I need to get back to killing bad guys ASAP.
June 20, 2010 10:01 AM Subscribe
I recently started playing World of Warcraft and I'm getting awful FPS performance on my year-old HP TouchSmart, particularly in the Outlands and in dungeons. I need either to fix this or get a new computer STAT. Help!
When I bought this computer last year, I hadn't discovered the life-changing joy/addiction of WoW (or any other games, for that matter), so I just bought an off-the-shelf system designed for general home use. Now that I'm compelled to play WoW for 23 hours a day, however, the performance is driving me crazy.
I'm running Windows Vista SP1 (which I hate). I have 4 GB RAM. I have 2 Intel dual core processors running at 2 MHZ. I believe the video card is integrated, so swapping it out probably isn't an option.
With all that said, I've resigned myself to having to get a new system unless the hive mind can come up with some recommendations about how I can fix this one. So, I'm looking for recommendations of both sorts: what can I do to fix this and, failing that, what system should I buy to optimize my game playing experience? I have a slight preference for a laptop over a desktop, but don't let that sway you in either direction. Also, cost is a secondary consideration.
Thanks in advance, everyone.
When I bought this computer last year, I hadn't discovered the life-changing joy/addiction of WoW (or any other games, for that matter), so I just bought an off-the-shelf system designed for general home use. Now that I'm compelled to play WoW for 23 hours a day, however, the performance is driving me crazy.
I'm running Windows Vista SP1 (which I hate). I have 4 GB RAM. I have 2 Intel dual core processors running at 2 MHZ. I believe the video card is integrated, so swapping it out probably isn't an option.
With all that said, I've resigned myself to having to get a new system unless the hive mind can come up with some recommendations about how I can fix this one. So, I'm looking for recommendations of both sorts: what can I do to fix this and, failing that, what system should I buy to optimize my game playing experience? I have a slight preference for a laptop over a desktop, but don't let that sway you in either direction. Also, cost is a secondary consideration.
Thanks in advance, everyone.
I believe that your computer may have an MXM socket, so theoretically the graphics card could be upgraded. The problem is that most of the MXM socket cards are not very good, and it's hard to find a card compatible with a given computer because there are several incompatible versions of the standard. Also, they're astonishingly overpriced.
I think you'll need to consider a new computer. This time get one with a dedicated graphics card. As Rendus pointed out, you shouldn't need to spend an enormous amount of money to get a computer capable of playing WoW just fine, and your existing computer should continue to be fine for non-gaming uses.
posted by jedicus at 10:20 AM on June 20, 2010
I think you'll need to consider a new computer. This time get one with a dedicated graphics card. As Rendus pointed out, you shouldn't need to spend an enormous amount of money to get a computer capable of playing WoW just fine, and your existing computer should continue to be fine for non-gaming uses.
posted by jedicus at 10:20 AM on June 20, 2010
I had a similar problem when I was using my old box and ended up upgrading the graphics card which fixed all my problems. Especially if you end up raiding, you'll need to get a good video card.
You can always get a pre-made desktop and upgrade the parts you want (RAM, graphics card). You can get a pretty decent WoW-capable graphics card for under $100 these days.
posted by Verdandi at 10:24 AM on June 20, 2010
You can always get a pre-made desktop and upgrade the parts you want (RAM, graphics card). You can get a pretty decent WoW-capable graphics card for under $100 these days.
posted by Verdandi at 10:24 AM on June 20, 2010
Have you tried disabling Aero in Vista?
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-aero-on-windows-vista/
posted by ennui.bz at 10:27 AM on June 20, 2010
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-aero-on-windows-vista/
posted by ennui.bz at 10:27 AM on June 20, 2010
It should also help the framerate if you go into the Video menu and skew the settings to the lower end. Particularly stuff like shadowing and the landscape distance, stuff like that.
posted by so_gracefully at 10:42 AM on June 20, 2010
posted by so_gracefully at 10:42 AM on June 20, 2010
A year old computer should be able to handle that just fine.
Probably going to have to open up the performance monitor and see what's what.
posted by gjc at 10:49 AM on June 20, 2010
Probably going to have to open up the performance monitor and see what's what.
posted by gjc at 10:49 AM on June 20, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks everyone who has answered so far. I should have mentioned that I already updated my drivers and changed the in-game video options to low in an attempt to fix this.
Checking PMON was a good idea. My memory looks ok (49% physical memory used on average, but WoW.exe is getting 3 hardware faults a minute (???!!!)), but my CPU is really high (between 50 and 94%) and it looks like WoW is what's causing it to spike. Strangely, it looks like some WoW patches are doing over 600k disk reads per minute.
posted by Maisie at 11:04 AM on June 20, 2010
Checking PMON was a good idea. My memory looks ok (49% physical memory used on average, but WoW.exe is getting 3 hardware faults a minute (???!!!)), but my CPU is really high (between 50 and 94%) and it looks like WoW is what's causing it to spike. Strangely, it looks like some WoW patches are doing over 600k disk reads per minute.
posted by Maisie at 11:04 AM on June 20, 2010
my CPU is really high (between 50 and 94%) and it looks like WoW is what's causing it to spike.
