Suggestions for people who want EB to run faster

**carthage_supreme** · 10-30-2007, 16:52

This thread should be sticky.

**Hooahguy** · 10-31-2007, 02:30

i have little lag, but i only play for 1.5 hrs max...... and only 4 times.....

**Iskander 3.1** · 10-31-2007, 08:19

My biggest issue is the initial load when starting the game (usually 15 minutes, compared to 30 seconds with vanilla RTW!), although I do have to wait a minute or two between turns. I have a laptop with dual-core AMD Turion so I don't think that's the problem; my graphics card is integrated but new graphic-intensive games like World in Conflict run just fine....I think I just don't have enough memory.

893 MB of RAM and Vista....I'm guessing this is what's wrong. Would an upgrade to 2 GB (which probably won't be easy on a notebook) ease up the horrendous load times?

**Charge** · 10-31-2007, 11:57

I will agree that 2GB is a must, for Vista...
Don't know about how it will be on notebook, I just know that they aren't supposed for games at all.

**Moros** · 10-31-2007, 17:34

I have a nice nootbook. Which plays EB rather well. Better than my old destkop. The only thing that limits it is 2GB RAM. My processor is a T7500 Dual core (2.2 GHz? IIRC) so that shouldn't really be the problem. However I noticed that my ram gets used rather extensively. (I already turned of a couple of vista feature to save ram, those gadget thingys, transaparent windows,...) however it still doesn't seem to be enough.
Also with a videacard with 512 dedicated memory, the videocard shouldn't cause the issue.

**Charge** · 10-31-2007, 17:43

Main problem with notebooks is power supply, which limits hardware available to use, and cut off overclocking. That's why desktop is best choice for home use...

**Iskander 3.1** · 10-31-2007, 19:10

Ok, well I think a RAM upgrade will be needed soon. In the meanwhile I just use the 15-20 minutes to watch reruns of Strangers with Candy.

**Bootsiuv** · 10-31-2007, 20:04

Originally Posted by Moros

I have a nice nootbook. Which plays EB rather well. Better than my old destkop. The only thing that limits it is 2GB RAM. My processor is a T7500 Dual core (2.2 GHz? IIRC) so that shouldn't really be the problem. However I noticed that my ram gets used rather extensively. (I already turned of a couple of vista feature to save ram, those gadget thingys, transaparent windows,...) however it still doesn't seem to be enough.
Also with a videacard with 512 dedicated memory, the videocard shouldn't cause the issue.

I've heard 2GB for Vista simply isn't enough....I hate to think how much it would be, but buying two high quality 2GB gaming sticks (like Corsair) would probably improve your performance dramatically.

If you're at home, obviously plug it in as well, as I know my notebook goes into power saver mode when I run it off of battery, and it vastly limits performance. I can turn that option off, but then my battery would only last about 45 mins.

I really think it's your combination of Vista and RAM.

XP = 2GB for best performance
Vista = 4GB

or so I've heard in technical forums.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 11-04-2007, 03:39

@Moros: close to my specs. Have AMD 64 X2 5200+ processor - meaning dual core 2.6Ghz. Do have 2GB RAM, and do have Vista.

And have no lag whatsoever. The only thing noticeably better about my system is probably the CPU.

**carthage_supreme** · 11-04-2007, 03:44

Ive got a 2.4ghz dual core , 1gb 5300 ddr2 with vista. And god almighty the waiting is such a pain in the ass , takes 10-15mins, and i recon this is all due to vista. So it's a good investment to dish out some 72 euros for an extra 2gb? does the loading-time reduce with 2gb?.

**mighty_rome** · 11-04-2007, 04:11

To carthage_supreme: Yes, I am absolutely sure that every game you play will run better with 2GB.

To Bouketsu: Either one would be OK as long as your other system specs are adequate as well.

The point I tried to make earlier in this thread is that some older processors that have very high clock rates (like old "Pentium 4 3.0GHz" CPUs) are actually quite slow compared to newer CPUs of the same, or less, clock rates. This is due to a variety of reasons: newer CPUs have faster bus speeds, multiple "cores", etc.

Looking only at the GHz speed of a CPU is the same as looking only at the attack rating of a unit in RTW and ignoring the lethality; there's more to it then just raw clock speed. (I thought I'd make a nice RTW:EB-related analogy :)