Guild Wars 2

I would suggest you look at the GTX 650 or GTX 660, they pack quite a punch for their price points, especially the GTX 660.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297.html

There is also a GTX 650 Ti coming out:
http://www.techpowerup.com/172572/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-650-Ti-Specifications-Detailed.html

Batim.9075:

I logged my gpu temperatures when playing and when i got the Black screen.
Imo it looks normal.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/screentemp.jpg/

One of your cards reached 81ºC and the other 87ºC, that’s really too high. Anything above ~75ºC is really a big warning sign.

I would suggest you get MSI Afterburner and do a custom fan profile, like the attached one. A good starting point is 35ºC@40% fan speed linearly increasing to 75ºC@100% fan speed.

You can add more points to the graph by left-clicking it and dragging them to where you want them; you can also eliminate points by selecting them and pressing the “Del” key.

When running GW2 on an i7-2600K none of the 8 virtual cores are parked while running the game.

There is only benefit from this tip if you are seeing cores parked (or oscillating between parked and unparked states) in Resource Monitor while running the game. Put the game in windowed mode and open Resource Monitor.

There is no benefit to having cores unparked while Windows is idle.

In any case, when using useplatformclock=true, QPF is higher than without it, so that is always a benefit in timer resolution.

Batim.9075:

Now i cant run the game anymore, it keeps black screening on me all the time.
When playing for 5-15min it can be black screen for 0,5 – 1 second, then it goes back to normal.
This can happen 3-5 times, after that ill get a black screen and “GW2 – Is not responding”

Each of those 0.5—1s black screens is the nVidia driver crashing and resuming, which will end up with GW2 crashing overall.

How long since you cleaned your gfx for dust? Have you checked the gfx temps while running the game?

Dricoust.4592:

Again, QPC does nothing other than return the current TSC of the current processor as can be discovered with a debugger. This is why you are warned about setting the platformclock flag as it’s only intended for debugging purposes — why this hasn’t been mentioned here I’m not sure.

Thanks for the input. Do you know why does the QPF change whether useplatformclock is on or off?

If QPF is only based in the TSC shouldn’t it always be the same, independent of useplatformclock (reflecting timer resolution)?

Dricoust.4592:

At present, QPC still relies entirely on the current processors TSC; the HAL callback is merely a stub. To overcome the associated problems with this implementation usually you would adjust for the time drift by synchronizing with the system timer which is indeed typically derived from the most accurate available source (e.g, a PIT) however even this is further [intentionally] diminished in resolution to prevent excessive interrupt servicing. The GW2 developers do not account for this.

Yes, but QPC relies on QPF precision, and with the platformclock flag set, QPF is derived only from the HPET timer. On my system, with HPET on + platformclock on, QPF = 14.31818MHz, which by disabling TSC will disable the need for synchronization. If I leave HPET on, but disable platformclock, QPF = ~3.8MHz.

Have you checked Eurocom laptops? They are fully customizable.

Strange… All my work PCs and home PCs had it disabled… I had to use the bcdedit /set useplatformclock true trick to enable it.

Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269.html

Samsung 840 Pro SSD: More Speed, Less Power, And Toggle-Mode 2.0
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/840-pro-ssd-toggle-mode-2,3302.html

It’s not, you have to set it manually using bcdedit. It’s easy to test the differente: Using WinTimerTester, the QueryPerformanceFrequency will be:

• TSC+HPET = ~3.8Mhz
• HPET only = ~14.3MHz

Dricoust.4592:

For one, Guild Wars doesn’t use the mm-timer (it uses RDTSC) and furthermore the potential gain in precision is redundant given the preemptive environment that is Windows/Mac.

Unless you explicitly enable platformclock=true in the BCD, windows will use a combination of (RD)TSC+HPET.

Windows only disables per core TSCs when platformclock is set on the BCD, reverting to LAPICs (on Windows 7, because Win 8 is a different story it seems…) when HPET is off or using HPET when it is on in the ACPI.

Anyhow, TSCs are a real implementation mess, glad there is a way to be rid of them.

Try this please, and post your results.

