Guild Wars 2

Are there some tuning settings i’m missing here?

I have a quad core I7 (sandy bridge) oc’d to 4.5 ghz, a gtx670 oc’d by hand by about 17% (it runs in gpuz at around 1246 usually and falls about ~3 fps short of the 680 on heaven benchmarks)

In pretty much all dynamic dragon events there are 50 person zergs, and my fps tanks from 60 (with fps cap) to 20 with severe chop.

I then check my resource monitor and see 100% cpu on all cores, and my video card not even clocking it’s full throughput (hovering in the 950 range).

100% CPU on all cores of a sandy bridge i7… that seems suspicious something in the background is running slowing the CPU down. GW2 shouldn’t be able to in its current form to get 100% load on all cores. (Read Q8 as to why)

Your GPU is not being utilize because the CPU is being bottlenecked for one reason or another and unable to instruct the GPU to work. (See Q4 for details)

Indeed thats very wrong.
A 4 core 8 thread i7 cpu no matter its clock speed can not max out at 100% with GW2. The highest you can expect realisticaly is 50% and only in extreme situations like 100 man fights. More normal % would be between 30% and 40% during Pve events and WvW.

The remaining usage adding to 100% must be being used by some other process in the background.

That’s all fine and good, but I really need more assistance as to where I should be looking to find out where my system deviates from others, because the only thing I’m running are gw2, task manager, and gpuz

On a typical desktop there are tons of stuff running in the background one of which might be holding up CPU cycles.

• Task manager,
• processes tab,
• click show all processes

Look for something that is eating alot of CPU% other than GW2.exe

Yea. .what Kirito said .. Also ..out of interest what I7 cpu is it exactly ?

I can spike 100% on my i5 3570k but only one core hits that even on my phenom it never hit that much on all cores. I agree with the other posters to look for other things eating cpu usage.

Maybe its all those information gathering utilities. Ether way even with the high end graphics cards you’ll still have trouble with dual screening during GW2. I’ve had any number of PCs go broke trying to supply the resources necessary even when they only had a 1024 on the second screen. (SLI machines as well as single card.)

I got myself a screenshot this time… maybe someone can provide more insight?

The only things running are GW2, task manager, gpuz, and Resource Monitor.

Normal GPU clock when playing this game is in the 1240’s (and fps generally hovers between 45 and 55 in dungeons)
CPU seems a little strange here.

Attached SS shows 20 fps, a cpu which is not near capped, and GPU 30% under its max clock.

EDIT:

I will try this:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/players/FPS-TIP-Quickly-increase-your-FPS-on-multicore-CPU

and see what it does to help this issue.

below is copy and pasted form other thread you posted it

Plasmacutter.

GW2 is runnig full throtle, however you needo t understand how GW2’s threads work to understand why Kirito is correct.

Bassicaly GW2 uses up to about 50 different threads to run. Of those about 3 are heavily used for performance. When any of those 3 threads hit the wall on how fast they can be procesed by your processor, the game will start slowing down. However becouse this is only 1 thread maxing out.. and your cpu which can handle 4 or 8 or even 12 threads alltogether (depending on the cpu) it will never show 100% usuage. Ontop of that most inbuilt Windows performance monitors will show said thread being spread out amonst the cores due ot the way it will move other processes and threads around to even out the load.

GW2 will only ever use around 4 threads being shown on ur monitors. Which means if you have a 4 core and 8 threads, 4 out of the 8 grpahs will show higher (but not necciserily max) usuage than the rest.

Overall a 8 thread cpu should expect ‘around’ 37% usuage when fps starts to drop.

plasmacutter.2709:

EDIT:

I will try this:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/players/FPS-TIP-Quickly-increase-your-FPS-on-multicore-CPU

and see what it does to help this issue.

A better option: http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

And while you’re there, get Process Lasso as well.

plasmacutter.2709:

I got myself a screenshot this time… maybe someone can provide more insight?

The only things running are GW2, task manager, gpuz, and Resource Monitor.

Normal GPU clock when playing this game is in the 1240’s (and fps generally hovers between 45 and 55 in dungeons)
CPU seems a little strange here.

Attached SS shows 20 fps, a cpu which is not near capped, and GPU 30% under its max clock.

