Half Life 2 running slow

You can run Half life 2 fine with lower than 2GB even on XP.

The only reason to reasonably have a ton of ram is if you do a lot of video editing/photo editing/rendering/recording music(like I do) and other stuff.

 

Quite so. As do I, professionally. And still, some of the PCs at the studio (top spec for their time) use 3 Gb RAM and Windows XP. They run just fine.

 

I intended to use it for video editing. I've been having some difficulty getting the necessary software to work, though. So, for now, it's my gaming computer.

I'm beginning to wonder if it could be a problem with heat. My computer doesn't have that great of a cooling system, and there's also the fact that I kinda smudged the thermal paste on the CPU around a little bit by accident when I was installing it. Could those things cause it to perform less than perfectly?

It doesn't really make sense though, because games like Portal, Amnesia, and even Crysis run pretty well on it.

I'm not running it in triple channel, it's just 2x4GB sticks. Does that matter?

 

I've found that rendering (Especially HD footage) Takes ages and is glitchy without a good GPU. I had 4gb ram and no GPU and it took a good 20 mins to renders 3mins of HD. Now it takes maybe 10 max since I got my GPU today

 

I recommend complete OS and driver re-install.

It doesn't matter what system you have these days, pretty much anything modern can handle HL2 regardless of the source engine updates.

Something on your system is fucked up somewhere.

 

Yeah, I had an old P4 PC that worked ok with 2.8 GB of DDR1 RAM for recording music.

But this new PC works so much better, and it will last me a long time!


I would recommend Lalilulello that you get a 3rd stick to run, the X58 chipset and I-7 900 series were designed to be used with 3 channels of RAM.
I would also download HWmonitor (it's free) to check the temps of your CPU cores while running games and CPU stability testers. And if they are getting abnormally high at stock clocks (Which would be 80-100C on the cores) I would try re-applying the thermal paste.
Overclocked ,my 950 before I got my megahalems, the cores would reach 100C under MAX load. The way i've got my PC setup now the cores never go beyond 74c overclocked to 4ghz


are you overclocking your GPU by chance?

 

What he said....

Did you do a fresh install of Windows when you upgraded? Or did your old Windows boot up with the new hardware?

If you can, do a format reinstall and see if that helps. A lot of times, upgrading requires a fresh install of Windows, even though your old Windows for your old PC might boot up.

 

It was a fresh install, and it was fairly recent - like 2 months ago. I kind of doubt that's the problem because I'm not experiencing glitches or errors in the OS or in any other game. I've installed Windows 7 twice, actually.

I should also mention that this thing HL2 doing is not really all that bad. In fact, I'm not sure if the problem is that the computer isn't able to keep the framerate up or if it has some kind of problem with v-sync. I say that because, when I've played games that were beyond a PC's specs in the past, there seems to be a slowdown. That is, the game does not play in realtime. HL2 appears to be playing in real time, but it sort of skips around a bit, like it's skipping frames or something.

Another thing I should mention is that I've tried monitoring the framerate in HL2. With v-sync on, it runs at about 60fps (which makes sense, because my monitor is 60Hz), with some small dips every once in a while. On the other hand, if I turn off v-sync the fps monitor says about 300fps. I find that kind of hard to believe, but that's what it says. So this makes me think that maybe something weird is going on with v-sync.

On the other hand, I haven't had the same problem with v-sync in any other game.

By the way, thanks for all the suggestions, guys. I really didn't expect to get so many responses, but I appreciate it.

 

Get a Mac ;-)

Use the stock heatsink that came with the processor. Then you don't need thermal paste. Thermal paste is only really meant to be temporary - for proper installs, you're supposed to use a more permanent conductive material - as supplied on the heatsink. AMD and Intel actually used to state that your warranty was void if you didn't use approved thermal material - I haven't checked up on the status of that lately, though.

If you do use thermal paste, don't use the white stuff. It's shit. Use a silver compound, or the grey stuff. You spread it THINLY and EVENLY over the die. CoolerMaster used to do a kit to aid you, although I haven't seen one for a while.

Look at this:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=199840

OK, so we don't have dies like that any more, but the top pic is WAY too much paste. The bottom pic is much more like it - a thin, even spread. Talking of which, you should ideally use a spreader - some even use a credit card!

I found this pic:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That's probably too much paste, and it would have to be removed from the die.

To be honest, modern chips aren't quite so bad if you put too much on - and even the older ones were OK as long as it wasn't electrically conductive (silver paste)!