Probable causes of cold boot problems are related to the connections of components, where, after heating, the metal connections dilate and make contact again. If nothing else works, take everything out and put them back in, making sure the sockets (CPU, RAMs, PCI-E) are clean and there is no oxydation anywhere.

@michaeljhuman.3940, Thanks for pointing that out.

It’s true Sandy has lower thermals for big overclocks (4.5+GHz), because both i5-2500K and i7-2700K are rated at 95W TDP, and Intel uses fluxless solder as TIM for anything >=95W TDP. Ivy, on the other hand, has lesser TDP, so Intel uses a thermal paste as TIM, making those chips hotter for high overclocks. There is a good review of this here.

However, if the op doesn’t wish for anything above 4.5GHz, I would still recommend the i5-3570K, since the small performance increase between both at stock clocks is amplified a bit by overclocking — but only if you can find both CPUs at similar prices. If the 2500K is much cheaper, go for it.

Ivy supports PCI-E 3.0, but only on compatible motherboards (Z77 mostly, some Z68 also support it on the first PCI-E 16x slot or have PCI-E 3.0 bridge chips). However the gain over PCI-E 2.0 16x for graphics cards is minimal at this point.

skeletank.4382:

Well, my CPU caused a failure during the IntelBurn stress test; however, whatever problem it may have it isn’t overheating as I already previously tested its temperature and it was fine.

If it isn’t overheating, then you problem is the CPU Vdroop being a little too much when at 100% usage. You can either:

• Increase Vcore slightly, just bump it up a notch and test again.
• Increase the Load-Line Calibration setting (or decrease, depends on how your bios calls them: you want “more” LLC — for example, on my BIOS, that would mean going from LLC 5 to LLC 4). You can check both in your BIOS.

I’d say, if you bump 3-4 times the Vcore and it keeps crashing, put it back where it was and bump LLC. A combination of these measures will yield you stability. If none of these solve the failures, then you have a RAM problem (usually too low Vdimm, too tight timings, different chip modules in paired channel slots or simply bad ram).

skeletank.4382:

I noticed that the program is called “Intel” Burn so I was curious if it even is meant to work with AMD CPU’s? I am not in denial just was curious when I noticed the name of it and its logo were Intel.

Yes it’s meant to work on any CPU. It’s just called that because the libraries it uses for performing Linpack benchmarks are from Intel.

AndyPandy.3471:

I’m a bit confused, since i’m a programmer and i know what the HPET timer is used for and what it does and i see no reason at all, why it would effect gaming FPS. So either there must be a “crazy” software bug involved or your claim is simply wrong and the FPS gain is related to some other factors.

When you are using the platformclock=true, windows uses only HPET for the whole system, disabling individual CPU per-core TSCs. This means there is no counter de-synchronization related problems, nor windows will need to periodically re-synchronize them. Also, HPET operates at a higher frequency than any other timer, which means it’ll always be the highest precision timer in the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter
The time stamp counter has, until recently, been an excellent high-resolution, low-overhead way of getting CPU timing information. With the advent of multi-core/hyperthreaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and “hibernating” operating systems, the TSC cannot be relied on to provide accurate results — unless great care is taken to correct the possible flaws: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. In such cases, programmers can only get reliable results by locking their code to a single CPU. Even then, the CPU speed may change due to power-saving measures taken by the OS or BIOS, or the system may be hibernated and later resumed (resetting the time stamp counter). In those latter cases, to stay relevant, the counter must be recalibrated periodically (according to the time resolution your application requires).

Get the Intel Core i5-3570K instead of the 2500K, it is one generation newer.

Thank for posting this information, I’m sure some people will benefit from these tips. The HPET trick is a good one. Most current bios support it (there’s usually an option for it in the ACPI menu), and even if they have it disabled with no option to turn it on, windows will use LAPICs, instead of relying on the default TSC counters (you can use WinTimerTester to check the current clock rate precision)

This could also be caused by spyware or adware stuff, try doing a sweep with Malwarebyte’s Anti-Malware and/or Spybot-Search&Destroy.

Drintar.1246:

Any time you plan to upgrade video cards it’s a good idea to check

This Chart

I’d also add this one too, it lets you select 2 gfx cards and compare them easily in all the benchmarks. Pretty handy.

