|
I love how scrolling through the 1680x1050 rigs listed they're all running ultra and yet my FPS plummets on Ultra and even High can get too skippy for me.
Vista 64
Phenom II X3 710 @ 2.6
4gb DDR2 1066
HD 4870 1gb
I play at medium and still see dips into the 20s in 1v1 high supply fights.
GG phase 2 performance. This shit better be better by release it's pretty sad I can run Crysis better at high settings than SC2 runs at medium.
edit: You know it would figure that mere hours after I post this.. they patch the game and one of the unlisted patch notes was they somehow fixed performance (at least for me).
I went from 20-50 all game to 40-90 all game.. and that's after bumping it to high from medium. Ultra probably would be like butter now. I'm not sure what they did but I am definitely happy with it.
|
On July 14 2010 07:16 Dr.Smoke wrote:
@Alpina your cpu is just fine, to step up to HD res you will need a new gpu. I would suggest the new gtx 460 its badass.
My gts 250 runs ultra on a monitor like the one you want, full hd etc.
Actually hd4890 > gts 250 
anyone else can give advice?
+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 02:41 Alpina wrote:
Hey guys i need a little advice.
My pc:
CPU: i920 @ 2.67 Ghz
GPU: Radeon hd4890
rest fine.
So I play on 1280x1024 resolution on ultra and everything is fine on 1v1 (20-80 fps). (On huge battles drops to 20)
Now i want to buy a ''23 monitor and play on 1920x1080 resolution also on ultra. So my question is: would it be a high fps drop or not really?
Actually i tried lowering my resolution on lowest and i did not see any changes, does that mean that the problem is more CPU here and not the card?
Also what bottlenecks here: my CPU or graphics card? If it is CPU then i can just overclock it.
Thanks!
|
a little question: is there any experience yet about how well sc2 works on laptop quadcore cpus?
the test on tom´s hardware indicates the old knowledge that rts games tend to be bottlenecked by cpu speed rather than gpu. it also says that the game tends to scale more with raw frequency than number of cores/threads.
im simply wondering if my intel core i7 720qm (quadcore, 1.6ghz base speed, 1/1/6/9 turrbo mode) will be enough to play sc2 smoothly even with higher details and in a high resolution. (my native resolution is 1920x1080 and we all know it just looks better to use the native resolution.)
the graphics card is a radeon mobility 5870 (1gb gddr5 ram, about as good as a radeon hd 5770 desktop graphics card).
got no beta key so i cant test it myself 
|
On July 17 2010 19:36 Black Gun wrote:a little question: is there any experience yet about how well sc2 works on laptop quadcore cpus? the test on tom´s hardware indicates the old knowledge that rts games tend to be bottlenecked by cpu speed rather than gpu. it also says that the game tends to scale more with raw frequency than number of cores/threads. im simply wondering if my intel core i7 720qm (quadcore, 1.6ghz base speed, 1/1/6/9 turrbo mode) will be enough to play sc2 smoothly even with higher details and in a high resolution. (my native resolution is 1920x1080 and we all know it just looks better to use the native resolution.) the graphics card is a radeon mobility 5870 (1gb gddr5 ram, about as good as a radeon hd 5770 desktop graphics card). got no beta key so i cant test it myself
Don't worry! You've got a beast of a machine. It will handle SC2 Ultra on that resolution nicely.
About quad cores. SC2 is tailored to dual core, but you get a very very very slight better preformace out of quad. It tends to be, at the early stages of the game, a dual preforms a tiny bit better, and towards the late game with tons of 200/200, the quad is a slight bit better. But there is such a minimal difference, that it doesn't really mater what you've got.
But the 5870m will handle SC like a dream.
|
On July 16 2010 21:07 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 07:16 Dr.Smoke wrote:
@Alpina your cpu is just fine, to step up to HD res you will need a new gpu. I would suggest the new gtx 460 its badass.
My gts 250 runs ultra on a monitor like the one you want, full hd etc. Actually hd4890 > gts 250 anyone else can give advice? + Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 02:41 Alpina wrote:
Hey guys i need a little advice.
My pc:
CPU: i920 @ 2.67 Ghz
GPU: Radeon hd4890
rest fine.
So I play on 1280x1024 resolution on ultra and everything is fine on 1v1 (20-80 fps). (On huge battles drops to 20)
Now i want to buy a ''23 monitor and play on 1920x1080 resolution also on ultra. So my question is: would it be a high fps drop or not really?
