|
I plan on buying an ultrabook in the near future (probably the asus ux21a soon to be released), and I was wondering if there is a possibilty to run sc2 on an integrated gpu with acceptable framerate.
Intel has made good progress with its hd graphics on their last ivy bridge processors, but i cannot find any sc2 benchmark with a hd4000 on a 3610qm for instance. What I mean with "acceptable framerate" would be like ~50 fps in the midgame with all graphic settings on low and something like 1280x720 for resolution.
The laptop will mostly be used for school, as I already have a good gaming desktop, but I wonder if sc2 can run well with a low-end gpu, as it is mostly cpu limited.
If you have any experience with the aforementioned gpu or any link to a sc2 benchmark, please let me know. Thank you.
edit : I found some benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k/14) but only with high and medium graphic setting with quite high resolution, plus no information of the kind of benchmark procedure (whole replay, during a 200/200 fight etc), so more insight would be great.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
|
HD4000 is better than my 9400M, not to mention you would have an Ivy Bridge i5 whereas I have an old C2D.
if I could play at 720p on low at decent framerates, you definitely will be able to.
|
On May 26 2012 02:19 T.O.P. wrote:It should run pretty well on low in 1280*720 res. I get like 50+ fps at the start of the game using Sandy Bridge + low on everything + Ultra textures on 1920*1080 resolution. Ivy Bridge's GPU is like 50% faster and the CPU is faster as well, which is important in SC2. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5843/asus-zenbook-prime-ux21a-review/6
Thank you for your intel, any idea how would it run on low textures and resolution when there is a lot of unit? Can I expect 30+ fps even during a fight?
|
SC2 runs fine on HD3000 on low. I have no issues with big fights. It will definitely run fine on HD4000. However you mention you want an ultrabook. Chances are, it's going to have an under-volted CPU. With that in mind, I don't know if an under-volted Ivy-bridge can run SC2.
|
You should be able to play on low. I play on low on my laptop with 1366x768 resolution and it has Sandy Bridge i3 and Intel HD Graphics 3000; things are generally OK on low, even in the mid and late game. And if all else fails, try out some more early-game-oriented strategies :>
|
On May 26 2012 02:25 EZjijy wrote:
SC2 runs fine on HD3000 on low. I have no issues with big fights. It will definitely run fine on HD4000. However you mention you want an ultrabook. Chances are, it's going to have an under-volted CPU. With that in mind, I don't know if an under-volted Ivy-bridge can run SC2.
I know ultrabooks will mostly be getting ultra low voltage cpu, but I don't think the decrease in cpu performance will have much effect on a gpu-limited system, but I'll definitely check before buying, thanks.
|
I think an HD4000 will definitely be able to play SC2 on low, even on a ULV IVB CPU. Starcraft is extremely easy to run on low. I'm running low graphics on a Core 2 Duo ULV at 1.7ghz, and a GT210M, and it's fairly smooth, so you should be fine.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html
173 FPS on low at a low resolution... even if you up the resolution to 1366x768 (I doubt the native 1080P will work), it should still look nice because of the small screen, and run smoothly.
|
On May 26 2012 03:11 Alryk wrote:I think an HD4000 will definitely be able to play SC2 on low, even on a ULV IVB CPU. Starcraft is extremely easy to run on low. I'm running low graphics on a Core 2 Duo ULV at 1.7ghz, and a GT210M, and it's fairly smooth, so you should be fine. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html173 FPS on low at a low resolution... even if you up the resolution to 1366x768 (I doubt the native 1080P will work), it should still look nice because of the small screen, and run smoothly.
Oh I forgot about notebookcheck, great website. There seems to be indeed a huge difference of fps between low and medium. Props to Blizzard for making sc2 very adaptable to different system. Thank you for your intels.
|
Remember when looking at benchmarks that HD4000 on a descktop i7 where it is often benchmarked will produce significantly better performance than it would with a laptop CPU
|
Actually that's not true. With AMD's trinity, it is, but not with the HD4000. Intel puts their highest clocked IGPU into their notebook models - the HD4000 in the mobile CPUs is actually clocked higher than the desktop counterparts on the i7-3770k. So the HD4000 in mobile parts actually performs better, and that's what you see benchmarked. The ULV parts will certainly be clocked lower, but you already knew that. The 173FPS is likely from a mobile CPU, if its a desktop CPU, a normal mobile HD4000 will actually perform better.
AMD's Trinity DOES do that. The HD4000 barely loses to mobile Trinity, but gets stomped by roughly the same or higher margin by desktop Llano. So desktop Trinity will probably roll over the HD4000 completely. Kind of worried for Haswell for AMD though. With how close HD4000 brought intel to Trinity vs HD3000 and Llano, AMD better bring some big improvements if they want to stay ahead of Intel in the mobile space. I think they should be ok in Desktops, but mobile might be more important for APUs. (Not that any of this is relevant hahaha.)
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
The GPU is barely touched with sc2 on low, especially on lower resolutions. I would not be suprised if both the laptop and the desktop were CPU capped, and the integrated GPU was not being maxed (and not the bottleneck of benchmark) for an early game FPS snapshot
|
Well generally Anandtech and others test specific scenarios that will introduce a GPU-capped scenario. Like no units on the screen with a lot of scrolling/explosions and what not. If there aren't units on the screen or much pathing either, you can get a GPU capped scenario pretty easily.
|
I run sc2 on low setting in a ASUS with i3 2nd generation and intel HD3000, with 50 fps, so you will be able to play sc2 np.
|
cmon i ran sc2 on my GF atom notebook and it was "almost playable" on lowest settings and resolution, and by that i mean you could produce units and macro and stuff , but when a lot of units appeared on the screen you got fps drops , but still it was not that bad until very late in the game.
ivy bridge and intel HD should run it no problem , what quality? dunno , but definitely you will be able to play the game somehow and your resolution is not that high to be a problem.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On May 26 2012 05:17 Alryk wrote:
Well generally Anandtech and others test specific scenarios that will introduce a GPU-capped scenario. Like no units on the screen with a lot of scrolling/explosions and what not. If there aren't units on the screen or much pathing either, you can get a GPU capped scenario pretty easily.
Tomshardware stated sc2 fights were GPU capped at one point, and i doubt you are getting the well over 100fps posted on anything but early game on a laptop regardless of GPU and graphics settings, My overclocked i7 950 drops below that in lategame 1v1 on low pretty frequently
|
I have a Sony Vaio E laptop with Intel GMA HD graphics, Core i3,4gb ram. No dedicated graphics. The game runs kinda slow in late game even everything is already on low. Is there anyway I can make it run better? I opened the Intel Graphics and Media Control Panel and the current resolution is 1366x768. There are other resolutions available including 1360x768, 1280x768, 1024x768 and 800x600. If I change it to 800x600 will the game run smoothly? I just want to be able to play. How the game looks and what screen ratio doesn't matter.
Also the in game resolution is recommended at 1280x768 even though there is another option lower than that which is at 1024x768. I tried to choose the lowest but it said it's not recommended.
If I change both Graphic Media Control Panel and Starcraft option setting to the lowest resolutions, will it run better? even if I have to play on 4x3 resolution, it's ok.
Thanks
edit:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kgRMZ.png)
could I change any of these to make it run better?
|
No not really. Change the ingame resolution to 1024x768, that's your best bet. But intel GMA igp is pretty shitty, so you're probably stuck needing another computer.
Tomshardware stated sc2 fights were GPU capped at one point, and i doubt you are getting the well over 100fps posted on anything but early game on a laptop regardless of GPU and graphics settings, My overclocked i7 950 drops below that in lategame 1v1 on low pretty frequently
Well GPU capped scenario doesn't necessarily mean realistic. Obviously, any processor will drop in lategame. However, I don't think an i7 950 or any i7 should drop on low while overclocked. Maybe a little, but not frequently. Stock sandy bridge drops on ultra down to ~30, but you're on low.
The purpose of the GPU test is purely to see what can run the game in a worst case scenario, for the GPU. That has nothing to do with the CPU, it purely indicates the game is playable for the HD4000. And GPU scenarios don't scale nearly as badly as CPU the later you get into the game. A lot of the late game lag is probably CPU based, so at that point the tables on notebookcheck don't even matter. That said, your CPU should drop, but it should be easily playable on low. If you're getting noticeable framerate drop with that kind of processor on low, there's something wrong with the CPU (dust maybe) that is affecting performance.
Edit: I think most people say tomshardware is pretty bad. I can't imagine lategame SC2 fights being GPU capped.
|
On May 26 2012 06:08 NoGasfOu wrote:I have a Sony Vaio E laptop with Intel GMA HD graphics, Core i3,4gb ram. No dedicated graphics. The game runs kinda slow in late game even everything is already on low. Is there anyway I can make it run better? I opened the Intel Graphics and Media Control Panel and the current resolution is 1366x768. There are other resolutions available including 1360x768, 1280x768, 1024x768 and 800x600. If I change it to 800x600 will the game run smoothly? I just want to be able to play. How the game looks and what screen ratio doesn't matter. Also the in game resolution is recommended at 1280x768 even though there is another option lower than that which is at 1024x768. I tried to choose the lowest but it said it's not recommended. If I change both Graphic Media Control Panel and Starcraft option setting to the lowest resolutions, will it run better? even if I have to play on 4x3 resolution, it's ok. Thanks edit: + Show Spoiler +could I change any of these to make it run better?