I can also confirm this. Please hide them or use a hashed value instead.

Most motherboards nowadays have some sort of automatic overclocking function that gives a solid boost, without the trouble, specially aimed at novice overclockers!

michaeljhuman.3940:

Every game benchtest I have seen shows that if you lower your game graphics settings enough (lower resolution especially) that eventually you become CPU bound.

It’s not that the CPU load goes up, it’s that the GPU stops being the bottleneck and the CPU does.

+1!

Refraction.1892:

Before you go reapplying thermal pastes, i would check the heatsink/fan end of your laptop and make sure there isnt a layer of blanket dust between the fan and the heatsink.

You will probably have to remove the base of your laptop to get to this but im afraid there is no easy solution.

This ^. Anything going past 75ºC is a big warning sound, past 80ºC means there is something very wrong somewhere. At 100ºC you are literally killing your laptop with the effect from electromigration inside the chips.

There is no assurance your laptop even uses thermal paste, it could use thermal adhesives to keep the coolers in place.

99% of the times the cause for trouble is either pet hair, dust or dust+cigarette smoke allocated between the heatspreader fins and the fan.

For desktop processors:

• An Intel Core i5 is a quad-core CPU
• An Intel Core i7 is a quad-core CPU with Hyperthreading

I suggest you go read a bit more about it.

You can check this article for some tips:

System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-benchmark,3276.html

Revolutia.6507:

I am also trying to fix some of the fps issues and I want to ask, how do I get rid of the tearing when I put v-sync off?

You don’t, that’s why v-sync exists, to eliminate that tearing. The only option to play tearing free is to use v-sync + triple-buffering (of alternatively, frame queuing), so that when you drop below your screen refresh rate, the framerate still stays smooth, just like without vsync.

Try D3DOverrider, or if your motherboard supports it, LucidLogix’s Virtu MVP that comes with a more elaborate “Virtual Vsync” feature.

AndyPandy.3471:

Since the “.300” nVidia drivers there is a alternative called “adaptive vsync”, it basically just enables/disables vsync dynamically, if i understand it correctly.

True, thanks for pointing that out. The unfortunate side-effect is that each time the GPU is unable to deliver more than 60fps on a particular scene, you are basically playing with v-sync off.

I think they made this option more to limit GPU energy draw on games where you are regularly above 60fps (so the GPU doesn’t render frames that will never be seen on a 60Hz screen).

My only tips would be to get drivers 306.23 from http://www.geforce.com/ if you already didn’t and try Reflections: None. From what I’ve tested (GTX560 Ti@1GHz), Reflections: All are sometimes a 50% performance hit.

I think they haven’t yet got the time to build tools for automated parsing of the character transactions log, which would enable any changes after moment X to be all reverted back. Though, will all the recent issues, I bet that’s really high on their priority list.

Don’t overclock anything yet, try running the game with v-sync off and post your results first.

Using v-sync without triple buffering will reduce your fps to 30 the moment you lower from 60+ to 59fps, and stay between 30 and 59fps.

The triple-buffering option in the nVidia control panel only works for OpenGL, so you’ll need for the game to support triple-buffering or use a 3rd party utility (D3DOverrider).

Actually, I don’t think any dev implemented proper triple buffering in D3D yet, all common solutions are just Frame Queuing (including D3DOverrider, but it works).

Bottom line: Try the game first without v-sync. If you notice that resolves your problem, get D3DOverrider (included with the RivaTuner util)

Get that AMD X4 FX-4100 overclocked to 4+GHz and you’ll notice a huge difference.

100ºC is boiling hot, something is really wrong with your laptop’s heat dissipation. Do you have a pet? If so, read this.

What are your in-game settings for reflections and v-sync?

@Xyphra.4601:

• Are you using triple-buffering with v-sync?
• Have you tried disabling v-sync?

Or more VirtualBS to make money?

Anyone knows of a good GPU resource monitor that also shows CUDA thread count and usage?

lcizzle.8219:

Please don’t edit #3, that is amazing.
Your power supply says 1250W because you fell into a trap. Unless you have Quad CPU and Quad SLI you won’t even use 2/3s of that. Big numbers = better. Amirite?

