Acer Aspire 5740G Owners Lounge

I also try The Witcher 2. I have 5740 with i5-430m and 5650 and 5400 rpm hdd. At native resolutin (1366x768) and low settings on the game I have around 20-30 fps ~ 25 average. I didn't try overclocking the GPU - I don't like and play games like this, so I uninstal it

 

Nah, I essentially think that everyone lies. It's the simplest answer. The only real difference between x86 and x64 is the amount of memory of the system and how it's used. Since we use hypermemory to improve graphics performance, x86 would probably be a performance nerf by not having as much memory available, rather than a performance gain by using a more "simple" OS.

I'm guessing they just see it spike 40 fps once or twice, and then claim, "Hey, my system does 40fps on _____________!!!!"

 

*Yawn*...God?: I would agree but it's too many people - they can't be all lying. Some of them posted various videos on YT and they really have those frames - BBC2 for instance.

 

LOL. I know you're frustrated but don't be like that. If you read carefully my post earlier:-

"25-30 FPS" & "30-40 FPS"; that are range of FPS. And I didn't remember someone said they able to play The Witcher 2 with stable 40 FPS with HD5650 in last couple of pages.

 

if you have hdd 5400 rpm,put in vey high settings turn off cinematic deph of field,ssao,uber sambling,motion blur and turn on anti-aliasing.

 

starsay: So HDD rpm affects performance more than just loading times?

 

Did someone try to "play" with the gaming settings in the CCC ? Try to put all possible settings to Performance not to Quality.

 

Maybe they're testing it with different resolutions. Using lower resolutions, like 1024X720, I had nearly 40 fps on ultra settings (except ubersampling).

But my averages on ultra settings at native resolution (except ubersampling and motion blurs (I hate motion blurs)) are 20-25, not counting low draw distance fps increases. Overclocked, of course, 650/900.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/Yawn_God/witcher22011-07-1719-30-06-45.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/Yawn_God/witcher22011-07-1719-42-09-91.jpg

It seems appropriate.

 

Ha! Yup. I mentioned this a few pages back. I put everything on lowest settings, both in CCC and TW2 settings. Draw distance was like an in-game arm length before fog distance appeared; essentially nothing was visible. It was almost laughable. And it was running at the time at 19 fps, which I thought was insane. 0 draw distance, lowest textures, no shadows, and 19 fps? It was silly.

 

*Yawn*...God?: So once again - why is reducing graphic setting not improving FPS? And this happends to me in more games than just TW2... I wouldn't say CPU is bottleneck - seriously, i5 and the best it can do is 20 FPS? Even if I have minimum requirements for game I should be able to run it smoothly on lowest settings.

 

It could just be poorly optimized code, TheThomas, sort of like Crysis 1. And The Witcher 2 doesn't even use DX11! Could you imagine the performance hit running TW2 on DX11?

It could just be lazy programmers. Dragon Age 1 and Dragon Age 2, in my opinion, have equal graphics quality, yet DA2 is a much higher performance drain than DA:O. If I run DX11 DA2 with slightly higher texture settings than the DX9 maximum, I suffer a major fps hit, to where the stutter is extremely noticeable and constant. What's the point of having a DX11 GPU if I can't even use DA2 DX11 on its "minimum" settings?

I think it's just lazy programmers. Most games now aren't made for artistic value, like they "were" before, but are just cash cows. It's unfortunate, but VGs are now big money.

 

Might be but I still hope there is something I can do about this. Or I'll just buy gaming desktop (I'll have to for Mass Effect 3 anyway) and never ever again will have to deal with this sort of situation.

This.

And this.

I can't even play Assassin's Creed 2 smoothly which is annoying. And again those video settings have no impact on FPS whatsoever.

 

I've played Assassin's Creed 2 at high settings and it was perfectly smooth.
GPU was OCed and I played with FRAPS enabled so there's no way I was wrong about it.
Same story with Mafia 2- I've had like 10fps more than one of our forum users even though we've had the same exact notebook. And Mafia 2 has a benchmark mode in demo and game itself so it was an objective test.

 

Mafia 2 ran smoothly even on mine and AC1 as well. Mass Effect and Dragon Age series were fine too. Starcraft 2 and Dawn Of War 2 were not that smooth, but again - those are strategy games where framerate is not THAT important. MMOFPS are real pain - BC2 (I kinda expected this...) and Team Fortress 2 (...but this is just silly.) keep dropping to 20 FPS or even less. You can't compete with others with this framerate. Killing Floor is the only one playable. And if I won't run Human Revolution at least playable many tears will be cried...

 

So it seems there IS something wrong about these poor results. The question is: how can it be that the same hardware performs differently.

I have to confess that I only own i3-330M Cpu model and I bet it hits fps. However, previous posts prove that it's not only a matter of CPU installed... I simply have a bad impression that my laptop is not as good as it could/should be.

 

Hmm .... you guys use ULTRA settings present and by turning off a couple of options u think u can get higher than 25 fps ??? ultra preset have some useless resources hog options that setting them on anything higher than normal is utterly useless

Refer to this when setting the witcher 2 options:

GeForce.com - Get the Most Out of Your GPU

as for DX11 games Vs DX9 games the thing is that DX11 offloads many calculations to the GPU so if u have a med range CPU with a good GPU DX11 is a better option Vs DX9 where the CPU is a very important element in the process

 

i have big problem with my 5740g. i have 2 partition (disk 500gb hitachi) C: 227GB and D: 225 GB. When i copy some big files from one partition to another (for example 7gb movie file, 10gb images or install some new game from virtual drive) the system (win7 64 pro) are very sloooow. Everything (for example open device menager, web pages, open explorer...etc) are open 10x slowest than normal. When i finis copy files everything is ok. Why?
I have this problem from when i buy this laptop (2 format) and i try everything to fix this, no results
Can somebody do smal test for me? Copy some big files from partition and when copying try open device menager or control panel, internet browser ... And compare speed after copying files (do the same test after).

 

I even edited .ini files to lower settings to really lowest in BC2.

newuser3: I would say it's HDD speed issue. Mine is not either superfast while copying.

 

Try installing Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver - somewhere I read that it removes some kind of bottleneck when moving big files... You've got nothing to lose (in other words: install Intel AHCI driver and check whether you have that option enabled in BIOS)

Reply is here:

 

Thanks for the tip. But the facts are, that we are getting lower fps when runnnig in DX11 mode than in DX9.

 

Regarding Assassin's Creed 2, I played that with max graphics settings last year, no overclock, no performance issues.

Playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (read: Assassin's Creed 3) I had slightly noticeable low framerate without overclock; however with 650/900 overclock, I have at least 24+ fps almost at all times. So I am surprised that many persons seem to have Assassin's Creed 2 problems, especially when it's a slightly older game than Brotherhood.

When you do large file copying, almost all the HDD's resources are used. Since, when opening programs, the computer has to access the HDD to read the program, it is very slow. HDD transfer rate on laptops tends to be their performance bottleneck, since they tend to be set with lower RPM (5400 as opposed to 7200 or higher) to keep temperatures low. It's the weak point of the laptop, and you shouldn't worry about it at all.

 

thats very strange ... for me DA2 & DiRT2 run way smoother on DX11 Vs DX9 ... what CPUs u guys have again ??? and are u sure ur CPUs turbo boost kicking in ???

 

i5-520m here. When running DX11, when using the same settings as with DX9, I get equal performance, and I certainly don't get better performance.

 

- better performance on DX9 mode.
Argh, I wish I had have opportunities to buy desktop instead of laptop

 

hmm .... is that in DA2 only or u can test other games ??? and is your DA2 up to date ???

for your CPU I think any offloading to the GPU is neat

 

Sorry to say that, but I don't have DA2 installed, I observed this in BC2.
ATM no more games to test on :/
Portal 2 - as far as I can remember smooth gameplay after lowering details to 'medium' (not DX related)
GTA IV - playable on settings proposed by Downloads in first post, although I've seen YT videos presenting nice performance on higher settings.

Personally I accept the option that my CPU is simply too weak for these games. My frustration reached high level when I saw video with i3-330m 5740G running BC2 on MUCH HIGHER settings than mine, getting more frames than me on lowest possible details

 

Is there a demo for the witcher2 to download somewhere?

 

well ... I was about to say that BC2 can't be a benchmark point with a CPU such as urs since the extent where will u feel difference between DX11 and DX9 u will never reach due to the huge CPU limitation ... are u sure the other guy didn't have that CPU overclocked ???

 

‪BAD COMPANY 2 DX11 HIGH (NO HBAO) 1366X768 ACER ASPIRE 5740G CORE i3-330M ATI 5650 Mobility @675Mhz‬‏ - YouTube

OC'ed GPU, CPU stock (same as mine)
tried everything to reach similar fps - no freaking way...

little late here: 00:13, C U later :]

 

gnite m8 ... don't worry we will find out wats wrong with your laptop thats if there is something wrong

 

It could be CPU actually, in your case. The Witcher 2 was the only game I had seriously under-performance issues.

Portal 2, perfect on max.

GTA IV is famously terribly tuned for PC. Only if you have multi-gb graphics cards will you be able to play it without the slight stutter.

What are your cpu and gpu temps? I don't think they're at problem levels but then again, we don't know what's causing this discrepancy in performance in equal systems.

If you noticed, his pixel fillrate and texture fillrate are 10.8 and 27 gigapixels per second, respectively. Mine...are 4.4 and 11 gigapixels per second, as are probably yours. He did something to achieve those numbers, which are very, very high. That is how those numbers are possible. Now I have to find out if I can increase my card's pixel and texture fillrates.

EDIT: Overclocked 650/900, my pixel and texture fillrates are improved, 5.2 and 13 GPixel/s, still FAR, FAR below the 10.8 and 27 GPixel/s he has. At 675 and 975, which is what his is set at, it's 5.4 and 13.5 GPixel/s. How he manages those fillrates are inconceivable to me.

 

He uses a bugged version of GPU-Z which sees the HD5650 with 16 Raster Operators Vs the actual 8 ... so his scores are 2x the actual values ... he has the same fillrates as u do

 

I have a question now. Are occasional bluescreens and crashes caused by overclocking harmful to the system? Mind you, my GPU or CPU aren't overheating, but on occasions they do crash when I lower my clock speeds from OC to default. Does this cause damage nor not so much?

 

I only went back a few pages to read and did not see this question. Fredek, are you sure you notebook is not getting too hot?

I was/am having major framerate issues with bc2. Finally figured out once my cpu hit a certain temp the cpu was downclocked.

 

Actually it is dangerous ... try to run a 1 hour error check on the GPU with the clocks u set with OCCT error check software ... the GPU may not be overheating but still it has errors and artifacts ... the stable clocks will result in ZERO errors ... and when stress testing try to stress test the GPU and CPU at the same time for getting the peak temps

EDIT: for *YAWN* & Sir Ferdek if you guys don't check for errors this maybe the reason for the reduced performance ... the unstable clocks and errors maybe causing it ... Start error checking ASAP and when u reach stable "error free" clocks benchmark again and keep us posted

EDIT2: as mustangless mentioned Sir Ferdek you have an i3 CPU with a Tjunction of 90c Vs the usual 105c ... try to check the loaded temps because the i3s tend to throttle more frequent Vs the other series

 

So artifacts and errors can cause damage?

I haven't tested anything above 700/1000, which on other systems runs well, but on mind gave artifacts. The popular 650/900 works well with no errors. I'm just wondering if crashes while testing, or artifacts and errors, can damage the GPU even if it doesn't overheat.

 

No artifacts are not dangerous- these mean that voltage is too low for the core or memory (depending on how the artifact looks like).
Overheating is less likely on HD5650.

 

the danger I mentioned is not hardware related ... I mean the unstable clocks and errors may result in degraded performance or stuttering or hangs ... all symptoms you have been witnessing

 

Thanks for that. The only way to damage a GPU is with heat? If I set the clocks to, say, 1500/2000, hypothetically, that wouldn't damage the GPU, only make it perform terribly?

Thanks for the info, but yes, I'm aware. And actually, the symptoms of poor performance I was having was before I began overclocking. After starting to overclock my GPU, my performance in games, especially TW2, has noticeably increased, thankfully.

By the way, ATI/AMD doesn't currently supply an overclocking program for the 5650 GPU, correct?

 

you can do a bios mod (quite dangerous) or you can use Sapphire Technology - TriXX Tweak Utility it is amazing and allows the card to downclock (but not downvolt) in idle state

 

Doesn't seem to be working very well on the 5650. It shows a wrong number for memory clock, and I can't control fan settings, which is important when OCing, obviously.

Or am I doing it wrong?

And is there any official max temp for the 5650? Lots of searching and I can't seem to find a definitive answer.

 

In my laptop AC 1 runs horrible with big stutters every other second. even AC2 did not run as smooth but ACBROTHERHOOD runs the best and smoothest uptil now (without multisampling and shadow quality 3= rest all max: 40-60 fps).

