Bad performance on decent laptop? No idea why

[Xterminator]

So about 75% of the time I only have my laptop available to play games on. So naturally I put C:SL on it and have tried to play multiple times, and am having horrible luck in terms of FPS and just general performance.
My laptop should be more than capable of running the game even on High settings, but yet is still bogged down on Medium settings.

Now before someone suggestions telling it to use the Nvidia card rather than integrated card, I have already done this. I have my Nvidia card set as the global card for everything anyway, but just in case I manually went into the Nvidia control panel and told C:SL specifically to use the Nvidia.

Anyway, even with that combined with using using Medium graphics settings, I still get noticeable slow down in game, and it maxes out at about 22fps, but hovers around 18 which is horrible.

Any ideas of why this might be and how to fix it?
My specs:
Intel i7 2.3ghz quad core
8gb ddr 3 ram
Geforce GT 630m 2gb
Windows 7 Premium

Also I should mention, I also close my browser and Skype and anything I can visibly see running as well.

 

[flynn22]

I'd say that your graphics card isn't really up to it - I found this thread on the Steam forums, same graphics as you (though 1Gb not 2), which suggests the 630M will struggle. As suggested there you'll probably need to turn down the graphic settings more than you already have.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news....

 

[IVIaarten]

also the fact that you're running a 2,3 GHz processor doesn't really help. 3 GHz is listed as the minimum (on a 2 core granted), but recommended is a 3,2 GHz i5

 

[Shiggs]

its weird that they made those new gen processors so weak to start with. I mean, I have 2, 8 year old pentium 4's, each with more processing power than that (2.8ghz each), and they are dual core...

 

[IVIaarten]

its weird that they made those new gen processors so weak to start with. I mean, I have 2, 8 year old pentium 4's, each with more processing power than that (2.8ghz each), and they are dual core...

It's a laptop. Power efficiency is more important than raw performance (both for longer battery life, and the limited cooling options available in such a slim housing.
I'm pretty sure those new processors take a lot less power and generate a lot less heat than your old processors

It doesn't help with raw performance though, which is what you need for a complex simulation game.

 

[Shiggs]

It's a laptop. Power efficiency is more important than raw performance (both for longer battery life, and the limited cooling options available in such a slim housing.
I'm pretty sure those new processors take a lot less power and generate a lot less heat than your old processors

It doesn't help with raw performance though, which is what you need for a complex simulation game.

your right, they still put some of those crappy processors in desktops though, probably the $500 best buy deals and such, if you know what I mean.

and yes, I have a aftermarket power supply, extra fans etc. Its to be expected if you want the full experience. Sorry off topic.

Anyways, I agree its likely the processor.

 

[Imsvale]

My laptop should be more than capable of running the game even on High settings

What makes you think that? Minimum for CSL is a GTX 260, while yours is a 630M. Underlined number is the most relevant for sheer performance comparison.

Based on Wiki numbers (1 and 2), your card doesn't even have half the processing power of the minimum requirement (307 to 715 GFLOPS). Even on paper, your card should melt at the sight of this game.

 

[Ri0Rdian]

Indeed, this would be a decent laptop, if not for that poor GPU. If nVidia consider at least x50 card for 1080p gaming as a minimum. x40 might be enough in some cases with resolutions @ about 720p+-. Also, I believe you can pretty much ignore complaints at your CPU mentioned here, if I am right it should be i7 2820QM, 2.3 base clock, up to 3.4 boost (3.1 with 4 cores), Sandy Bridge generation and mostly on par with the SB desktop variants.

 

[IVIaarten]

Intel i7 2.3ghz quad core <-- Too slow
8gb ddr 3 ram <-- Adequate (just ( I have seen the game peak at over 8GB at times)
Geforce GT 630m 2gb <-- Too low spec (also is the memory shared RAM that comes from the 8GB pool? If so then it will really be too slow!)
Windows 7 Premium <-- Fine

Also have you checked if the laptop is running the game on an intel integrated GPU instead of the discrete nVidia card? (http://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/2ykrdv/dont_forget_to_switch_to_dedicated_gpu/)

This is actually a very powerful game (as it should be) and many people are finding they must finally upgrade their ageing computers.


To truly enjoy this (and most modern/future) games you need a minimum of i7 3.5GHz CPU, 4 Core (plus Hyper Threading), 12GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, AMD 7870 GPU with 2GB GDD5, and an SSD.

In an ideal world a starting point for every one would be: i7 4790K 4GHz CPU, 16GB DDR3 1833MHz RAM, AMD R9 290X GPU with 4GB GDR5 and an SSD.

I'm saving like made to get: i7 5960X CPU (8 core + Hyper Threading), 32 GB DDR4 3000MHz RAM, AMD R9 390X GPU with 4GB GDR5 (when released) and a faster SSD.