Actually i tried lowering my resolution on lowest and i did not see any changes, does that mean that the problem is more CPU here and not the card?
Also what bottlenecks here: my CPU or graphics card? If it is CPU then i can just overclock it.
Thanks!
A higher resolution will affect the game play, but if you're getting 80 on 1280, you should get a nice smooth playable experience at 1920.
Looks like the bottleneck is your CPU. That's why you're getting 80 and it drops all the way to 20. But honestly, without actually being at your computer, it's hard to say for sure. But I would wager it's the CPU.
|
Hello guys, I'm trying to select the correct parts for a budget gaming PC for my brother. I wasn't really following the HW evolution for the past couple of years, so if anyone can give me some insight on what I've selected I'd be grateful. It's not build solely for the purpose of playing SCII, but generaly it's supposed to be gaming PC. So here we go:
INTEL Core i3-530 Dual-Core (2.93GHz (73W), 4MB L3 cache)
GIGABYTE R577UD-1GD (1GB DDR5 (4800MHz), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (850MHz), PCIe x16, CrossFire, 128bit)
ZEPPELIN 4GB KIT DDR3 1333MHz GOLD (2x2GB, PC10600, CL8-8-8-24)
ASUS P7H55-M PRO (Intel H55, PCIe x16, DDR3 2133, SATA II, USB2.0, GLAN, DVI, HDMI, 8ch audio, mATX, sc1156)
WESTERN DIGITAL Caviar Green 500GB 32MB cache (SATA II, IntelliPower, PMR, 8.9ms, WD5000AADS)
I'd like to know if there are any bottlenecks in this setup, something slowing down the rest or too advanced for that matter. Thanks a lot beforehand!
|
Laptop: Asus G60JX
Intel i5 430M 2.27GHz
4GB DDR3 ram
Nvidia GeForce 360M (DDR5)
1366x768
Pretty much maxed (Ultra, ultra ultra ultra...) at around 20~25 fps when there is creep / 200 units on screen, and 40-50 when I'm chillin' in my base macroing up. ^^
|
On July 17 2010 21:14 araged wrote:
Hello guys, I'm trying to select the correct parts for a budget gaming PC for my brother. I wasn't really following the HW evolution for the past couple of years, so if anyone can give me some insight on what I've selected I'd be grateful. It's not build solely for the purpose of playing SCII, but generaly it's supposed to be gaming PC. So here we go:
INTEL Core i3-530 Dual-Core (2.93GHz (73W), 4MB L3 cache)
GIGABYTE R577UD-1GD (1GB DDR5 (4800MHz), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (850MHz), PCIe x16, CrossFire, 128bit)
ZEPPELIN 4GB KIT DDR3 1333MHz GOLD (2x2GB, PC10600, CL8-8-8-24)
ASUS P7H55-M PRO (Intel H55, PCIe x16, DDR3 2133, SATA II, USB2.0, GLAN, DVI, HDMI, 8ch audio, mATX, sc1156)
WESTERN DIGITAL Caviar Green 500GB 32MB cache (SATA II, IntelliPower, PMR, 8.9ms, WD5000AADS)
I'd like to know if there are any bottlenecks in this setup, something slowing down the rest or too advanced for that matter. Thanks a lot beforehand!
Nice setup.
If I where to comment on anything, it would be that the i3 is the weakest component, but shouldn't cause a bottle neck. If you where intending for just SC, then I would suggest get a higher clocked i3, or an i5, because at some point the CPU becomes the bottle neck in all computers for an RTS (when you get like 15 players doing 200/200 lol) but since it's for many other things, and other games,you'll be absolutely fine.
|
On July 17 2010 21:39 butasama wrote:
Laptop: Asus G60JX
Intel i5 430M 2.27GHz
4GB DDR3 ram
Nvidia GeForce 360M (DDR5)
1366x768
Pretty much maxed (Ultra, ultra ultra ultra...) at around 20~25 fps when there is creep / 200 units on screen, and 40-50 when I'm chillin' in my base macroing up. ^^
Nice. What resolution are you playing on?