 

Just how high temps are we talking about? I don't think my CPU goes above 80°, in fact last time I checked (while playing Mirror's Edge) it had around 71°. Would this be considered high enough for CPU to downclock?

Edit: *Yawn*...God?: Yes, my question is if temps at which CPU will downclock itself are something I can hit while playing.

 

I'm pretty sure the i3-i5-i7 processors automatically downclock and overclock (turboboost).

 

if you like, we can run the bench of the Final Fantasy XIV (173 mb) and upload a photo with the results to determine performance differences.I have 2321 points o.c (720p)

http://imageshack.us/f/830/ffxiv720pbenchmarkocwit.png/

 

Some games, like assassins creed brotherhood, The Witcher 2, load while playing, you lose fps with hard drives 5400 and 7200 rpm compared with ssd

 

Many pages ago I did serious stress test and no critical temperature had been reached. While overclocking I was using MSI Kombustor to check for errors and my GPU is OC'ed with more than 5 MHz margin to the frequencies when errors occur (seen as missing or white/black frames, colour defects, artifacts) (675/995).

Lowering the frequency by 10Mhz has no reflection in BC2 performance (which should have if frequencies are too high I guess). The most serious hit in fps in BC2 happens when I move my mouse

Downloading, 2 hours left

It is possible that I will buy i5 processor as an upgrade. I am just afraid that it wont't boost my PC as I expect. Even i3 is not working on 100% when playinh bc2.

 

Well, to conclude my side of the current GPU discussion:

After spending all night benchmarking, I've finally reached a 0 error "stable" overclock at 675/900. Sucks I got one of the crappy GPUs, it would have been nice to be able to run 700/1000, but one gets what one gets. I'm able to play The Witcher 2 at maximum settings (with the exception of ubersampling, of course) at a constant 20+ fps outdoors, except when panning extremely quickly (read: turning), which will only lower the fps to about 19 or 18, which is perfectly acceptable when playing at max settings on a 2011 game on a mid-range GPU. Of course, lowering expendable settings slightly, like shadows and motion blur raises the fps by at least 5-10%, and makes gameplay much more fluid, averaging above the 24 fps human eye threshold. With manual laptop fan control, at max fan speed, the GPU never goes above 60º C, with 58º C looking like a soft heat cap. It seems like the classic recipe of newest drivers and overclocking did the trick.

I also think that my using the opening cut-scene as an fps benchmark wasn't a good idea. It has low fps regardless the settings, on CCC minimums + TW2 minimums, or CCC factory settings + TW2 ultra.

However, another thing has been proven; the performance of TW2 isn't very linear, meaning that if you have lower framerates at absolute maximum settings (which is what is expected, higher settings = lower framerate), it doesn't mean at MINIMUM settings (CCC minimums override program + TW2 minimums) you will have higher framerates.

Observe the two screenshots. (Sorry for using instead of url, but I wanted to make sure the lazy non-clickers or virus-paranoid users saw it)

This first screenshot is taken at maximum TW2 settings (ultra, minus ubersampling, with CCC factory settings). I'm panning which is why the motion blur is there.





This second screenshot is taken at MINIMUM TW2 settings (low, disable bloom, etc., with CCC minimum settings override program).





Obviously the first screenshot should have a far lower fps than the second screenshot, yet they are only 2 fps apart. TWO fps!! TWO!! What kind of game engine is that, when bare minimum graphics and absolute maximum graphics are only TWO FPS apart?! INSANE. So the reports of TW2 having relatively static performance, regardless of the settings, appears to be somewhat true.

I guess that's all I can contribute for now.

 

So, to sum up my fights with BC2 so far:

Video presented before was recorded in Singleplayer mode. Similar framerates (little lower) are reached also by my system without OC'ing on maximum settings without HBAO, AA or AF. Only one core of i3 CPU is fully used, others approx. 80%.

On multiplayer the most playable settings in my case are low/medium/low/low/1x/1x/off/off. Dunno why multiplayer is more resource demanding than singleplayer (especially in BC2 where in both cases enginge is the same: Frostbite).
So maybe there is nothing wrong with my laptop? Anyway, just like in TW2, regardless of graphical settings (except HBAO, AF and AA) framerate varies not as much as one could expect.

 

BC2 single player vs multiplayer performance.... - PC Perspective Forums

Lots of dudes have your problem.