Shadow Warrior 2

>>206343
I also want to say, i dont care about what i will turn off, if it means 60 fps

bump? :(

is cpu at %100 usage when playing?.

>>206349
Ill check, sec

File: shadow.jpg (283KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1280x1024px

>>206349
It actually is. but i found out hat the GPU isnt at 100% usage, if that means something

>>206353
And i made a typo, i have GTX 750Ti, not 780

>>206353

I think that means your CPU is holding back the video card from performing at it's max.

File: witcher.jpg (360KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1280x1024px

>>206356
Incorrect. This is during Witcher 3

>>206353
As the other anon said, it's your CPU.
In any situation in which your GPU can not reach 100%, the CPU is holding it back, regardless of how much windows says the CPU usage is.

The other cue to CPU-limits is reducing quality and still being at similar fps, which is also the case here. My guess is the 5fps difference is just a random occurance, it should be about the same whatever graphics settings you choose with a CPU that slow.

>>206362
So Witcher 3 doesnt have issue with this, but SW2 does? I mean, the two games arent really that apart in requirements no?

>>206364

Is the 750 Ti is a kind of old card and the rest of your hardware looks even older. I wouldn't be surprised it's having a pretty tough time with this game (it's new right?). It probably isn't even optimized for the 750 Ti.

>>206366
Minimum is a GTX560Ti, recommended is a GTX660, why a 750TI wouldnt be supported??

>>206368
Im going to try out newest drivers, i have 372.54, adn the newest one, 373.06 says it has optimization for Shadow Warrior, so lets see about that

>>206368

I didn't say it wasn't supported. I said it might not be optimized.

It's a matter of the card coming out before the game. Hardware stays compatible with stuff released in the future for a while but it's the software that comes out in the future for developmental reasons isn't really worth their time to keep going back and testing the new game on older hardware to perfect when less and less users have the older hardware and most people that time have newer hardware that is being focused on.

>>206371

>not having newest drivers before you come here asking why it runs like shit

>>206364
Stop looking at requirement charts for fucks sake, they mean absolutely nothing and are arbitrary.

Yes, the games are different. Witcher can make more use of two cores than shadow warrior can since their engine is utter shit.
Deal with it or at least upgrade your CPU so something like an E5450 for ~$30 and stop crying that your 10 year old CPU can't handle new games. People these days...

>>206393
Well, im considering getting a Quad core cpu.... For 25 dollas....

From Intel Dual-Core e8400 to Intel Quad-core Q9400, is that a huge improvement or not?
And im not going to buy new MB, that would mean new ram and im not into that...

So would be a Q9400 worth it?

>>206406
Only if you can get it clocked to about the same speed as the E8400 would I consider it worthwhile.
If you only managed 3.6GHz with the E8400, you won't get close to that with the Q9400, so better look for the highest standard clock speed you can find (cough Xeon E5450 with socket mod) and overclock that one.
But yes, any quad will be an improvement in most games.

>>206421
I could go for more, i just thought its ok on 3,6... Max temp ive reached was like 47 or so

>>206439
Most E8400 can easily do 4.5GHz, good ones up 4.8 or 5GHz. When you are this hard in CPU-limit, every single MHz counts. I don't think you realize by how far your GPU outclasses your CPU.

File: IMG_5130.JPG.1024x768[1].jpg (223KB, 1024x715px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1024x715px

>>206421
>Only if you can get it clocked to about the same speed as the E8400 would I consider it
>If you only managed 3.6GHz with the E8400, you won't get close to that with the Q9400
>better look for the highest standard clock speed you can find

Q6600 is literally two E8400s in the same package.
Same dies, same multiplier, same overclocking.

$20 if you shop around.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index3.html

>>206578
No, it is definitely NOT same overclocking. It is also not the same dies.
The Q6600 has two Conroe dies, which overclock way worse, get hotter and are slower than the Wolfdale cores the E8400 has.

Get your fucking facts straight before you try to lecture me, kid.

An E8400 cooled by strong air or water can easily reach higher clocks than a Q6600 cooled via -190°C liquid nitrogen. Most Q6600 struggle to go much beyond 3.2GHz if even that much.

A Q9650 would be two E8400 dies, but those are still expensive compared to E5450 (more than double the price) which are exactly the same chip, you just have to put some tape over a few pins.

Also, overclocking quads is way harsher on the board. Many board that can do 600MHz fsb on E8xxx fail to even reach 450MHz with quads, and that's speaking of top tier boards. Now couple that with an extremely low multiplier like on the Q6600 and you get way worse performance in the end for maybe two dollars less than actually well overclocking CPU.

And that is why he should NOT get a Q6xxx, but a high multiplier Q9xxx or better yet Xeon E54xx with as baseclock of at least 2.83GHz, better yet 3GHz+.
Like I said before, get an E5450.
The price is literally the same as the way worse Q6600, you can get them for less than 20 if you look around a bit, especially in forums.