This is to be expected, especially with integrated graphics. Even if you had an absurdly powerful machine it would be typical for the CPU usage to be more or less 100% on at least one core. Games can almost always use more power, even if it's just to calculate 200fps instead of 175. That may be useless (more than about 60fps is not visible to the human eye under most circumstances), but the game is programmed to use all available resources.
So the high CPU usage is not, in itself, indicative of much except that you're running a video game.
posted by jedicus at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2010
This is to be expected, especially with integrated graphics. Even if you had an absurdly powerful machine it would be typical for the CPU usage to be more or less 100% on at least one core. Games can almost always use more power, even if it's just to calculate 200fps instead of 175. That may be useless (more than about 60fps is not visible to the human eye under most circumstances), but the game is programmed to use all available resources.
So the high CPU usage is not, in itself, indicative of much except that you're running a video game.
posted by jedicus at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2010
Response by poster: 60 fps...I wish! At best I'm getting 18, but usually more like 7 to 10.
posted by Maisie at 11:32 AM on June 20, 2010
posted by Maisie at 11:32 AM on June 20, 2010
Is the hard drive light going crazy? 600k/min seems high, but maybe not for a game.
The hard faults per minute aren't hardware faults, they are [some kind of] cache miss.
Do you have a particularly large screen (in pixels)? Like 1920x1080 or something? Lowering that down during gameplay might help performance, but it might look like garbage too.
What kind of processor and video chip is it, exactly? Pentium 4 Dual Core, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo? That'll make a big difference.
posted by gjc at 11:46 AM on June 20, 2010
The hard faults per minute aren't hardware faults, they are [some kind of] cache miss.
Do you have a particularly large screen (in pixels)? Like 1920x1080 or something? Lowering that down during gameplay might help performance, but it might look like garbage too.
What kind of processor and video chip is it, exactly? Pentium 4 Dual Core, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo? That'll make a big difference.
posted by gjc at 11:46 AM on June 20, 2010
What is the video card. Look in hardware manager. Until you tell us this, we're just speculating.
Seconding, the CPU usage is normal for a game.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:08 PM on June 20, 2010
Seconding, the CPU usage is normal for a game.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:08 PM on June 20, 2010
Response by poster: CPU: 2 x Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 @ 2.00 GHZ
Video Adapter: Mobile Intel 4 Series Express Chipset Family
I set my resolution to 1280x600.
I'm really starting to think there isn't anything that can be done to improve this machine, which isn't the end of the world since my step-daughter's computer was recently stolen by her upstairs neighbor so I can replace mine and give her this one.
posted by Maisie at 12:22 PM on June 20, 2010
Video Adapter: Mobile Intel 4 Series Express Chipset Family
I set my resolution to 1280x600.
I'm really starting to think there isn't anything that can be done to improve this machine, which isn't the end of the world since my step-daughter's computer was recently stolen by her upstairs neighbor so I can replace mine and give her this one.
posted by Maisie at 12:22 PM on June 20, 2010
Mobile Intel 4 Series Express Chipset Family
Intel integrated. ugh. That's your problem. Intel graphics cards are notoriously bad at 3d. A new laptop will be your best bet. Either that or turning your graphics settings down to the bare minimum (low shadows, texture detail, effects). Your frame rate will still drag, even at the lowest settings.
posted by zabuni at 1:21 PM on June 20, 2010
Intel integrated. ugh. That's your problem. Intel graphics cards are notoriously bad at 3d. A new laptop will be your best bet. Either that or turning your graphics settings down to the bare minimum (low shadows, texture detail, effects). Your frame rate will still drag, even at the lowest settings.
posted by zabuni at 1:21 PM on June 20, 2010
Oh, and for buying a laptop, make sure it has a graphics card with a dedicated amount of video ram in it. WoW really doesn't stress computers much, and something as cheap as this laptop could really up your performance.
