I'm currently in the middle of a LAN multiplayer game with a friend and two AIs. We are in a "Random - Huge (Single)" map. The game ran very well for quite some time, but after several game hours (achieved by playing 90-min sessions over several days) the game has become unplayably slow. My friend's computer is running at maybe 1-2 FPS, and mine is maybe 10-15 FPS. I have tried lowering the graphics settings to their absolute lowest, and it doesn't speed up by even a fraction.
My computer specs are as follows:
Windows 7 Professional x64
Intel Core i7-920 @2.66GHz
9GB DDR3 RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 w/ 1.8GB RAM
My friend's computer specs are:
Intel Core 2 Duo @2.53GHz (sorry, don't know the exact model)
8GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD3450 (I believe)
Any suggestions on how to improve the game speed?
3x2 = 6 GiB
3x1 = 3 GIB
6 modules (all slots filled), 9 GiB
I wouldn't do that, though. Never mix different memory chips! Even if you want to go to 6 modules, ALWAYS have 6 of the same type and production date! Otherwise it MAY work, but most likely reduces performance by requiring settings to adjust for those differences - as otherwise it may cause instability.
Best is 3 modules which lead to desired RAM amount anyway...that's also better for cooling the modules.
Screet
Thanks screet, i was tired when i wrote this, but i knew something was off. i didn't know if the ddr 3 mobo's had 4 or 6 slots of memory until your post.
Also the only reason i could see to ever have more then 4gb (ddr2) or 6gb (ddr3) is if you use adobe video editing and Photoshop all the time. I understand figuring "why not use all the slots". But it may just give more performance to just use the 3x2gb sticks of ram. It would be worth testing at any rate.
Also , make sure that your 920 isn't one of those 300 from costa rica that newegg had sold
For those of you in rio linda that dont get it, google can be your friend
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/03/05/newegg_selling_fake_intel_cpus
Double post
I did not self-build my computer, I ordered it from an OEM. It was already optimized to run with it's current RAM complement.
And believe it or not, it does make a difference to have more RAM if you're on 64-bit Windows like me. Impulse extracting a download of Supreme Commander takes up about 89% of 9GB. If I had 6GB, it would take up 100%, and everything else on my PC would slow to a crawl.
I once built up a computer from 2GB of RAM all the way to 8GB, over two years. Every upgrade did noticeably improve the speed.
Well, no thats not how windows works.
Windows almost never uses 100% of your ram. If it does it is just for a moment and because it was out of its control.
Windows caps the ram useage so that it never runs out of memory. Going to 6gb, you would still only use about 89% of your memory doing the same thing.Then all windows systems use virtual memory to fill up the gap.
The more ram windows vista/7 has, the more it will use to make its self prepare for anything that it thinks you might use.
Example:
I have a total of 4gb of memory. The lowest amount i use is about 1gb (win 7 64)On occasion i can get it lower or higher.
You with having 9gb of ram, im sure that you use 2-2.5gb at idle.
There are rare programs, installs etc that will utilize a large amount of ram to work. Adobe producs will use up to 16gb of ram if you have it. Most unzipping of files use the hdd a little ram and a little cpu.
Look at your actual ram useage while gaming. It is low, you are never ever using your 89% you might use a total of 4gb, but that is because you are using so much at idle, because you have a greater amount of ram. But your video game is only going to be using XX amount, what ever cap limit it is designed for. Soase is set at 2gb.
You notice improvements from upgrading because...
1. your old system was starving for memory and using your hdd as ram (virtual memory).
2. When you upgraded you got new components and a larger bandwidth of data transfer, mobo, cpu, ram etc. All of these being faster then your old system, thus it was faster.
Windows xp and the games of the erra needed 2gb-2.5gb (i assume most people had 1gb and upgraded to 2gb. There is a noticable difference).
Windows vista/7 needed 3gb-3.5gb.(most people had 2gb and are upgrading to 4gb now they have enough free meory to run programs. There is a noticable difference).
