|
On February 21 2010 14:46 PGHammer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2010 14:26 mahnini wrote:On February 21 2010 14:21 PGHammer wrote:On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote:On February 21 2010 13:52 faseman wrote:On February 21 2010 13:42 mahnini wrote:
looks like maxing sc2 requires more than people thought EH? admittedly fps should probably improve by release but it shouldn't be that huge of a jump. Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. Competitive players usually play with the details cranked down to the floor, too (if the game allows you to do so) so as to NOT be distracted by flashy FX. (Read the "Graphics vs, Gameplay" article in the SC2 section here to find out what I'm referring to.) I play campaign/skirmish with the detail cranked as tall as I can get away with in other RTS games (but that is generally because the AI doesn't take advantage of detail-induced lag when set to easy or medium difficulty); a competent pro player would wax my silly butt if I tried that. Besides, SC2 will let you go back and watch the replay with a higher level of detail than you actually played at (that is, from my experience, unique). yep. i actually posted in that thread multiple times because i prefer low settings. all i'm saying is to play competitively at ultra requires a lot more than most people think. of course, if you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps then whatever, but im guessing most competitive players will. True, and a lot of those requirements aren't in the computer, but between the ears. (I'm not going to say that I have that sort of capability, because I don't.) Also, for all any of us know, SC2 may be frame-rate locked at the upper end at 60 fps. (This is as far from silly as it sounds, as this has, in fact, become commonplace with not just RTS titles, but shooters as well.) If you have the capability, but the game itself has the north end of capability walled off, why is the capability there? (Because of the growing amount of frame-rate locking, I have no interest in overbuying as far as GPU capabilities go. SC2 may actually be the most visually demanding RTS I play over the next two years, and, with a 23" LCD display, an HD5750 (I only need one) is quite enough; that goes double if anything above 60 fps is walled off.)
There is really no point in framelocking the game by themselves when most graphics cards can already do the same thing with Vsync.
|
On February 21 2010 14:46 PGHammer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2010 14:26 mahnini wrote:On February 21 2010 14:21 PGHammer wrote:On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote:On February 21 2010 13:52 faseman wrote:On February 21 2010 13:42 mahnini wrote:
looks like maxing sc2 requires more than people thought EH? admittedly fps should probably improve by release but it shouldn't be that huge of a jump. Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. Competitive players usually play with the details cranked down to the floor, too (if the game allows you to do so) so as to NOT be distracted by flashy FX. (Read the "Graphics vs, Gameplay" article in the SC2 section here to find out what I'm referring to.) I play campaign/skirmish with the detail cranked as tall as I can get away with in other RTS games (but that is generally because the AI doesn't take advantage of detail-induced lag when set to easy or medium difficulty); a competent pro player would wax my silly butt if I tried that. Besides, SC2 will let you go back and watch the replay with a higher level of detail than you actually played at (that is, from my experience, unique). yep. i actually posted in that thread multiple times because i prefer low settings. all i'm saying is to play competitively at ultra requires a lot more than most people think. of course, if you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps then whatever, but im guessing most competitive players will. True, and a lot of those requirements aren't in the computer, but between the ears. (I'm not going to say that I have that sort of capability, because I don't.) Also, for all any of us know, SC2 may be frame-rate locked at the upper end at 60 fps. (This is as far from silly as it sounds, as this has, in fact, become commonplace with not just RTS titles, but shooters as well.) If you have the capability, but the game itself has the north end of capability walled off, why is the capability there? (Because of the growing amount of frame-rate locking, I have no interest in overbuying as far as GPU capabilities go. SC2 may actually be the most visually demanding RTS I play over the next two years, and, with a 23" LCD display, an HD5750 (I only need one) is quite enough; that goes double if anything above 60 fps is walled off.)
k well. i'm sure a good majority of people current own lcd monitors. 99.99% of lcd monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz which means it is physically impossible to get more than 60fps from your monitor regardless of how fast your gpu spits out frames. the thing is gpus don't always produce constant fps so which is why you want a minimum of 60 or above so that you dont get constant frame drops while playing the game.
|
anyone have any solid information on the 9400m? I see some speculation that it would run but i'm not sure as to what settings.
my specs are:
2.26 ghz core 2 duo
4GB ddr3 ram
9400M
so i'm only really concerned about the video card, i'm wondering if i can get med @ 1280 x 800 with good (45+) fps?
|
where do i check what kind of video card i have?
and if i don't have enough ram will increasing the virtual memory solve that problem?
|
On February 21 2010 15:10 2minutevictory wrote:
where do i check what kind of video card i have?
and if i don't have enough ram will increasing the virtual memory solve that problem?