If you think your temperatures are too hot, have a look at the thermal compound. If you suspect your RAM to have issues, take a stick out and try one stick at a time. Your computer will run fine with 4Gb RAM. You shouldn't notice any difference (in a positive way) - if you do, there could be an issue with your RAM configuration.

I'd go with the reformat, too. Easiest way.

 

If you want to use V-Sync, Try using D3DOverrider that comes with Rivatuner.

It forces V-Sync with Triple Buffering for better performance with V-sync.

And as I said try running the Lost Coast benchmark with V-Sync off.

 

I've tried that. If I turn force v-sync on in D3DOverrider and turn it off in HL2 then there's tearing. I've tried running the Lost Coast benchmark and got pretty good results, but that was with v-sync on. I forget exactly what it said. I'll try it with v-sync off.

 

try adding HL2.exe from the steamapps folder so it will detect it (you should hear the windows DOINK sound if it works)

If that doesn't work , I don't know if AMD has an equivalent of the Nvidia control panel where you can select a program and force V-sync with Tripple buffering for OpenGl programs

 

TBH it sounds like the computer is stable but I'd still leave it running a Prime95 torture test overnight. If that fails then you know something is wrong, and reinstalling Windows won't necessarily fix anything.

Edit: I'd also advise against using the stock cooler. Those things are as cheap as they come and a good after-market heatsink+fan will serve you much better.

 

That is, of course, utter crap. Intel and AMD wouldn't sell their processors with an inadequate heatsink AND a warranty. They would get far too many returns, it wouldn't be cost-effective. The stock heatsinks are perfectly adequate for the job.

Of course, maybe I'm biased, having been an authorized Intel and AMD partner in the past?

I've used stock heatsinks for many years with very few problems. In fact, I've had more problems with OEM solutions using an OEM chip and a third party heatsink. Some of those were REALLY dire! Plus, people don't know how to apply thermal paste, or which to use - doesn't help ;-) Thermal paste application doesn't stop the fans from working though, does it?

The cheap third party heatsinks are, frankly, no better than the stock ones. Several of the low noise ones don't do the job properly, either. I've seen quite a few high airflow heatsinks get replaced because the fans didn't last. If you want your PC sounding like a hoover, go for it! Personally, I prefer adequate airflow in the case.

Water cooling, of course, is a different matter. If you're confident you'll get it right, and have that sort of money to spend, sure - go for it!

What cooling system you choose is completely up to you. All I'm saying is don't write off the stock PIB heatsinks - they're perfectly adequate for the required task. If you'd rather have more RPM/CFM/Noise (or less noise!)/whatever out of your heatsink, by all means upgrade. Don't think you HAVE to do so, though.

 

From personal experience of watching an entire fleet of P4 EEs consistently overheat on stock cooling, I can say from experience that you're wrong. Bundled heatsinks are as small as they think they can get away with - the Intel ones have typically been ok (EEs aside, they were monsters as far as heat consumption goes to be fair) but a lot of the AMD ones really, honestly haven't. Especially back in the day.

Tiny CPU heatsinks lead to a significant rise in ambient case temps, which can have a knock-on effect for stability elsewhere in the PC and can shorten component life. With a better CPU cooler you can reduce the number of case fans, or reduce their speeds, which leads to a quieter computer. So no, it's not "utter crap".

Which is why I wouldn't recommend cheap third-party heatsinks, and why I specifically said good quality.

We've both worked in IT for a long stretch, you don't need to be smarmy about it.

Right, fuck this. Pub time.

 

Yes, but it's unlikely to affect a single game. If other games run fine, then it may be a software issue.

If you're concened about hardware problems, try this software: http://www.passmark.com/products/bit.htm

Not to offend, but I'm running an i7-950 on the stock heatsink and fan at 28 degrees C, which ran no hotter than 45 degrees on a stress test and is pretty quiet. The PC I replaced ran a (constantly refitted) Cooler Master on a 2400+ which wouldn't run below 50 degrees, normally in the region of 60 whilst running full power and outputting a hell of a noise. Note: not saying Cooler Master is a good brand, just saying that this thing wasn't cheap and was well reviewed.

All the PCs I've built with stock cooling have not overheated over the period we worked on them - never had one come back either - only ones I've seen that were bad were those god-awful Dell Optiplexes from the mid 2000s with the heat problems and one home-made PC I built for a friend with another known-brand cooler which was incorrectly labelled by the manufacturer and thus the processor melted after a few hours stress testing.