This is where a keyboard with an lcd comes in handy. You can watch your actual cpu/ram useage, to see how much is being used with any given program.
We are not here trying to rag on you. You asked for help and we are trying to give you help. We are al constantly learning, thats what make these forums so great!
We are saying that too may moduales of ram may be slowing down your system. Try runnining your 3 twogb sticks and see if that fixes the problem that you asked for help about.
EDIT:
And you cant optimize a pc/mobo to run with a crtain amount of ram. Your mobo onboard memory controler is capable of using up to 16gb of memory at a time. But the builder of your pc didnt get in there and optimize anything. You wanted more ram, so he said okay.
Back when ddr2 was the rage and ddr3 was just coming out. Bit-tech.net did an article on "how much ram do i need?" This article showesd how when people starting using 4x2gb modules of 8gp of ram, there was a performance hit. It wasnt great, but it was there. I dont have a link atm, but it is a good read if someone finds the link.
Sorry for the long post.
So anyway, thanks to everyone who has offered advice....
Since this seems to be a topic relevant to my concerns, I'll just ask here. I read the thread a little bit but am still not sure what conclusion to come to for my own issues with running the game at higher performance and avoid lag. I have a Q6600 Core 2 Quad processor @2.4ghz, 4gb of DDR2 dual channel RAM, and an HD Raedon 5870. My computer tells me that my graphics card is only ever needs to utilize around 33% of its power to run Sins most of the time, which is no surprise considering its a $450.00 high end graphics card. It also tells me that my RAM usage is usually around 40-50%, so that doesn't sound like an issue either. But what really seems to be the issue, since Sins can only utilize 1 core, is the fact that one of my cores is showing 90% usage almost constantly. In windows task manager, it obviously just claims only roughly 25% of my CPU is being used, but in Sins, if I understand correctly, its treating my Q6600 like a single core, 2.4ghz processor, that is using 90% of its power even in just the main menu. So, I would like to confirm with the people in this thread, if my processor does indeed seem like the most probable source of my decrease in performance. I would greatly appreciate your help.
Keep having the same old problems. Truth is it doesn't matter what you do to your cpu or gpu. this game will only be decently playable far into the future when individual core speeds get upwards of around 9 to 11 GHz... its a shame but that's how Ironclad does business. Great to know we've all pretty much wasted our money.
Well its nearly impossible to play a game with "Big Fleets". Till the middle, its comfortable, but the CPU usage never reaches areas beyond the 25% on my NEW Quadcore i bought for especially play these games with more speed.
Even on the back of the package, where the discs are inside, it says that it is multicore compatible. Well, you should rename it to "Can only use one core". Whether I adress one core to the soase.exe or 4 cores, it does not make a micro-difference.
If you sell this product with a "multicore support", you should go and write something else, because this game behaves just like an old 8-bit game. My graphics card is not even used while playing, maximum 30% GPU usage. It even lowers down the clockspeed
System:
Core2Quad 9505 @ 4x 3,7GHz @ 1,35V
6GiB DDR2-1000
Asus P5Q Deluxe
Palit GTX 275
BeQuiet Dark Power Pro P7 550W
If you think, iam an agressive flamer, iam not. I just played a nice game with a good friend and it is unplayable after a certain time, and all time before was wasted!
I don't think that it makes so biiiiig problems to add support for a question:
"Is there a multicore CPU? Yes! Ok, give me more threads..............running........100% CPU usage, 90-100% GPU usage, 60FPS in heavy fights.......YES! This is gaming experience!"
If you have a singlecore, well......just leave it as it is for them!
Greetings,
a more or less friendly person, upset about lies on the package and no speed for a game, which depends on the CPU:
Luuuk
Yes, I too see that as a lie. Here in germany it's unlawful to advertise product properties which are not present. Would also account that to the Vista Speed rating of Sins - it's entirely wrong and misleading. I had a 5.9 rated system which was unable to run sins (except you think it's ok to have the user wait multiple seconds for a single frame or several minutes to react to a mouse click).
