Genghiz Cohen wrote: » Overclocking is horrible. There I said it!
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » Noise levels are good. Inaudible over the case-fans and Haven/Valley music. Probably just gonna run at stock for the foreseeable future. But now I've overclocked and I know the basics.
NTMK wrote: » to the guys that know about watercooling would a skinny(30mm) 240 and a thick(60-80mm) 240 rad be enough to cool a 3570k and 2 gtx 780s or will i need more
game4it70 wrote: » Yes.Temps would depend on OC's and what fans you would be using. General rule of thumb is for some headroom have a 240 on each component. So your okish. Are you looking for silence or higher OC's or both? You can google how much watts of heat the rads dissipate and compare it to watts of cpu and gpu's.
NTMK wrote: » Silence when browsing, etc but i dont mind noise during gaming i'll be ocing the cpu certainly but i decide by temps on the gpus/ how much they'll give me on air Fans will be whater is best for the set up
game4it70 wrote: » Gentle typhoon's are the best imo for rads. I use the 1450rpms ones on a fan controller.I run them at around 600rpms and there pretty much silent.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » Overclocking is horrible. There I said it! Didn't take it too seriously had some programs running in the background.The Results! Noise levels are good. Inaudible over the case-fans and Haven/Valley music. Probably just gonna run at stock for the foreseeable future. But now I've overclocked and I know the basics.
deceit wrote: » Has anyone here tried company of hereos 2? I installed it on two of my pc's. One with two hd7970's in it and the other with a gtx 780 in it. I ran the benchmark in it and can get an average of 28fps on the main rig and 24 on the other with a min of 10fps and 1.99fps on both. I wouldnt be hugely put off if this game didnt look like it should have been made 5 years ago with crappy graphics . Its so poorly optimized even if I put on the lowest settings it doesnt really change anything. I was a huge fan of the first and couldnt wait to play this. Would never again buy a game by relic or with sega's involvement. Cant believe they fecked this up so much
nesf wrote: » I get 33 Avg, 55 Max, 1.9 Min on a single 6970. Really, I haven't noticed any problems with framerate in game. And this would be because this is an RTS and fps above 20ish being fine for this genre. :P High fps requirement, 40-50+ is only necessary with FPS or other action games. For most strategy games you need nothing close to that.
deceit wrote: » It is annoying though that I have a few thousand euro pc that cant play this on reasonable settings without silly fps especially when it looks ****. I remember playing the first when it came out on an average laptop and ran great.
nesf wrote: » I'm assuming you're not running those 7970s in Crossfire and are running it off of one card (the application profiles were supposed to force this I think). Most importantly, this is a CPU bound game not a GPU limited game for most realistic systems. Throwing more GPU power at it gives very poor returns. If you've a Core 2 Duo it doesn't matter if you've 2 x 7990s in there, it's still going to run worse than my i5 system. :P
deceit wrote: » I have a 3820 which is similar to a 3770k overclocked to 5ghz.
nesf wrote: » Like most games it doesn't use more than four cores. Hmm. I don't know what's screwing things up for you. Try disabling Crossfire if the application profile isn't already doing it. After that, I don't know to be honest. There occasionally are games that are slower on say a 4Ghz i7 than an equivalent generation 4Ghz i5, but I'm running my CPU at stock at the moment so...
deceit wrote: » I just switched it to single screen mode and maxed everything out and the fps increased alot but still not to an acceptable min frame rate. I've got min 18.76, max 45.54, avg 32.81 but I just realised as i'm typing this I reset my cmos the other day and my cpu is now at stock so hopefully when overclock it again it will go above 25fps as a minimum. (Graphics still look **** though.) Edit: At 5ghz I get min 15.87, max 40.24 and min 29.20 WTF????
Gumbi wrote: » Company of heroes 2 doesn't support multi card setups AFAIK.
nesf wrote: » It does support them in that the SLI/Crossfire profile for the game switches SLI/Crossfire off while the game is running...
nesf wrote: » 32 avg is fine for an RTS. 29.2 is too. Really, these games are not designed to run at 60+ fps unlike Call of Duty and other FPS/Action games where it's useful to have a really high fps. 60 fps is just about possible right now with a bloody GTX Titan and an i7 4770k running at 3.5 GHz at medium bloody quality. On maximum quality such a rig tops out around 40 fps. This is not a game that's going to go much over 35fps average on your rig at high/maximum quality.
deceit wrote: » Thats what i'm getting at, if it can only run at them settings on that type of pc it should at least look awesome as that would be a really high spec pc..
TerrorFirmer wrote: » I was shocked at how poorly COH2 runs, given that it actually doesn't look a whole world better than COH on first impressions - I do appreciate the fact that it is a better looking game with a lot more going on in general, but the price paid for the visuals is completely disproportionate. Agree entirely though about the framerate being somewhat of a non issue in the genre, but its still frustrating to see such lowly performance when other visually intensive and striking games run like butter on the same machine. I was shocked with how bad it ran on an Fx4100 and a 7850, the performance test ran terribly. It also kills my laptop, even though it plays other games like BF3 perfectly!