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
|
No increasing virtual memory will not solve the problem because it is the lack of RAM which is what causes the computer to attempt to increase virtual memory. Increasing virtual memory means that instead of using RAM, the computer is using your hard drive which is much slower than RAM.
You can check what graphics card you have easily by simply opting in for the Blizzard SC2 Beta. It will tell you what GPU you have after it autodetects your system specs.
|
I got about 60 fps average with a 4870 1GB and 1680x1050 resolution on max settings.
On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2010 13:52 faseman wrote:On February 21 2010 13:42 mahnini wrote:
looks like maxing sc2 requires more than people thought EH? admittedly fps should probably improve by release but it shouldn't be that huge of a jump. Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60.
I don't see how anyone could possibly have issues with FPS at 30-40. Maybe things looks very subtly different at 60 instead of 40, but really, there's no way it would actually affect your how well you play.
|
hm that would put it about the same as what the benchmark said.
|
On February 21 2010 15:17 LxRogue wrote:
I don't see how anyone could possibly have issues with FPS at 30-40. Maybe things looks very subtly different at 60 instead of 40, but really, there's no way it would actually affect your how well you play.
Agreed. While I definitely can the difference between 40 and 60 fps it shouldn't affect how somebody plays.
|
on the topic of higher-detail replays vs. lower-detail, real-time games,
do you guys think that a computer will be able to play replays back in higher detail (compared to when actually playing) with the exact same speed/level of lag?
ie, if a computer can handle up to 'high' settings with no lag, will the same comp be able to play replays on 'ultra' settings with no lag?
what i'm asking is if replays are as demanding (within a reasonable context) as the played game
|
CPU: Dual CPU E2200 2.20ghz
GPU: Intel GMA 3100 (384MB but 256MB in Windows 7)
Resolution: 1024x768
RAM: 2GB
Setting: Dunno
So I'm planning on a HD 4670, but my monitor is only 15'', do u think i need a new monitor?
|
On February 21 2010 15:17 LxRogue wrote:I got about 60 fps average with a 4870 1GB and 1680x1050 resolution on max settings. Show nested quote +On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote:On February 21 2010 13:52 faseman wrote:On February 21 2010 13:42 mahnini wrote:
looks like maxing sc2 requires more than people thought EH? admittedly fps should probably improve by release but it shouldn't be that huge of a jump. Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. I don't see how anyone could possibly have issues with FPS at 30-40. Maybe things looks very subtly different at 60 instead of 40, but really, there's no way it would actually affect your how well you play.
I am not certain it is the same for rts games but for Quake 3 if you get used to playing at 125fps and then it suddenly drops down to even 100fps you certainly feel the difference even in aiming etc. I accidentally turned on v-sync a while ago and the game looked like it was lagging to me because the mouse seemed to be behind when doing fast flick shots etc.
|
CPU: C2D E8400 3Ghz
GPU: Radeon HD 4800
Resolution: 1920x1200
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Setting: Ultra with extreme shaders
|
4800?
You mean 4870 or 4890?
|
Awww thats bad. I've got a Radeon Mobility X700 and according to the chart on Tom's Hardware, it's just a single notch too slow for SC2 
do you think I'll still have a chance to get a beta opt in with this card?
|
i'm way above these requirements xD
|
CPU: C2D E7200 @ 3.6ghz
GPU: Nvidia GTX260 Core 216
Resolution: 1920x1200
RAM: 4GB DDR2
Setting: Everything at ultra. Haven't tried shaders on extreme.
Runs perfectly with TS3 and Procaster streaming.
Will fraps the next chance I get.
|
hey does this look right to you?
# Operating system:Windows 2.6.0.6002 (SP 2)
# CPU type:AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800
# CPU Speed (GHz):2.52
# System memory (GB):3.498
# Graphics card model:NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
# Graphics card driver:nvd3dum.dll
# Desktop resolution:1440x900
# Hard disk size (GB):286.943
# Hard disk free space (GB):125.78
im running sc2 at 1440x900 32 bit, everything except texture and unit portrait is low.
im only getting around 50(busy) - 100(early game) fps while looking at a terran base.
once i look at a zerg base, the fps sinks to like 30 - 80 fps.
should the fps be around that area considering my specs, even when pretty much all the settings are set at low?
|
That looks a bit odd to me. I expected the 8600 GT to perform better o-o
|
Need to run on low, I'm not looking for intense graphics here. Just smooth play.
CPU: Pentium Dual-Core E5200 @ 2.5GHz
GPU: ATI Radeon 3450 HD
Resolution: 1024 x 768
RAM: 4GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