It's a bit off topic, but you generally DON'T need an i7 for current games. All current games have very little benefit from more than 4 cores (nor hyper threading). Those only really come in handy when you do a lot of video editing etc etc.

Here's a video on the topic:

 

[Ri0Rdian]

You actually only need as many as you can afford, if you know what I mean.

 

[Shiggs]

well, it looks like from the guys testing there you actually are not really gaining anything by having anything more than a quad core. My next system will probably include 2 of them.

There are still games being produced that actually play just as good or better on a few old beastly duo cores than an octo core (cough cough cities xl plays flawless on my old pc, and laughs at new ones). Looking at test results having an octo core is basically just waiving your e-peen around, they really aren't that good.

 

[IVIaarten]

This game has been designed for multi core CPU's... All 4 (+4 virtual) cores on my CPU are used to the max while playing... For this game more cores = more speed!!

You didn't even watch the video did you?

They benchmarked on Cities: Skylines, and going from 4 core non-hypertreaded to 6 core with hypertreading gained a whopping 2 fps (from 40 to 42)
Going up from 4 cores non-hyperthreaded to 8 cores hyperthreaded actually DROPPED the fps by 5 (from 40 to 35).

That might be an optimization thing that is being worked on, but it's rather clear that getting more cores is (at least with the current games, let's see how GTA5 fares) very inconsequential. Again, for gaming. If you're doing a lot of video editing or stuff like that, it can be beneficial.

You're better off spending the extra money you would have spent on that i7 on extra memory (up to about 8GB), a better graphics card or an SSD.

Next time maybe watch the video.

 

[Ri0Rdian]

Problem with "playable" is that it means various things to various people. On my old PC(OCed Q9400, gtx460, 4gb ram) I was happy when I got 30fps+ stable. Now I want 60, I play War thunder lately and each time I spawn I get @30-35fps for like 2-3s, after that it goes to 60 and stays there. It is incredibly choppy at those 30 fps, and that is coming from someone who spend years playing at around that value. Although I am pretty certain that it is so appalling to me because of the fps jumping down and back, if it was constat (either number) it would be harder to notice...probably.

Considering Cities: Skylines, the simulation speed would be directly tied with the fps, since if your PC has trouble reaching enough fps chances are it is struggling to play the game and thus even the (S/C)im speed will be bad.

 

[MaxxPower]

Geforce GT 630m 2gb

You call that decent?
Really?

I call that the second worst GPU option after Intel.

There's no chance you get smooth frame rates at high settings.

 

[Greygor69]

It's a bit off topic, but you generally DON'T need an i7 for current games. All current games have very little benefit from more than 4 cores (nor hyper threading). Those only really come in handy when you do a lot of video editing etc etc.

I put together a brand new machine in preparation for this game coming out.

When discussing what I needed the guy doing it for me (I'm not very technically competent with Hardware) suggested a GTX 970 and recommended against a i7, he said I'd get better bang for my buck with a top range i5 processor.

I think his reasoning was the same as your own.

 

[Jenkins87]

It's a bit off topic, but you generally DON'T need an i7 for current games. All current games have very little benefit from more than 4 cores (nor hyper threading). Those only really come in handy when you do a lot of video editing etc etc.

Finally! You wouldn't believe the amount of people I've explained this too, only to have them throw irrelevant benchmarks in my face.

While I was working at a computer shop I built myself a nice ITX PC (i5 3570k, GTX660, Samsung SSD) in July 2013, have been able to comfortably play almost any game without much hassle. I also edit videos and do graphic design on this computer as well, coming from the days of Pentium II, III, 4 and dual cores, I am still happy with what this can do, but the clock is ticking.

I haven't watched the video you posted so I don't know if this was covered or not, but there is somewhat of a time limit in place with "i7's not being required for gaming" being true, as more and more games are becoming more and more intensive, more [decent] developers are finding ways to utilise all threads of a CPU.

As others have mentioned too, the "playability" of something is kind of personal, I don't notice lag (in most games) until it hits about 20fps, but there are some games that are coded differently, and can be playable up to about 12fps, after all, giant cinema quality movies are still filmed, produced and displayed at 24 frames per second. 60fps games and now 60fps film are (and have) changed the way we perceive fluid digital motion. The more you are exposed to 60fps constantly all the time, the more you will notice anything less.

 

[IVIaarten]

This is very true, and has to be taken into account. This is why a review like to one in the video is effectively useless when looked at closely. With a game like Cities: Skylines it isn't just about FPS, and I would rather be able to create a larger city and have it only run at x1 speed than a little one and watch the years whizz by!

Extra cores will not help you build bigger cities. The game will simply not utilize them (or not effectively). Higher clock speed will though (more GHz).

 

[Tridon]

As has been pointed out the 630M isn't really strong enough to run the game "properly" :\
When it comes to laptop cards from nvidia I would guess that the 640M or 730M are minimum to run the game "properly".