OCed to 3.2GHz. I realize Intel's clock frequencies are somewhat superior to AMD, but I still feel this is very strange. I can't see having to get the 1055T clocked to 3.8GHz right off the bat just to run SC2 on High (not even Ultra).

I checked my GPU while in game and it IS running at the specified GPU and Memory clock speeds while the game is running. The CPU, according to Core Temp, is running at 3.2GHz while the system is under a load.

I did realize AMD was a step down in regards to gaming coming into this, but this is just rediculous. I can't see this being normal, not even for a 2.8GHz X6.


If i remember from toms review the X6 very rarely clocked up, it seem kinda sporadic and never for more then like a second, what frame rates are you getting exactly, you could also have SC in windowed mode and see what precentage load your getting on your CPU and GPU
October 11, 2010 4:19:06 PM

I do have a friend with a store-bought ASUS computer running a 1055T and a 5770. Very similar to my setup (mine is actually better) and he's currently running the game all on Ultra, so yea, something is definitely going on. I'll run some tests when I get home.
a c 87 U Graphics card
October 11, 2010 5:03:03 PM

Quote:
I let Catalyst Control Center auto-tune the card and i am running 865 GPU clock, 1190 mem clock

so have you tried running it at stock settings? Those auto-tune OCs tend to be overly optimistic... And because of the way the GDDR5 error detection/correction works on ATi cards, the performance will drop (without graphical artifacts on the image) if the memory is clocked too high
October 11, 2010 5:15:14 PM

I did try it on stock setting before running the auto-tune application. Still had the same results.
a c 376 U Graphics card
October 12, 2010 12:58:30 AM

Exactly what frame rates are you getting on ultra?
a c 217 U Graphics card
October 12, 2010 1:08:58 AM

Why don't you post us your 3dmark vantage or 06 scores. There is still a decent change something is not running the way it should.
October 12, 2010 1:48:30 PM

Solved the problem. Sort of a simple problem, but easy to over look. In CCC, I had the anti-aliasing turned all the way up. I turned it down (from the "Quality" side to the "Performance" side in CCC) and SC runs perfectly now. As I was skimming through the tons of google searches I did, I thought I came across something that did in fact say that SC2 had issues with ATI's anti-aliasing? Don't quote me on that, I am merely reciting what I think I saw, I could be wrong.

Either way, turning the Anti-Aliasing settings down fixed the problem...takes a load off my mind...
October 12, 2010 2:12:38 PM

I'm running the game at 1680 x 1050. I'm not too familiar with aliasing, but aliasing occurs when the resolution is too low. I'm not running a low resolution so is this causing some kind of bottleneck with SC2? I don't see why performance degradation would occur if anti-aliasing is turned on, but not really needed...

Again, just an issue with SC2...?
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2010 2:21:17 PM

Most problems are caused by users changing settings and forgetting about it later on, until symptoms show up. Same with most windows problems.
Most leave the setting in CCC to highest performance and let in game settings, or per application settings effect image quality.
3d settings
standard settings
optimal performance

Tech sites have done stories on this, with AA and SC2. Its a issue.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=958&type=expert&pi...

October 12, 2010 2:30:48 PM

"Just turn on AA in Catalyst and uncheck 'Use Application Settings'.. y'know, like with every other game that doesn't natively support AA."

Found that amongst my google searches. Guess I could mess around with it. Thing is, I could have swore I had it turned on in my previous machine (which had an HD 4850). Which is why I didn't immediately go back to the 3D settings in CCC and return them all to default. Definitely a mistake on my part. Should have been one of the first things I tried, if not, the first.
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2010 2:33:26 PM

Some ATI drivers did not force any AA on in SCII, no matter the settings, thats what was probably happening with your 4850. Users screamed they wanted it, because Nvidia supported it faster, so then ATI newER driver allowed users to force it on. Which is what you probably ran in to, at the same time you changed hardware. So it tricked ya a little :) 
!