| Blogs > Sadistx |
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
Some performance numbers for people that are looking to upgrade their computer in order to play beta or release of SC II. I really don't have much more to say, the numbers speak for themselves. Yeah one thing to note is that they are using an overclocked Core i7, so if you have a weaker processor, you should subtract ~5-20% from the fps numbers for any given benchmark.   | ||
|
OmgIRok
Taiwan2699 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On February 22 2010 05:13 OmgIRok wrote: I don't know how to read the bar graph.. it says avg and min whats that mean o_o Avg is the average frames per second. Kind of like how you can get average APM. Min is the minumum, which is the lowest number of frames per second they got. This makes me pretty confident that running Starcraft 2 will not be hard to run. I don't really run at super high resolutions anyway, and I'm more than willing to turn down the settings. However, a new PC would be nice, since, you know, I love me some pretty. | ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
also i doubt the fps numbers would fall, even with a significantly slower processor. SC2 has been in production since when, 2003? It prolly doesnt even use 2 cores. | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On February 22 2010 05:22 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: lol, they didn´t even test it with my awesum geforce 8600gt. also i doubt the fps numbers would fall, even with a significantly slower processor. SC2 has been in production since when, 2003? It prolly doesnt even use 2 cores. The article says that the faster your processor, the higher your frame rates. That means even if you have a i7, you'll want to overclock it. | ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On February 22 2010 05:41 T.O.P. wrote: The article says that the faster your processor, the higher your frame rates. That means even if you have a i7, you'll want to overclock it. games are more about the graphics card then the processor. Also SC2 definitely does not use 4 cores, i seriously doubt it even uses 2 cores. And no overclocking a processor as fast as the i7 is bullcrap, 40 fps is all one needs, humans can´t notice the difference if the game runs at more than that. The benchmark would have the same results, if the processor was a duo core running at 3.7ghz. | ||
|
Puosu
7034 Posts
And no overclocking a processor as fast as the i7 is bullcrap, 40 fps is all one needs, humans can´t notice the difference if the game runs at more than that. Bullshit! Try playing Quake games on 125 fps versus 60 fps and tell me you notice no difference. =P | ||
|
FreshNoThyme
United States356 Posts
On February 22 2010 05:51 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: And no overclocking a processor as fast as the i7 is bullcrap, 40 fps is all one needs, humans can´t notice the difference if the game runs at more than that.. Yeah, that is very wrong. You haven't had much gaming experience if you honestly think that. Play: CS1.0-1.6 CSS DoD DoDS Q2/3/Live UT anything PK HL2 L4D/L4D2 Hell, just play anything FPS game. Put the fps_max at 40. Then put it at 100. Then, if the game allows (developer 1, but not needed for newer games), fps_max 300. Trust me, there is a MASSIVE difference. That "humans can't notice the difference" is a myth that was proven wrong over 10 years ago. And the value even then wasn't "40", it was 30, and then 60. EDIT: You also said games are more reliant on GPU than CPU. That is definitely not always correct. Games are built to be more dependent on one or the other; they aren't inherently so. For example, Source engine games are very CPU dependent. However, games such as SC2 are much more GPU dependent. | ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On February 22 2010 05:59 Puosu wrote: Bullshit! Try playing Quake games on 125 fps versus 60 fps and tell me you notice no difference. =P Never played Quake, but fps games are another story anyway. If youd put two monitors next to eachother, one of them running an animation at 125fps and one of them running one at 50, one might notice a slight difference, but if you were to watch one today and one tomorrow, you would definitely not notice. And 40 is definitely enough for an rts game Yes randomcl, your right, i didnt make it clear that i was talking about SC2 only. I worked at a hardware store and did some benchmarking with some colleagues myself, rts games mostly, we even did warcraft3 once. and we all agreed, while your actually concentrating on playing the game, you will not notice the difference. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
imo for a game like Starcraft 2, 60 minimum FPS is the ideal number to desire (this really applies to all games) regarding watching the same animation running at 125 FPS versus 50 FPS on two separate monitors, the difference might not be that noticeable, but if you were to be playing a game that constantly zig zagged between 125 FPS and 50 FPS, the difference would be much more noticeable. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
however, i've no doubt you can tell a difference between 120 vs 60 on a capable monitor. it might not be a HUGE difference but the will probably be noticeably smoother which can make a huge difference if that makes sense. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