Note: That's just the cheapest dell laptop I could find without an integrated card, not really endorsing it or anything.
posted by zabuni at 1:26 PM on June 20, 2010
Note: That's just the cheapest dell laptop I could find without an integrated card, not really endorsing it or anything.
posted by zabuni at 1:26 PM on June 20, 2010
Yeah, wow. No, that graphics card is well below the recommended specs for Warcraft. It's above the minimum specs, but not by much. To give you a sense of scale, it's roughly equivalent to a gaming-oriented video card from 2001 (the GeForce 3 Ti 500). I'm afraid you'll have to buy a new laptop or a desktop if you want reasonable performance. You'll definitely want something with either NVIDIA or ATI graphics. As mentioned, Intel's graphics cards are just not built for gaming.
posted by jedicus at 1:39 PM on June 20, 2010
posted by jedicus at 1:39 PM on June 20, 2010
The new HP Touchsmart Tm2 (both CULV Dual Core and i3/i5) comes with an option for switchable, hybrid integrated/discrete graphics (Intel/ATI) and plays most recent games decently. It also has both capacitive multitouch and wacom resistive screens combined. If you want to upgrade, it's a decent choice.
posted by meehawl at 1:48 PM on June 20, 2010
posted by meehawl at 1:48 PM on June 20, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks for confirming what I suspected. I'm on my way to Best Buy.
posted by Maisie at 1:55 PM on June 20, 2010
posted by Maisie at 1:55 PM on June 20, 2010
If you're going to buy a Desktop, you really want:
In the AMD 4000-series, at least the 4670 (4770, 4850, etc. are all good)
In their 5000-series, at least the 5570 (5670, 5750, 5770, etc., are all good).
On the NVIDIA side, you want at least a 240 from the 200 series; avoid the Geforce 210, 220, 310 and 320. The 400-series have high performance, but a price to match.
For Laptops, look for at least a 4670/5650 on the ATI side, and a 240/340 on the NVIDIA side.
Basically, for video cards, big starting number + really small following numbers = latest generation, but not intended for gaming (e.g.: the 4330, the 310: not cards for gaming).
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 2:10 PM on June 20, 2010
In the AMD 4000-series, at least the 4670 (4770, 4850, etc. are all good)
In their 5000-series, at least the 5570 (5670, 5750, 5770, etc., are all good).
On the NVIDIA side, you want at least a 240 from the 200 series; avoid the Geforce 210, 220, 310 and 320. The 400-series have high performance, but a price to match.
For Laptops, look for at least a 4670/5650 on the ATI side, and a 240/340 on the NVIDIA side.
Basically, for video cards, big starting number + really small following numbers = latest generation, but not intended for gaming (e.g.: the 4330, the 310: not cards for gaming).
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 2:10 PM on June 20, 2010
Please be careful with Best Buy. A few years ago I told them I wanted to play WoW beautifully, as I was switching from a MacBookPro and needed a pc. They sold me a $1400 piece of junk that got me 1 fps in raids. And I couldn't upgrade the crummy video card cause hey, it was a laptop.
I ended up buying an $800 dollar desktop from newegg two years ago that rarely dips below 50 fps, and I'm very very happy with it. Buyer Beware.
posted by Syllables at 2:21 PM on June 20, 2010
I ended up buying an $800 dollar desktop from newegg two years ago that rarely dips below 50 fps, and I'm very very happy with it. Buyer Beware.
posted by Syllables at 2:21 PM on June 20, 2010
Response by poster: Well, I'm back from Best Buy and Syllables, you'll be unsurprised to hear that they continue to disappoint. I will be making my purchase online and then I *AM* getting Nazan's head.
posted by Maisie at 3:06 PM on June 20, 2010
posted by Maisie at 3:06 PM on June 20, 2010
My Toshiba dual-core is imposibly slow for WoW, and my desktop kicked out on me a couple of weeks ago.
So I went out and bought a Samsung NP-R580E notebook. It's got an i5 Core, GeForce 330M video and 4 gigs of RAM, running Windows 7. I get 60 fps in Dalaran or Icecrown Citadel on it, and this is while output to my 1920x1080 monitor at high graphics settings.
Best Buy sells it for $779.99. US.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:29 PM on June 20, 2010
So I went out and bought a Samsung NP-R580E notebook. It's got an i5 Core, GeForce 330M video and 4 gigs of RAM, running Windows 7. I get 60 fps in Dalaran or Icecrown Citadel on it, and this is while output to my 1920x1080 monitor at high graphics settings.
Best Buy sells it for $779.99. US.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:29 PM on June 20, 2010
One small note. If you need to reinstall wow on the new laptop, and you have an external hard drive, or can network the two computers together, you can just copy the World of Warcraft folder from one computer to another and run it. No need to redownload patches.
posted by zabuni at 7:37 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by zabuni at 7:37 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: One small note. If you need to reinstall wow on the new laptop, and you have an external hard drive, or can network the two computers together, you can just copy the World of Warcraft folder from one computer to another and run it. No need to redownload patches.
THANK YOU! This is the best news I've ever gotten.
posted by Maisie at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2010
THANK YOU! This is the best news I've ever gotten.
posted by Maisie at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Even $300 desktop computers with a proper video card play WOW pretty well these days. It's a pretty undemanding game. Onboard video, or video cards that share memory with system memory, are just awful at this though.
posted by Rendus at 10:07 AM on June 20, 2010