I have i7 3770k and gtx 690, and all i can say you its i have some FPS like you but dont have 100% cpu used, you should to check what program use your cpu, some background programs,

btw i should have more fps like 40 but window mode drop it a lot

spitov.2198:

plasmacutter.2709:

I got myself a screenshot this time… maybe someone can provide more insight?

The only things running are GW2, task manager, gpuz, and Resource Monitor.

Normal GPU clock when playing this game is in the 1240’s (and fps generally hovers between 45 and 55 in dungeons)
CPU seems a little strange here.

Attached SS shows 20 fps, a cpu which is not near capped, and GPU 30% under its max clock.

I have i7 3770k and gtx 690, and all i can say you its i have some FPS like you but dont have 100% cpu used, you should to check what program use your cpu, some background programs,

btw i should have more fps like 40 but window mode drop it a lot

Thanks for confirming what I suspected spitov. It seems GW2 does not have enough threads for feeding the GPU when a lot is going on There should be an option to increase the thread count to accomodate beefier CPUs that have multi-core with hyper-threading.

There is absolutely no excuse for gw2 ever falling below 45 FPS on a gtx690. That thing heaven benchmarks higher than 2 680’s SLI’d. It points to a threading flaw in the code.

I most definitely don’t run anything in the background. This system was assembled for GW2, and essentially acts as an over-built game console for pc games. I don’t install or run anything beyond firefox and gw2 on this machine.

Direct3D9 see’s negative returns and performance degradation as thread amounts increase.

Lets not talk about things you really don’t understand…….

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Direct3D9 see’s negative returns and performance degradation as thread amounts increase.

Lets not talk about things you really don’t understand…….

D3D 9 was brought into being in the proverbial age of the dinosaur.

when you have a gtx 6-series (especially a 690 like that guy has), you can get better end-results even with the “performance hit” from sheer hardware muscle.

I’m not saying it should be higher than 4 threads at the base level, but it should be an OPTION for those of us with higher end systems.

I guarantee that even with the “performance hit”, my system would do better than a 20 fps low-end it gets now due to threads unable to feed and utilize 30% of my gpu’s power.

I’d also gladly trade quite a few high end fps for more low-end, because the situations where it’s low-end are precisely those when the fps is needed.

when you have a gtx 6-series (especially a 690 like that guy has), you can get better end-results even with the “performance hit” from sheer hardware muscle.

No. where directx is concerned, the GPU is the second last and last point of processing, with the cpu handling the generation of batches as well as the decoding of these batches during the driver translation stage.

I’m not saying it should be higher than 4 threads at the base level, but it should be an OPTION for those of us with higher end systems.

Theres only so much multithreading you can do before the application starts losing performance. DirectX9 isn’t typically multithreading friendly, so its usually best to leave the graphics threads intwined with the main threads, typically, anyone trying to multithread d3d9 will encounter hitching and stuttering in their engine as the synchronisation between engine and video updates is delayed heavier.

Indeed. What Squall said is acurate.

It can be done ..but it requirs alot of work to get right and to be honest Anet isnt going to bother doing that ..they might aswell spend just as much time building a DX11 engine instead ..which again they wont be doing since it just takes to much time to do ether option. Thats the same reason they used the GW1 engine and highly modified it instead of building a new one .. to save money and time.Time is money

Time and money may be one thing but using an antiquated API is ridiculous for a AAA title with 6 years of dev time available. Why not put in dx 7 support while we are at it..

Forward thinking obviously wasn’t on the table at all.

Lets make a next gen MMO with last gen API…brilliant…

Stormcrow.7513:

Time and money may be one thing but using an antiquated API is ridiculous for a AAA title with 6 years of dev time available. Why not put in dx 7 support while we are at it..

Forward thinking obviously wasn’t on the table at all.

Lets make a next gen MMO with last gen API…brilliant…

Hit the nail right on the head.

If they were to abandon DX all together and go for opengl they could port their games to mac and linux more easily too. (fun stat: since 2006 half the laptops sold on college campuses have been mac – time may be money, but so are demographics)

I don’t have a Nvidia card, but are you overriding the in-game graphic settings from your driver menu? You can do that with AMD drivers where you set the game to always run some crazy high AA that will cripple your FPS no matter what you set in game.