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500
4GB DDR2 800 ram
nvidia 9800GT 512MB
7200rpm hard drive
1280x1024
on ultra: about 70fps, throughout the game 40-70, which is usable with a maxed army of every unit + mothership all in my main base, about 20fps
high: about 90 fps in the beginning, throughout the game about 50-90, and with a maxed army of every unit + mothership running around my main, about 35 fps
|
I want to buy a new PC and yea my question is now if the following system will handle starcraft 2 without problems and if the price is ok. right now im playing on my laptop and every game with more like 80 supply on each side starts to be a lag-contest =(
Phenom II X2 555, 2x 3.2Ghz,
4096MB DDR2,
1000GB,
20x DVD Brenner,
1024MB NVIDIA ATI Radeon HD5770
= 579,00 €
|
Amstaff that will be perfectly fine for SC2.
Araged, the P7P55M PRO seems like a waste of money to me, but I guess it works.
|
On July 16 2010 21:07 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 07:16 Dr.Smoke wrote:
@Alpina your cpu is just fine, to step up to HD res you will need a new gpu. I would suggest the new gtx 460 its badass.
My gts 250 runs ultra on a monitor like the one you want, full hd etc. Actually hd4890 > gts 250 anyone else can give advice? + Show Spoiler +On July 14 2010 02:41 Alpina wrote:
Hey guys i need a little advice.
My pc:
CPU: i920 @ 2.67 Ghz
GPU: Radeon hd4890
rest fine.
So I play on 1280x1024 resolution on ultra and everything is fine on 1v1 (20-80 fps). (On huge battles drops to 20)
Now i want to buy a ''23 monitor and play on 1920x1080 resolution also on ultra. So my question is: would it be a high fps drop or not really?
Actually i tried lowering my resolution on lowest and i did not see any changes, does that mean that the problem is more CPU here and not the card?
Also what bottlenecks here: my CPU or graphics card? If it is CPU then i can just overclock it.
Thanks!
This seems to be another case of raw numbers not equaling real world performance.
The listed i920 is > my q6600 without question. Ram was not mentioned, but I have 4g and Im guessing he has similar. The main difference here is the 4890 vs. the 250.
TomsH has the 4890 listed as slightly above the 250, and the 250 = to 4850. Yet in real world gaming the 250 is > the 4890 very often. Sc2 seems to be one of those cases.
I don't have another explanation for why his system is better on paper, yet I'm playing on ultra hd with any number of players etc. I've never even seen my gpu usage go above ~80% when playing sc2 at ultra settings.
Also, my card is not OC but seems like it could go higher, based on temps. It is the 1gb ram model.
|
I'm not sure how you came across to that conclusion because there isn't a single game where the HD 4890 wouldn't pull in front of the GTS 250. The GTS 250 ~= HD 4850/9800GTX+/HD 5750 whereas the HD 4890 is ~= the GTX 275 (and often beats the GTX 275 at resolutions around 1920x1200 and below.
|
I'm running:
- P4 Alderwood @ 3.4Gz
- 2 Gb DDR2
- HD 4670 512Mb DDR3
- 7200r 500Gb HD
I can run it on high up to 1280*1024 at a constant 70 fps more or less. 40-45 in big battles. Same config nowadays wouldn't cost you more than 250$ and is still able to handle SC2 perfectly.
Ask yourself this question: Is it really worth it to throw 200 more dollars/euros in a config just to have glowing minerals and weird effects you won't care about more than 5 mins or do you want to play reliably ?
|
On July 18 2010 04:09 FragKrag wrote:
Amstaff that will be perfectly fine for SC2.
Araged, the P7P55M PRO seems like a waste of money to me, but I guess it works.
thx im going to order it now^^
|
On July 18 2010 04:27 FragKrag wrote:
I'm not sure how you came across to that conclusion because there isn't a single game where the HD 4890 wouldn't pull in front of the GTS 250. The GTS 250 ~= HD 4850/9800GTX+/HD 5750 whereas the HD 4890 is ~= the GTX 275 (and often beats the GTX 275 at resolutions around 1920x1200 and below.
Well, right now I'm basing that on sc2 performance, which does indicate that the 250> 4890.
I cannot give any other cases at this point, as I just got it and sc2 is the only game I'm playing right now.
|
|
|
Intel Dual-Core 6300 @ 1.86 GHZ
3 gigs of RAM
Windows 7 Ultimate x86
Nvidia GeForce 260 GTX
Average FPS: 30
|
On July 18 2010 04:09 FragKrag wrote:
Amstaff that will be perfectly fine for SC2.
Araged, the P7P55M PRO seems like a waste of money to me, but I guess it works.
Waste of money in what sense? Can you suggest something else to replace it? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
