Topic My minimum framerate when playing large battles is 14.
Is this normal? The framerate remains the same whether I set my graphics options to low or extreme. At the beginning its a nice smooth 60 FPS in 1v1 or 4v4 games. However, even in 1v1 games when maxed armies clash my framerate can drop to as low as 14... this is obviously unacceptable.
OK, first thing we can definitely exclude is the graphics card and the HDD... I have a 7200 RPM 500 GB Standard HDD and an nVidia GeForce GTX 560.
Now the processor... I have an AMD-FX 8120... and seeing its performance in SC II makes me have doubts... Would an Intel Core i5-2500K (similar price point) provide significantly better performance? Because the only thing I can think of is that SC II isn't designed for AMD FX architecture and therefore the game cannot run smoothly... I am considering replacing my AMD Mobo for an Intel H61 Chipset and an Intel Core i5-2500K processor in the hope of delivering a constant 40 FPS + gameplay.
Edited by Anarki on 22/05/12 13:57 (BST)
I just replaced my old mobo with an H61 chipset and got an Intel Core i5-3550 and WOW the difference is HUUGE compared to my old fx-8120 ... no where near as much lags... I never dip below 25 FPS even with 1k units on screen.
So this is a warning to all people who want to a buy a PC for gaming (especially SC II) DON'T GET BULLDOZER ESPECIALLY THE FX-8120 IT SUCKS AND DON'T GET IT GET A PHENOM II OR BETTER YET GET AN INTEL CORE IVY OR SANDY BRIDGE.
Now my FPS issues are done time to get rollin!!
Oh and again don't buy bulldozer... stupid why waste time on a processor thats weaker than Athlon II X2?? Crazy I say crazy.