Greetings, a few things you may not of thought of checking…
1. The process tab on taskmanager, click on the “cpu” at the top to sort the processes by cpu usage. (you may have to click twice on it to get it to sort H-L vs L-H) This should tell you/us which process is borking your system.
2. Firewall/Antivirus software – this could easily be causing issues.
3. Believe it or not “itunes” has been known to do this sort of thing.
4. Last but not least – are you on a wired or wifi connection? AES wireless encryption and not-so-good drivers can easily chewup ALL your cpu bandwidth.

Again, sadly as others have pointed out most modern games (GW2 included) won’t make full use of a medium powered modern PC let alone high end gaming rig. This game is CPU bound and tossing more threads/cores at it won’t improve its performance.

How’s your internet connection faring? When there are a ton of people on the screen at once, that’s a whole lot of data that gets transferred between you and the servers. It takes a lot of work to sort through that and then render it.

When you start getting packets late, the game has to wait for them before updating. This can cause extra slowdown as well.

Also, I’m running an i7-920 at 2.8Ghz with two ATI 5770s in CrossFire and I usually hover at like 35+ FPS in those huge fights.

plasmacutter.2709:

Stormcrow.7513:

Time and money may be one thing but using an antiquated API is ridiculous for a AAA title with 6 years of dev time available. Why not put in dx 7 support while we are at it..

Forward thinking obviously wasn’t on the table at all.

Lets make a next gen MMO with last gen API…brilliant…

Hit the nail right on the head.

If they were to abandon DX all together and go for opengl they could port their games to mac and linux more easily too. (fun stat: since 2006 half the laptops sold on college campuses have been mac – time may be money, but so are demographics)

yet the most funny part of that i have seen is that most of those users endup running windows 7 more then OSX……pretty sad paying all the money for an apple product then not using it as intended.

another point is, dx9 isnt just last gen, its 2 generations old.

had they worked to get the game out in dx11 and properly coded it, it could downscale to dx9, 10 and 10.1 hardware, BUT Anet didnt do this for 2 main reasons.

1. they would loose sales to users still clinging to XP(whos systems most likely shouldnt even be trying to run this game now…..)

2. they have dreams of a console port and its easier to port to console from dx9 since the 360 and ps3 both have dx9 level hardware.

if they would get on the dx11 band wagon and add support, they could gain a nice perf boost from it and could also give us stuff like real AA rather then their blurry FXAA….

dx11 offers more then eye candy, driver level multi threading for example….

every game I have that added dx11 support has gained perf from dx11 mode, most dx10 games I have run faster in dx10 mode then dx9….

DX9 is really antiquated, its just to bad that some people think its the best option….even if it causes all sorts of issues…..

and OpenGL dosnt make porting any easier really, Infact Anet could pretty easily add an OGL renderer to their engine, a few games I play have the option to force opengl mode, funny thing is, they also dont have Linux versions…..

what I find really sad is, even with how much WoW sucks, and how horrible activision is, WoW has dx11 support and gains perf from it……yet gw2, a much newer game, thats had years of development is still behind the curve…..i mean dx9……in 2012…….the only excuse for that is greed….wanting to sell people who really cant play the game copies……

hell, even StarTrekOnline has dx11 support…its beta but its still there, and at least for me it runs better then their dx9 mode…..

Well All we can hope is that anet have some people working on dx11 support and working on using dx11 to fix some of the horrible optimization issues the game has….its not like the gfx are in any way ground breaking……and my system can deal with firefall “zergs” of people and PVE mobs without even blinking……

my system can deal with huge hordes of people and mobs in tera, again without even blinking…..despite tera’s also being bugged(the orignal developers used an old, bugged, cracked version of a flash UI development kit and wont update the UI to fix the problems it causes…..probably to cheap to buy the kit legit….)

Jazhara Knightmage.4389 pretty much nailed it.
As for DX9 ports to consoles, it would seem that is pretty much a pipe dream now since next gen consoles will not be using that API.
I have little to no faith that DX11 will be implemented.Ever.
I get the feeling Anet will wait for CPU clocks to catch up.
Open GL would be great but, again I don’t see them doing that either, unless of course you can buy DX11 and OpenGL support with gems from the TP

OpenGL would make things slower, its even worse at multithreading.

Eleia, your cpu is bottlenecking you.