However, when I complained about that, they said that it was necessary to print "multicore" on the game in order to get the "games for windows" logo. That's, in my eyes, making it even worse. I've tried to contact Microsoft to report this so that they could stop such behaviour and ensure that either those companies add multicore support or be sued out of business. They didn't want to take the info via mail and told me I'd have to make an INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALL to a line with unknown service fee in order to report that Maybe you've got more luck?
My "only" luck was that the store agreed to take the game back (at first they only wanted to pay the 10 EUR [EDIT: 15 US$] it does cost nowadays while I paid [EDIT:40EUR / 60 US$] for a faulty product with false advertising). Sad point to the story: I couldn't stop thinking about this game though. Just wish I'd ever read "solution to speed problem" here. It's a shame. A game that would be so great, but then there's unsolved bugs and false advertising. Just wish that those programmers would at least consider it a question of HONOR that such things have to be solved and finally do it. When our company had a cost-free software product with millions of copies, there was only ONE single bug report. The problem could not be reproduced on any other computer than that specific customers one. Guess what happened? The manager was already talking to the customer that they would like to have his computer in our labs so that we could have a closer look when I was able to find out that a apprentice had made a little change in one of his scripts. It would work on ANY other computer, but undoing that change solved the problem also for that specific customer. It was a bug, but it did only lead to false behaviour on one very specific machine! Guess what happened: The customer, for whom we make the software, was so happy with the quality of our products (especially since they have to work with other companies and regularly get an annoying amount of quality problems) that they told it other companies in other nations who are doing similar things and also had that quality problem. Didn't take long and our company had much more to do. But then, maybe, it's a cultural question? I'm from germany while this is from united states and people do have different thoughts about quality and honor there? I've never seen a single programmer not to take it serious to be told that their code contains a bug. Everyone knows that such things can happen, but since it's software, it's possible to fix it. Some do even work in their spare time for free to fix such things because it makes them ashamed that other people have to suffer from their mistakes. I've even have seen this when the person in question already was working for a different company - still coming back in their spare time for free to their previous company just to fix it.
for your text. Thanks for the confirmation.
PS: (German) Na altes Haus? Auch aus Deutschland?^^
(Translated: Hey old boy, you're from germany, too?^^)
just to let you guys know ddr3 does not mean triple channel ......
triple channel means the ram slots on the motherboard go to 3 address buses on your cpu.. (hint.. there are no cpu's that take 3 address buses)in which case each set of 2 should be the same to be stable. you can use ddr 2 and have it be triple channel. also most ddr3 mobos have only 4 slots becasue once again ddr2 doesnt mean double channel and ddr3 does not mean triple channel. They are references to the next generation speeds of the ram.
so you must have a set up in the slot slike this right 2gb 2gb 2gb 1gb 1gb 1gb right ... that means the middle 2 are 2gb and 1gb running on the same addresss channel. That will not be always be stable.
sorry for being over technical just read that chapter in my(2010 edition) A+ book
And correct me if I'm wrong but you said autosave every 60 SECONDS!!!!!!!! Leave it at 10-15 minutes
@ Screet
You are sooo right.
But let's stop whining and face the truth:
No 64-bit support, no multi core support, no games with 9 KI's that are longer than 15 min, no massive fleets and last but not least no giant battles against your mates via LAN.
Please add this to your game description.
I only get slowdowns even with large fleets if the trade ship icons are on. ohter wise it runs sweet... too bad they tried so hard no to have high graphics card requirements.. dont they know that 99% of pcs come with at least a 512 card in them now? Instead they end up with a game that is too cpu heavy and can only use on core.
my7 specs
amd phenom ii 965 3.4
asus crosshair 3 mother board
8 gb ddr3 1066 corsair dom. in dual channel
ati 4890 1 gb card
cooler master 700 w psu
intel and amd will be releasing 6 core chips that do support triple channel later this year
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