Also, not to criticise your handiwork without seeing it, but I also understand that poor PC construction (such as not running cables out of the way and not putting 2 non-PSU fans in a machine made after 2005) can greatly affect overall temperature. Seen some hot boxes with pretty awful system layouts, I can tell you!

I understand you've had a bad experience, but do you honestly think that it's in the processor manufacturer's best interest to sell you a cooling system that is not up to the job? Surely the cost of replacing every processor that overheats would be greater than the cost of putting a reasonable heatsink in the box? It's very easy to get tied up in the marketing spiel of these brand manufacturers, but unless you're trying to built an ultra-quiet or overclocked system, I see no reason why the stock heatsink cannot at least keep the processor within stable operating temperatures.

 

Well, I can say from experience that I'm right ;-) In fact....

I went to fix a computer the other day. The issue was malware, not the hardware. It was still running pretty smoothly, albeit a little slow. I recognised the case - we were the only seller in the area. Same for the monitor. So... I built the PC! And it was an Athlon XP 2600+ - still running fine! The business closed in 2005, I think we'd stopped selling those cases in 2004. Tells you how old that stock AMD heatsink, that's still doing its job fine, is. And that's an everyday Internet / Word Processing machine. Sure, nothing too taxing, but I've seen newer computers in worse condition!

Yes, absolutely. And, as I said, I'd rather see a computer have sufficient case cooling first. However, I still stand by the stock heatsinks as being up to the job. Had you said you'd recommend upgrading the stock heatsink for better heat transfer, I wouldn't have argued with you. However, you advised against using the stock heatsink. That is what I contested as rubbish. Not that I'm saying this is what you're doing, but that is the sort of bullshit scaremongering that you get from dishonest salesmen *cough*PC World*cough*.

Which is why I wouldn't recommend cheap third-party heatsinks, and why I specifically said good quality.

Actually, I wasn't being smarmy - I was just saying maybe I'm biased as I was pretty much compelled to sell them with stock coolers. I would have had a grilling from AMD if they saw me doing otherwise, for sure!

Off topic - why is it that it was hard as hell to become an AMD partner, but ASUS would not only make you a partner but express mail (from abroad) you a SHIT LOAD of promo goodies? And I mean a box the size of a small fridge. They ask how big your shop is, then send you a 20 foot banner! Did they expect me to go to a trade show on their behalf or something?!

 

I ran a P4 Stock heatsink for 6 years, and the computer got REALLY hot all the time. And I never had a single stability issue with it.

And the i7 heatsink is not that bad as long as you DON'T overclock.
It's not the best sure, but it does it's job adequately if you have good airflow.


If you overclock, then you need a AM HS. @4Ghz 1.30v with 7 total fans in the system including CPU fans, My cores never go beyond 74c with linkpack which produces probalby the most Heat your processor will ever see and certainly a few more than i've seen while using prime95.


Other good stability tests include LINX and OCCT. If you can pass the linpack and CPU test in OCCT , then I would say you are stable as well.

 

74?! That's WAY to hot! I take action when a PC's at 60, personally. Even at 50, I'm not too happy.

What is the point in overclocking nowadays? It's pathetic. Back in the days of Pentiums, sure. Computers are fast enough now, though.

When we were building 1st generation 478 P4s, they would run at around 30-40 degrees, unclocked with stock heatsinks.

 

Let me get this straight. You're comparing the temps of two completely different CPUs in completely different systems? What on earth would that prove..?

I feel like I'm suddenly having to defend a position I never even suggested. I'll restate what I said in the first place "I'd advise against using the stock cooler. Those things are as cheap as they come and a good after-market heatsink+fan will serve you much better." I stand by this - stock coolers are as cheap as the manufacturer can get away with, but obviously the vast majority of them work! If you want your CPU to run less hot you need to buy an aftermarket cooler, that's all I'm saying. I had no idea this was such a controversial claim.

And 640K is enough for anyone, right? Be serious. More power is always better if you're doing something intensive like gaming or media editing.

I don't overclock personally, but I totally understand the inclination to do so.

I can't count the number of laptops I've seen that run in the 70s constantly. You can't even impugn my building skills on this one, it's just a fact that they run at those temps straight out the factory. I've known many PCs run at those temps too (and yes, typically I did blame the stock cooler).