I dont get how he is having that slow.. I have a Quad Core Duo with a Geforce GTX560 and only 4 gigz of ram and still hover at about 30 fps on ultra settings

I have read that AMD has bottlenecking problems, and I am not sure how an i7 would be that beneficial over an i5 on GW2, but something definitely wrong there

I am assuming you are just playing GW2 and not playing Crysis at the same time or have 800 background applications like Weatherbug

Having the same issues, sitting on an i5 3670k @ 3.40 GHz, and a GTX 670 with a butt ton of RAM.

Managing a clean 20 FPS in Lion’s Arch, turning absolutely cripples the FPS to 1.

Have tried tweaking every setting in both Nvidia control panel and GW2. Task Manager has nothing consuming any CPU power besides GW2 at about 40% or so.

Update drivers to 306.97? made sure GPU is running pci-e at x16?

AmbitiousAmanda.8159:

Having the same issues, sitting on an i5 3670k @ 3.40 GHz, and a GTX 670 with a butt ton of RAM.

Managing a clean 20 FPS in Lion’s Arch, turning absolutely cripples the FPS to 1.

Have tried tweaking every setting in both Nvidia control panel and GW2. Task Manager has nothing consuming any CPU power besides GW2 at about 40% or so.

Lions Arche is typical 40-60fps
Lions arch with a bunch of extra stupid looking tree’s and snow particles + fog density… well, there’s your 20fps.

turn environment down to low and reflections to off or medium. that should get you to a somewhat smooth 30-35fps.

This game needs more control over particle density and geometry lod

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Lions arch with a bunch of extra stupid looking tree’s and snow particles + fog density… well, there’s your 20fps.

turn environment down to low and reflections to off or medium. that should get you to a somewhat smooth 30-35fps.

This game needs more control over particle density and geometry lod

lol, I will agree with that and +1 that. I will give you credit

Squall Leonhart.2075:

AmbitiousAmanda.8159:

Having the same issues, sitting on an i5 3670k @ 3.40 GHz, and a GTX 670 with a butt ton of RAM.

Managing a clean 20 FPS in Lion’s Arch, turning absolutely cripples the FPS to 1.

Have tried tweaking every setting in both Nvidia control panel and GW2. Task Manager has nothing consuming any CPU power besides GW2 at about 40% or so.

Lions Arche is typical 40-60fps
Lions arch with a bunch of extra stupid looking tree’s and snow particles + fog density… well, there’s your 20fps.

turn environment down to low and reflections to off or medium. that should get you to a somewhat smooth 30-35fps.

This game needs more control over particle density and geometry lod

That’s a really poor excuse; my rig is much weaker than hers and is doing about the same performance-wise.. There is some optimization problem with the GTX600 series cards, there has to be.

i5-3570K & GTX660 (306.97) here with best appearance setting, getting 40-60fps running around LA with all the snow effects etc.

GTX600 series run fine.

4.625ghz I7 and GTX 670. Only place I have bad fps is a few spots in black citadel and occasionally with a large event.

Nearly all issues with people with the 600 series come down to software (Not GW2) or PCIE lanes being wrong (1x instead of 16x). Both of which r user faults. There are ofcourse a few that can be down to hardware failures ..but those are rare.
Otherwise this forum will be aflood with thousands of people moaning about issues with the 600 seires which alot of people have ..be it a cheap 600 series like the 650 ..or an expensive 690.

As the above 2 have said. .the 600 series is fine.

Is this game getting a patch to fix this awful fps or not? If not i think a LOT of gamers wont be buying any expansions in future

Id actually PAY subs to play GW2 if it ran smooth, that’s how annoying it is.

@ Solar you talk a lot but don’t say much, i saw some of your posts on this issue, your basically telling evreyone there PC suck balls and they need a PC capable of been skynet in order to run what’s a basic looking game. ofc i appreciate you trying to help but seems like the low fps ain’t down to people’s computers

Actually even “Borderlands2” is/was giving some GTX6xx owners grief. There are many examples of Fermi based cards running better than Kepler ones.

Then again, with this game the FPS hits most people are getting has nothing to do with the GPU.

I wandered around LA and the WD event to find a place which gave me solid 30FPS and tested with my resolution set from 1024×768 to 1920×1080. The result? No significant change in FPS.