Better components, higher quality manufacture, better (flatter) PSU efficiency curve and less ripple.

Here’s an excellent example: Corsair AX1200i 1200W
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=300

BCDragon.5614:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-305V5A-S04.65782.0.html this is the laptop in question

You’ll get ~15fps with this, if you’re lucky!

Dealman.2381:

Do more googling regarding the L3 Cache. The L3 Cache is not needed at all, really. Also most motherboards nowadays have a built-in L3 Cache, which is the reason the Llano probably does not have it.

L3 Cache is good, there’s no denying that – but it will have no impact in gaming.

The last motherboard that had CPU cache was for Socket 7, back in 2000…

Dealman.2381:

It’s the truth, look it up yourself. You really should do your homework before you mention things like that, I don’t need to prove anything since I know it’s true.

You can, on the other hand – try to prove me wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-8.html
A Sandy Bridge-based Core i5 is all you need for the best possible experience. However, a Core i3 or Pentium processor will also perform well. Clock rate is particularly important if you’re using an FX-based chip from AMD. Take full advantage of those unlocked multipliers to push 3.5 GHz or higher with the FX-8000 and -6000 CPUs, and over 4 GHz with the FX-4000 series if possible. The Llano-based APUs struggle more with this game, presumably because they lack L3 cache. If you have an A8-3870K, the only unlocked model, try to get up above 3.5 GHz with it.

AMD Phenom II X4 920 – 2.8GHz – 2MB L2 – 6MB L3
vs
AMD Athlon II X4 630 – 2.8GHz – 2MB L2 – 0MB L3
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=105
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-6.html
(scroll down for performance differences in games)

Need more?

You really should do your homework before you mention things like that.

@ specular.7142:
I have a GTX 560Ti and I have similar results than you. “All” is like a 50% cap on the fps!

Dealman.2381:

Why are you even mentioning the L3 Cache? Do you even know what its purpose is? It will have close to no impact in gaming at all, for gaming there’s one thing you want to pay attention to – and that is the cores.

Hahahahahaha, well I think I’m done here!

What about posting some links as proof to that?

@Rue.9213: If you don’t use the stereoscopic stuff, you can disable all that in the nVidia drivers installation.

I usually only leave checked (besides the driver) the nVidia updater and PhysX because I have no use for either the HDMI passthrough audio driver or the 3D Vision driver+profiles (only install that if you have a 3D LCD/TV connected to the gfx card).

You can use this utility to see what caused the BSOD:
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/blue_screen_view.html

That CPU is your biggest bottleneck in GW2, try to overclock it as much as you can.

Yep, as everyone said, every time you receive an e-mail, someone used your username/password at that exact same instant.

Get a good security suite, Commodo IS is both very good and free (personal opinion) and supports auto-sandboxing. You can also use KeyScramber to shield yourself against keyloggers, doesn’t yet work on GW2 but it will protect your broswer at least.

Dealman.2381:

Not much more, but it will not be the same. Also the OP didn’t seem too obsessed with fidelity, so I don’t see why you’d say it’s a bad setup. He was willing to play everything on lowest.

Because for the $410 he said it costed, it is not worth it for a system with a CPU that even lacks L3 cache.

Dealman.2381:

Said benchmark showcased how well it performed on highest settings at 1280×1024, and because it got 37.5 FPS at this, you said it’s a bad buy – you obviously didn’t take his opinion regarding fidelity into consideration. Bumping things down and he’ll surely be able to get a stable 40 FPS at the very least.

You are confusing a CPU benchmark with a GPU benchmark. You can’t “bump things down” because the GPU is not the bottleneck in that performance chart — the CPU is.

CPU benchmarks answer one question “How much is the CPU able to give, when the GPU is out of the picture (as in the GPU has infinite performance)?”.
Interpreting those results, you can see that even with a powerful card as a 7970 and running as low resolution as 1280×1024, that CPU is unable do drive the 7970 more than 37.5fps — so, with a lesser card and higher resolution, things only go down from there.

Why not an http://www.eurocom.com/ laptop? They let you choose the parts piece-by-piece.