StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

[h83]

No need to include the 480 and the 470 because the game is more than playable at ultra settings on a 1680x1050 resolution just using an oced Q9550 and an 8800GT (in my case). The game clearly is not too demanding when it come too hardware even if you have a lot of units fighting at the same time. But the graphics are very nice and it has some very cool animations.

Also the author of this article should know that the beta doesn´t have all the units of the final game and that some of those are going to appear anyway like the medic, firebat or the goliath on the terran side.

 

[Tkozy]

Not to be a nag, but Terran have the banshee, a cloaking air unit (you need to research it first). Zerg spawn creep out of hatcheries (like they always did) and through the use of creep tumors (spawned out of queens).

Just a few corrections.

 

[LORD_ORION]

Total Annihilation is arguably the most important RTS game. StarCraft is nothing special.

 

[Bolas]

How's it do on a Core i7 980X with a Radeon HD 5970 gpu on triple 30" monitors in portrait mode? Does it support eyefinity resolutions?

 

[Bolas]

[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Total Annihilation is arguably the most important RTS game. StarCraft is nothing special.[/citation]

lol no. Total Annihilation is for people that can't play Starcraft.

 

[hannibal]

Well they first need to get 480 and 470 from some wentor, until it can be used... So you have to wait until some-one can buy those cards somewhere, untill we see them in the these test.
But what this game seems to need is nitro liguid cooled 2 core i-series CPU ;-)

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]IzzyCraft[/nom]"For example, Terran Wraiths are gone and there are no more Terran air units that can cloak"banshees yo...[/citation]

Sorry guys, meant to say "no more Terran air-to-air units that can cloak".

Fixed!

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]fragkrag[/nom]It also conflicts (imo) with the LegionHardware benches from about 2 months ago.[/citation]

Well, our results aren't compatible with another website's results since we used our own custom timedemo.

I went out of my way to make the timedemo brutal with a whole lot of units on screen, just like an actual endgame might be. I prefer to benchmark the worst case scenario, that's where you're going to notice your hardware's limitations.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]A good performance preview, but why are the GTX 480 and 470 absent? [/citation]

Mostly because I don't have them in my lab yet. Since 2560x1600 performance is great on an old GTX 260, I don't think they would have added much to the review. I would have liked to see what they can do with 4xAA, but that's not even in-game yet so we'll have a look at the 400 series when the actual game launches--we might revisit StarCraft 2.

 

[Guest]

It works on lowest setting on my comp(athlon 2800mhz, 1 gb ddr, geforce 6600gtx)

 

[realsatan84]

I managed to play sc2 with old pc P4 3.0GHz GeForce 6600 in low settings ha~ great work blizzard!

 

[Olle P]

I think the changed units is a huge positive!
That allows new players to not fall that far behind the veterans.

Oh, and users of Intel CPUs should of course run them with HT off to achieve maximum performance!

Cheers
Olle

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]BLACKSCI[/nom]Im gonna agree with these other folks up above. Sure the 5770 is a lower newer card, but most of us are rockin older cards like the 4870. Why not review with some of those, instead of just givin a review with a new card that just came out a few months ago ? No offense inteded to Toms, i read the page everyday, but lets be more realistic here. Those cards just came out,a greater majority of your reader arent even using them yet.[/citation]

No offense taken. Frankly, I'm exposed to these cards so much that I'm probably taking it for granted that by now most folks know how the 4000 series cards compare to the 5000 series cards... in general, 4670=5570, 4850=5750, 4870=5770, and 4890=5830.

But you're right, I should include a couple of the older cards for folks. I'll amke sure to do that in my next game review. Hopefully, when StarCraft 2 is released we can revisit the game performance in a fresh review and I'll sprinkle a couple Radon 4000 cards (and new GeForce 400 series models for that matter).

 

[Transsive]

I wasn't too impressed with the performance. (30-40 average fps - max details at 1920x1200)
It doesn't matter that it's RTS, gameplay under 60 fps feels bad (to me).
Luckily after I changed the shader setting from Ultra to Medium the minimum framerate jumped over 60 fps. (with close to no negative visual impact). Gameplay was much smoother.
So if you want a better framerate first lower the shader detail.

(E8500 and 4870)

 

[gnesterenko]

"A small request. Would you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90. I know that my CF/OC 4770's give me 4890ish performance, but have no idea where this is in 5 series."

While I can't give you a direct comparison due to my using an Athlon X2 based platform. However, with my 4870 (1GB version, with custom cooler so OCed by 40MHz on the core and 50Mhz on the RAM), I have the game set up for Ultra Quality and at 1680x1050 it is perfectly smooth and playable - no stuttering whatsoever. I don't know exact fps, but honestly, I never cared to check because its not at all an issue. I thought I'd need a new build (was looking at a Crosshair IV Formula/one of the new 6cores from AMD), but at this point, I think I'm going to skip another generation of CPUs before my hardware refresh - theres just no need.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]BLACKSCI[/nom]Im gonna agree with these other folks up above. Sure the 5770 is a lower newer card, but most of us are rockin older cards like the 4870. Why not review with some of those, instead of just givin a review with a new card that just came out a few months ago ? No offense inteded to Toms, i read the page everyday, but lets be more realistic here. Those cards just came out,a greater majority of your reader arent even using them yet.[/citation]

it's simple logics for all intents and purposes the 5770 is a dead match to the 4870 in all but rare occasion where the 4870 is slightly better, also keep in mind 4870's have already gone the way of the dodo and are hard to come by.

 

[Onus]

Looks like I'll need to try this one. I don't care to pay the inevitably inflated new game price ($50 for this one? $60?), but three-six months after release I'll pick it up for $30-$40.

 

[Snipergod87]

[citation][nom]bmadd[/nom]no GTX480/470??[/citation]


You would have noticed that it is CPU limited so it would be performing the same as the other cards.

[citation][nom]Jonnydough[/nom]...and....STOP. Are you serious? Git out![/citation]

I didnt play the orginal, I tried but I couldnt get into it.

 

[stilz2]

Maybe I missed it, but I glanced through the article and I didn't see exactly how they conducted the benchmark, i.e. was it a replay? a 1v1?
Thanks.

 

[Transsive]

Lol... I just noticed 3D portraits impact the framerate... a lot.

Everything maxed and mineral field selected (no 3d portrait) ~65fps
Everything maxed and unit/building selected (3d animated portrait) ~45fps

Shader quality decreased to High (from extreme) ~90fps
Shader quality decreased to High and unit selected ~60fps

I'll stick to max details with 2d portraits...

(E8500, 4870 at 1920x1200)

 

[shubham1401]

In the 'Test System And Settings' Page you've written Asus ENGTX260 796MB DDR3.

I think it should be 896MB?

 

[hoof_hearted]

I was so addicted to the original a while back. I used to stay in the top 10 of the ladder for a few weeks at a time. This was years ago. Wonder if my battle.net account is still good? I am so looking forward to this. No beta for me though. Don't want to spoil the experience. Can't wait for the release.

 

[xaanix]

can we see some cpu scaling benchmarks with a i7 980x?

 

[bildo123]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Looks like I'll need to try this one. I don't care to pay the inevitably inflated new game price ($50 for this one? $60?), but three-six months after release I'll pick it up for $30-$40.[/citation]

This is Blizzard. Their games take forever to depreciate in price. You could pick it up for $30~$40...like five years from now.

 

[mohjong]

Wonder how the game will run on the laptop with the GMA on-board. Otherwise, still have to upgrade for this new game.