This sort of thing confirms what we already knew – GW2 is CPU (+Net?) bound. No amount of GPU power is going to fix that.

Considering that I’ve yet to hear anyone claim that they don’t experience a FPS drop in PvP and PvW modes as compared to (non-LA) PvE mode it would appear that large numbers of players and/or visual effects is causing the FPS drop. (# of players = Net, # of effects = CPU)

You are not missing on anything. It’s not your rig. It’s ArenaNet’s poor coding and complete lack of optmization.

I’m gettin 20 frames per second in Lion’s Arch on LOWEST possible settings, with an X6 @ 4ghz, 2 × 6870′s in Crossfire and 16 GBs of RAM.

I haven’t played such poorly optimized MMO since Age Of Conan.

omino.4302:

@ Solar you talk a lot but don’t say much, i saw some of your posts on this issue, your basically telling evreyone there PC suck balls and they need a PC capable of been skynet in order to run what’s a basic looking game. ofc i appreciate you trying to help but seems like the low fps ain’t down to people’s computers

Your kinda correct, though maybe a bit of a harsh interpretation :P

Bassicaly GW2 could be alot better in terms of performance and optimisations. However to get the performance to the point where people can go do somthing like WvW with 70+ people on the screen with 50+fps and no culling. Anet would need to bassicaly build a new game engine ..that is never going to happen. Considering the engine its using, and that fact its DX 9, the performance u can get if u have an up to date proper gaming rig ..is perfectly acceptable.

Its harsh but those that complain about performance when using dated and/or cheap hardware, media computers, or cheap gaming rigs.. need to understand that u get what u pay for. There will always be games that requir higher performance computer parts to play smoothly, it could be down to it being a super HD type game like Crysis ,,or it could be down to a odd game engine like GW2 ..ether way so long as its possible for a reasonable amount of money to play the game on a gaming rig ..there really isnt much to complain about.
You can build the core of a gaming rig that could play GW2 including WvW without droping below 30 fps for roughly $370 / $300 + a Low end gaming/high end media GPU like a 550ti or AMD 7770. That is not much at all in world of gaming.

Some may argue that GW2’s minimum requirments say otherwise ..those same people dont undertsand that minimum requirments simple mean that game will run ..not that it will be playable ..and thats the same for all computer software.

I cant do anything about GW2’s software ..but i can do somthing about my computer. And so can others ..people ask why they get poor performance and what they need to do to get better. I simply advise what is required and what is possible, its up to them wether they want to spend the money to upgrade their rig so they can play GW2.

SolarNova.1052:

Its harsh but those that complain about performance when using dated and/or cheap hardware, media computers, or cheap gaming rigs.. need to understand that u get what u pay for.

I have an X6 OC’d to 4ghz, 2 Radeons 6870 running in Crossfire and 16GB of RAM. While by no means its a high end rig (it’s two years old) now, I certainly would not call it a “cheap gaming rig”.

Care to comment ?

Ran around LA on the same account, on both my system with best performance setting.
3570K@4.2: 55-90fps
Q6600@3.2: 20-30fps

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
Phenom II X6 ranks slightly higher than Q6600, so that 20fps you are getting is reasonable. Having dual GPU in xfire won’t help much in LA where its mostly CPU-bound. Gw2 can use optimization since its built on a modified dx9 gw1 engine, but probably bottles down to cost since its not a subscription model like WoW.

Yes, I know all that.

My point is: what kind of excuse is that ?

It basically boils down to – “you have a fast CPU with a lot of spare horsepower, but the game simply cannot use it, because it’s not coded to utilize multicore CPUs”.

Effectively the advice is to DOWNGRADE a CPU. Yes, in my case it would be a downgrade, because I do use this CPU it for 3D rendering, where it’s all about the number of cores. Also, back at the time I bought my rig, Intel simply did not have a six core CPU and 6870’s were like three weeks old, so the choice was rather obvious.

So… who’s fault is this ? Mine or ArenaNet’s ? It’s a freaking DX9 game that doesn’t look all that amazing in terms o FX, texture resolution, polycount, etc. (it has incredible art style though).

IMO, its bit of both yours and Anet. You built a system designed for another purpose which was 3d rendering and using it part time for gaming which most games don’t fully utilize 4+ cores.

