StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Yeah, I prefer the low settings too - they're more "readable". I'll put it on high for the campaign of course.
Also, playing SC2 requires loads and loads of micromanagement. The standard "20fps is good enough for RTS" only really applies to games where the units will get on with a fight on their own. SC2 you need smooth play to blink your damaged stalkers to the back of the crowd, burrow damaged roaches, etc etc, just like you need a smooth framerate for reliable headshots.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Running on my 4-year-old Fujitsu laptop, I'm getting a far different performance than you are here with the oldest of your video cards merely a few months old. I can barely run it at all low settings. people's Youtube videos of the beta look better than it does on my machine. It would be interesting if you'd publish some screenshots from those of us who can't upgrade every year. Clearly your definition of 'older' machines is far different from the real world.

I predicted a year ago that Starcraft 2 would be the first Blizzard game that really required a beefy machine in order to look and play well, and so far, I'm right. I realize of course, that this is unoptimized code and I expect we'll see far better performance in the release version. But let's be honest, Blizzard wants this game to be an e-sports lynchpin and you need sweet visuals to get people's attention. I get that and I support it. But it doesn't mean that everyone will be able to make the price of admission. Those of us on a budget will need to do our homework before we plunk down our money.
 

Nebfer

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2009
7
0
18,510
0
Well with my athlon 64x2 (AM2) duel core 2.7ghz (5200) and Radeon 3750 (256mb) and 2 gig of ram (PC-6400)

I can run SC2 with a 1280x1024 16bit res (I can go 32 bit, and thats the highest my moniter can go -19in) on high settings (even textures) at about 60-20 FPS.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Sorry, I'm super computer illiterate. Where does a graphics card like a 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 320M stand? Is it similar to the other GT graphic cards listed in this article?
 

n00bmaster

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2010
3
0
18,510
0
They are purposely forcing gamers to upgrade to buy the latest graphics card. This game no way in hell should require a GTX280 to run it properly smooth at high quality. Its obvious that the graphics card company have worked with starcraft to force people to upgrade.
 

w3bdev

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
I actually don't really care for the beta at this point. It's just the Warcraft III engine with Starcraft units... and a couple environment effects. Dumb. Dawn of War II has better graphics than this, and sure as heck hasn't been worked on as long as scII has.
 

youssef 2010

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2009
1,263
0
19,360
32
Just as bmadd said why aren't the 470/480 benched.I know that they will be capable of handling the game just fine.It's just that all the recent ATI models up to the 5870 are benched, then why not include the 470/480 in the results just to represent what Nvidia's latest offerings can do.I generally prefer AMD over Nvidia but this has nothing to do with preferences if you're doing a benchmark that will be used to judge both companies' offerings.(Even if it's just in this particular game)
 

youssef 2010

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2009
1,263
0
19,360
32
[citation][nom]shadowmaster625[/nom]Ugh. What kind of crap is this? I want to know how it will run on a 780G and on the intel integrated gfx. And on an 8600GTS.[/citation]

They can't possibly benchmark every card on the market.It'd be futile as most gamers don't use integrated graphics.My card is not on the list but this list represnts an acceptable cross-section of the available chips. I think you can guess that this game will run fine on aged hardware if you run it at its low settings or spend some time to tweak its options between low & medium in order to get the best quality at a playable performance.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
Just gonna throw in my specs after talking gameplay and the like so much.

I get 60 fps + on ultra settings (with shaders turned up to extreme) at 2148 x 1152. My FPS drop to maybe 50 at the lowest when there is 200/200 armies in a 2v2 with like ~*alot*~ of action on the screen.

I'm running this -

i7 920 @ 3.81 no HT
6 Gigs of DDR3 @ 15xx
GTX 280 Stock Settings
ASUS p6T deluxe v1 mobo
2x Raptor in RAID (SATA1 type)

I have a friend in the same cpu (dunno his speeds) and a 9800gtx thats running ultra/extreme and he gets 45 fps + (I think he was running either 16xx X 10xx or 1080p).

AA *does* kill this game right now. Also the menus are intense on the gpu... and the menus with AA make my setup into a fast slide show.

For you sc1 players that are aware of LAT and all that love your Lan lat / iccup lat Im finding that sc2 bnet is about at that level. At least it is for me. It appears it is on a player to player basis based on your "ping" to the bnet server. One player might even have great Lat in game and another might have awful.
 

youssef 2010

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2009
1,263
0
19,360
32
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Total Annihilation is arguably the most important RTS game. StarCraft is nothing special.[/citation]

what the **** are you talking about? have you played the original.I recall when I first played it I was overwhelmed by it (the game was & still is very enjoyable despite its age).Probably one of the best games I've ever played.
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
I'm not sure when this article was written but the most recent patch delivered a pretty good graphics update. I noticed it right away. Texture details went up big time. I didn't notice a decrease in performance on my 5770 but you may want to look into that.
 
My son has been playing and getting occasional

"Display driver nvidia windows kernel mode driver version 197.45 stopped responding and has successfully recovered"

error message. Anyone else ? .... used to get this occasionally in other games and even programs but it all went away after an i-Tunes update. Suspecting the most recent new i-Tunes update as the cause again but figured I'd check to see if anyone else experiencing same problem before trying to isolate.
 

pim69

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2009
40
0
18,530
0
errrr.. the article starts by stating that blizzard has a history of being friendly to slower pc's... but all the video cards tested were released only a matter of months ago. how useful is that? Good to know you don't have to spend a lot on a high end new card, but that's fairly obvious. a few new ones and some older ones would be more helpful.

For those like me still stuck on agp x1900pro, dont expect to go higher than low settings with 1280x700 LOL. its lousy, but at least I can play.
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
1,599
0
19,810
8


No. Wrong. SC is not complex. I'm sure I can teach any average 13 year old to play SC decently, just like you could chess. Is it difficult to completely master and be called an excellent player? Absolutely. It's easy to play, difficult to master, like chess.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
Its difficult to master because of the complexities. I trully doubt you could teach a 13 year old how to play the game decently in anytime short of like 6 - 12 months of playing.

Anyone can pick up any game and play. By what you just said every game out there isnt complex.

I consider a game that uses over half the keyboard for inputs to be complex just based on the controls.
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
1,599
0
19,810
8


Exactly, if games were complex nobody would play them, period. There are high levels of strategy, but complexity and strategy are very different. It's the strategy involved in games that makes them compelling, not complexity.
 

dasper

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2009
65
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]I'm sure I can teach any average 13 year old to play SC decently, just like you could chess. Is it difficult to completely master and be called an excellent player? Absolutely. It's easy to play, difficult to master, like chess.[/citation]

I think in essence this is what Blizzard strives for and you hit it right on the head. If the games are easy to learn, they do not get frustrated and continue playing. If the games are hard to master then it gives the gamer more stuff to play with and adapt new strategies.
Starcraft wasn't truly ground breaking but instead a refined and polished RTS off of what Blizzard thought made the genre fun. The same can be said about Diablo and World of Warcraft. Personally, I can relate it to web sites: you are first drawn to the flashy and artsy ones first but after using them for months you are tripping over all the added bloat you just want something clean, simple, and polished like google or bing.
 

zaam

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2009
47
0
18,530
0
I hope the AI is better than the original's. The computer just sends the same units over and over even if they get completely wiped out. It also falls for the same tricks all the time.

Thank goodness the multiplayer action is much better. But SC2 still bummer for no LAN support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts