Asus G73JH - Starcraft 2 runs at 25FPS??

Hey guys,

I was just trying some Starcraft 2 (custom map called overrun') and I noticed that it was lagging. After opening fraps the game was playing between 20-30FPS.

I was expecting this laptop to kill Starcraft 2 no problems. I mean I can easily run First person shooters alright as seen here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus/487970-asus-g73jh-gaming-benchmarks-review.html.

Does anyone know a solution to this? Do I need to upgrade any drivers or something? Because I have not touched any settings since I got the laptop.

Cheers.

 

I don't know what kind of UMS you played, but if it has 800 zerglings running on creep it's gonna choke any computer. Apparently zerg creep (the goo on the ground) requires a lot of GPU power when quality is set to ultra. Add some units to that and even the G73 will stumble..

 

Are you on Ultra settings?

Ultra + 1080p requires an extremely fast CPU, like 3+ Ghz.

 

Keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the game is not officially out.

Whichever version you have may perform less well than an optimized release version.

 

Also remember that fraps chews up some frames ....

 

Yeah dont forget its a beta version you are playing.

 

Yes I'm on ultra and 1080p.

But this is an rts, which isn't that demanding. A g73 has an i7 quad core with a 5870, there is no excuse for not being able to run a RTS at max settings.

 

I have some slowdown in ultra. I play everything on high and very high. I hope asus release (finally) a vga drivers optimized by the time starcraft will be released, because recent games as blur (highcups at high settings) and split second (game do not run playable at very high, even a 720p) do not perform excellent as one expect.

 

Yes there is. The mobile quad core i7 is not very fast and the 5870 is only a high middle of the road single card when compared to desktops. When set to max settings, a new game should require the best hardware out there, which I'm afraid to say the g73 doesn't hold a candle to. An i7 running at 3Ghz+ on all four cores and even a single desktop 5870 are going to have twice the computing and graphics power as your laptop, and there are many people with 4Ghz+ i7's and high end cards in crossfire and sli. These are the kinds of computers that are going to max starcraft out at very high framerates.

Also RTS games aren't less demanding, it is just that they don't require the same framerates to play well as shooters do.

 

While I agree with you on your points, but for SC2 doesn't apply. There is absolutely no need for cross-fire or SLI. G73 is more than capable of cranking out high FPS on Ultra settings with SC2.

SC2 can be played easily at highest res and Ultra settings with a dual core and an 8800.

@ OP, whatever your problem is, I hope you fix it. Doesn't sound right, something seems to be wrong with your machine or some settings. I know people in the beta with much worse hardware than G73 and cruising on Ultra settings.

Good luck.

 

Here are your issues:

1) SC2 is still in Beta and not optimized for all computers yet.
2) Overrun is a map with a ton of units running around.
3) You're running FRAPS. Expect your FPS to drop if you're running fraps, by a lot.

I just beat overrun and no real FPS issues, but I know when I livestream my FPS dips to 30 FPS from 60FPS.

 

I had one instance where the game slowed to 15fps or so, for about 10 seconds. It was 4v4, and had 5 massive armies of zerglings and marines and stalkers and void rays...

That's the only time I've ever seen it dip below ... I don't know, silky smooth whatever ultra settings on 1080p ...

 

Also, saying an RTS is not demanding is not true anymore. There was a time where that was the case, or it makes logical sense that it should be that way since FPS have large fancy graphics showing on the screen so it should take more resources.

Play call of duty modern warfare and then play World at War both on ultra and see which ones gets better frames rates, and it's not world at war. when i had modern warfare and my gateway on an 8800m gts i could get 60fps+, world at war on the other hand forget ultra even medium some high settings was getting around 30fps

 

Just wanted to chip in that you could press "Ctrl + Alt + F" to display fps in sc2.

 

Was playing some ladder games today (on 1080p ultra).

In a 20 minute 1v1 on Steppes of War, I averaged 35FPS. Seem ridiculously low. Should I be worried?

 

1080p, ultra settings, unreleased game, and 35fps is low? Perhaps, I suppose... but that's a LOT of pixels being pushed around.

 

This is ignorance. Maybe it isn't as GPU intensive to run an RTS, but it takes a powerful CPU to run an RTS. Each unit has to behave according to either player input or programmed AI instructions, then the CPU has to perform calculations for each little unit on the screen when they are in battle. If you don't believe me, play Sins of a Solar Empire on a Giant map with over 150 planets. 8 hours later when you have maxed out your ship slots, try sending them all to fight an enemy fleet and see how your CPU does...

SC2 definitely falls into the CPU intensive category, so to the OP, I wouldn't worry too much about dropping some frames here and there. Everyone else might be dropping the same frames anyway, unless they have one of those crazy desktop builds someone else was talking about.

 

As much as I was hoping to kill all games when I get my G73, it is a laptop, and the mobile parts aren't comparable to desktop parts. It's easy to forget that while it has a 5870, this is nothing close to the desktop version of the 5870. Same for the CPU. There's a reason they are appended with additional characters.

I would (and will) hope that there will be efficiency updates that improve performance, but you may just have to sacrifice "ultra" if you want butter smooth gameplay. If not, stop pretending a laptop can ever truly be a desktop replacement. Unless you're using full size desktop components, it won't. Have you seen the size of a 58xx?