Anet could have rebuilt a new engine that maybe utilized cores more efficiently but cost might be exponential.

But, you don’t have to downgrade to get better performance for both GW2 and 3d rendering. i7-3770k or i7-3970x for 6cores.

I’m not planning to spend 700+ USD on a CPU plus a new mobo, just to be able to enjoy Guild Wars 2.

Also back in the day, when Age Of Conan launched (2008) I had a Quad Core Intel Xeon @ 2.66, with a 2 x Geforce 8800 GTs in SLI.

I couldn’t get more than 20 frames per second in certain places in Tarantia.

A broken engine is a broken engine, I’m just not going to bother with bad developers and their poor excuses.

But anyway man, thanks for your posts, they are very informative for people that are less tech savvy.

Did something change on yesterday’s update? I was getting consistent 60 fps at various maps (Straits of Devastation, Wayfarer Foothill, and Kessex Hill) consistently up to Monday. All of sudden, I was getting 20 fps starting latest update. I have i7 CPU, 16 GHz memory, and my GPU’s high-end. The point is that i was getting at 60 pfs consistently before last night.

Honestly ..u were trying to game on a Xeon chip ?! o.0

The number of cores is not more important than the speed of the core.
Speed is everything(along with architecture ofc) with games.
A current gen intel 4 core 4 thread cpu will do just as well in a game as current gen intel 6 core 12 thread cpu.
A current gen intel 8 core 16 thread cpu however will tank.. becouse those cpu’s have slow core speeds. Xeon’s were/are not cheap ..hell no …but they are NOT meant for gaming lol.

Bassicaly most games run on a 4 thread bassis ..there are exceptions ofc but most run on 4. there for u get the highest clocked 4 thread cpu u can, which also has really good single thread performance. you take those 2 main poitns and it points u to 2nd and 3rd gen Intel i5’s. Endof story.

im not saying AoC wasnt badly coded. .maybe it was. .BUT a contributing factor would have been that it was a Xeon chip u were trying to play on which as a fact is NOT for gaming, the core clock is to slow.

Im afraid if you dont want to ‘beleve’ those ‘facts’ ..then feel free, no skin of my nose.

SolarNova.1052:

Honestly ..u were trying to game on a Xeon chip ?! o.0

The number of cores is not more important than the speed of the core.
Speed is everything(along with architecture ofc) with games.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

PassMark – CPU Mark
Single Thread Performance – Updated 19th of December 2012

Xeon is on top of the list and as such would run GW2 like a beast. That invalidates your point.

An added bonus of the Xeon is that there are actually TWO Pcie16 buss’s available.
(they also tend to have larger caches)

I’ve actually seriously considered building my next rig around one for those very reasons.

My point was ur Xeon u were using back then was at 2.66ghz. thats slow.
Those newer Xeon’s on that list are indeed powerfull ..but they are also more powerfull than the one u had , and would likely run GW2 well if they can also OC.

So no it doesnt invalidate my argument becouse the Xeon in question was from back in 2008 when they had slow per core lock speeds. -.-

If there’s no chance they will optimize gw2 before any ideas of releasing expansions then i think any expansion will sell very poorly in comparison to gw2 mainly because it seems everyone having low fps problems with more than capable pc’s will have to upgrade JUST to play reasonably when they can run all other games perfectly fine : ( No chance in hell im upgrading my perfectly fine pc just to run 1 game better and I guess i won’t be the only 1 thinking that.

omino.4302:

I’ve had to stop playing the game because of the awful fps eg, 14fps in LA and that ascalon fractal ‘slideshow’ 8fps to 15 fps and the others i’m always around less than 20 fps playing makes me feel ill and get headaches. Such a shame as i waited 5 years for this game I don’t get it I’ve tried everything on that stickied checklist and get the same poor performance, I’d blame my pc but i can run skyrim and other modern games on max settings 60fps np whatsoever : / No expansion for me until there’s some miracle optimization patch (here’s hoping).

Just a quick edit that above performance is settings all on low and lod on low it’s just silly.

SolarNova.1052:

Omino .. what cpu do you have?

omino.4302:

Intel Core I5-3570 Processor

You have a good CPU, but claim bad fps. Should be getting 50-60fps with dips to 30s occasionally in LA. I have a 3570k and it works well. Something is wrong with your setup.