 

Are you playing with an AI? Some of the newer AI after patch 10 are really CPU intensive, my 9800m GS lags on medium when 1v1 using Strategy .42, but not with any of the old starcrack ones.

 

I actually agree to some extent, Starcraft 2 is just a better looking Starcraft 1, which I don't remember needing anything more than a single Pentium 3 or whatever running at 800mhz to display a crap load of stuff going on.

 

I ran the beta on a g72gx @1600x900 on ultra smoothly, I do have to say that when I had lag it stuttered quite a bit, but on a good connection it played @60+ FPS.

 

To OP, I was under the same assumption when I purchased my G73. However, if you turn down the shadow details...the frame rates get a serious boost.

 

Think about what you just said. It's better looking, meaning it has more intensive graphics (by several tiers) but your expecting it to render at roughly the same level? Come on.

Some things that may have been forgotten:
- Starcraft originally was a sprite based game, yes? This is a fully rendered 3D environment, and from the sounds of it, utilizes 3D space, thus a whole third dimension to complicate UI calculations. Huge difference.
- Starcraft originally ran in what, 800x600 mode? Try running SC2 in 800x600 mode (if it even supports that) I bet you'll get stellar frame-rates!
- Starcraft 1 is over 10 years old. It's asinine to expect a new, state of the art game, to handle roughly the same as the old iteration. Similarly to expect that it is simply a prettied up version of the old game. This is a whole new beast.

Again, as a soon to be owner of the same machine, I want it to run SC2 just as smoothly, but it is still a laptop, and this is still a very new game. If you absolutely need butter smooth gameplay at max settings, you should be building a far more efficient and cost effective desktop, especially if you are simply using the g73 as a desktop replacement. You can match and beat the g73 performance for under 1000, guaranteed. You just won't be able to stuff it in a backpack.

Who knows though, maybe they'll release a patch that improves performance and we can all rejoice.

 

Note: Starcraft 2 beta is back up.

 

where can i download the sc2, i would like to try it on my machine too

 

well the issue with SC2 is that it really is heavily CPU intensive since you're doing physics for every unit on the screen.

and if there's 800 of 'em all at once.

well.

yeah. Have fun.

 

I also remember reading somewhere sc2 is optimized for 2 cores, and if you lock the i7 at 2 cores for sc2 you will get better performance..... (worth a try right?)

as for good frame rates.... on "Average" a person only sees about 22-23 fps, most movies shown at 60 fps... the reason you notice stuttering at mid fps (25-45ish) is generally because of drastic contrast between frames....

 

Kinda false actually from what I've heard. Essentially (as per my understanding, and I expect someone more knowledgeable may come in to correct me) it's broken down like this: movies, up till now is run generally at 24 FPS as this is the point that was found to look smooth to a viewer, and it became an agreed upon standard. This only works however, because the video frames are blurred individually, so in motion, your brain fills in the gaps. We (humans) can however see much faster than 24 FPS, so in instances without blur (anything rendered by a computer without some kind of render filter that blurs fast moving objects) you will notice the gaps as stuttering.

Now that is not to say that you aren't correct in that the more noticeable gaps are due to FPS spikes (or troughs really, points were the renderer is hit hard and FPS drops for a moment), but we (humans) can definitely see a difference between 24 FPS and 60 FPS, and I think I've heard a decent portion of people can see the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, though it's much harder to discern and 60 seems to be the optimal maximum. AFAIK, 3D displays use 120hz displays so they can achieve 120 FPS, splitting the render half for left, half for right to achieve 3D, thus getting a 60 FPS result.

What this means is that we should shoot for 60 FPS whenever possible, but on less fast paced games, a lower FPS is going to be less noticeable while simultaneously being less effectual.

 

SC2 is optimized for more than 2 cores. Performance almost increases linearly with higher mhz and higher ammount of cores. Even my lowly Core i7 benefits from 4 cores at 1.6ghz instead of 1 core or 2 cores specially on the min fps.

Additionally, the RTS genre is VERY demanding in the CPU area, and on ultra, the game itself is a beast. I only get around 20-30 fps on ultra at 1920x1080.

And that's not taking into account huge battles yet.

As for the second point.... humans don't see in fps. You can distinguish easily from 20 to 60 and even 120fps. Hell, some people can see light variation from lightbulbs, and those they have a 60hz AC supply, and light up twice per period (generally).

First, eyes don't "see" information in fps, so we are NOT capped to something like "we can only see 30fps". Movies were in 24fps because it was the absolute lowest framerate to which produce film, look smooth enough and not spend much on it. Which in turn made it characteristic of itself being "cinematic". As long as you have a high enough refreshrate, yeah you can notice things like 120fps.

Naturally, some games using capped fps like 30 or even 24, are made to look "cinematic" and can sometimes break the atmosphere when you get over 60fps on them. However, yeah, usually you will try to get the most fps possible for the smoothest performance.

 

I think that we will see improvement for SC2 in the next ATI driver release.
Let's wait and hope. I thinks that drivers should be released right after official release of SC2