I don't think lowering the resolution on your graphic control panel will change anything with your fps in sc2, lowering the in-game resolution should be enough. I believe the minimum resolution you can use with sc2 is 1024x768, could be wrong though. Like some have said earlier, if sc2 is gpu-limited in the lategame on your system, lowering the resolution will help improving your fps. If the cpu is the bottle-neck, it won't do much. Just run some tests! Get a replay, select some points in time in the replay and pause it, and note the fps with every resolution. This way you'll see if you improved fluidity or not.
btw thank you everyone for your answers.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Well GPU capped scenario doesn't necessarily mean realistic. Obviously, any processor will drop in lategame. However, I don't think an i7 950 or any i7 should drop on low while overclocked. Maybe a little, but not frequently. Stock sandy bridge drops on ultra down to ~30, but you're on low.
I see very similar framerates on lowest and max settings as long as physics are disabled past the mid game. There is nothing to differentiate the two if GPU is at 20% utilization.
|
Wait, doesn't that prove my point? XD I think I'm a bit confused. Physics is a GPU based calculation right? (No idea, I think it is though). That means your computer is CPU limited, which should be normal for SC2, and means that past mid game has no effect on how the HD4000 would perform. (Granted you prob have a better GPU.)
But you shouldn't have the same framerate for different CPU settings... O.o if I'm understanding that properly. That doesn't make any sense.
Edit: Physics is CPU. Haha
|
It'll be no problem. I run SC2 fine on lowest graphics settings with Intel HD 2000 graphics @ 1680x1050. You might even be able to turn a setting up here and there.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On May 26 2012 05:13 Cyro wrote:
The GPU is barely touched with sc2 on low, especially on lower resolutions. I would not be suprised if both the laptop and the desktop were CPU capped, and the integrated GPU was not being maxed (and not the bottleneck of benchmark) for an early game FPS snapshot
Not true. GPU usage goes to 90% on lowest for me on either HD3000 or Nvidia 540m.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On May 26 2012 09:30 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 05:13 Cyro wrote:
The GPU is barely touched with sc2 on low, especially on lower resolutions. I would not be suprised if both the laptop and the desktop were CPU capped, and the integrated GPU was not being maxed (and not the bottleneck of benchmark) for an early game FPS snapshot Not true. GPU usage goes to 90% on lowest for me on either HD3000 or Nvidia 540m.
In later game situations or large team games i see very low GPU utilization as framerates drop from CPU cap, but i do have a higher end desktop card
|
I recently got an i5 3570k with Intel HD 4000 graphics and still waiting for the GTX 670 to come in stock. I run SC2 on low and get anywhere between 70 to 145 FPS, never saw it go lower then 60 FPS, even in team game engagements.
|
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game?
|
On June 30 2012 15:40 Sirex wrote:
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game?
Nope, you're looking at 60fps~ at the early-game, 40-45~ midgame and 25-30fps in late game situations, might dip to 20 during huge battles.
|
|
|
On June 30 2012 15:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 15:40 Sirex wrote:
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game? Nope, you're looking at 60fps~ at the early-game, 40-45~ midgame and 25-30fps in late game situations, might dip to 20 during huge battles.
Thank You for this answer. You tried that yourself?
|
On July 02 2012 16:07 Sirex wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 15:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 30 2012 15:40 Sirex wrote:
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game? Nope, you're looking at 60fps~ at the early-game, 40-45~ midgame and 25-30fps in late game situations, might dip to 20 during huge battles. Thank You for this answer. You tried that yourself?
Get a graphics card for $100 and you can play on ultra np.
|
On July 02 2012 16:48 Rollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 16:07 Sirex wrote:On June 30 2012 15:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 30 2012 15:40 Sirex wrote:
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game? Nope, you're looking at 60fps~ at the early-game, 40-45~ midgame and 25-30fps in late game situations, might dip to 20 during huge battles. Thank You for this answer. You tried that yourself? Get a graphics card for $100 and you can play on ultra np.
Thanks, i understand that myself. Just want to save those $100 for better GPU in the near future 
|
The solution seems simple. Just don't buy the graphics card and play on HD 4000. If the quality of your experience is unacceptable to you (it will not be, me thinks), then buy a graphics card after you find out you're unhappy without it.
|
On July 03 2012 14:51 MisterFred wrote:
The solution seems simple. Just don't buy the graphics card and play on HD 4000. If the quality of your experience is unacceptable to you (it will not be, me thinks), then buy a graphics card after you find out you're unhappy without it.
did you even read the OP?
literally the first sentence "i plan on buying an ultrabook"
|
On July 03 2012 14:51 MisterFred wrote:
The solution seems simple. Just don't buy the graphics card and play on HD 4000. If the quality of your experience is unacceptable to you (it will not be, me thinks), then buy a graphics card after you find out you're unhappy without it.
It seems that i will do that. Solution isn't very simple, because now i am buying PC with SSD and GPU in the future (after few months), or PC with GPU, but without SSD
Thanks for your answers.
|
On July 03 2012 14:09 Sirex wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 16:48 Rollin wrote:On July 02 2012 16:07 Sirex wrote:On June 30 2012 15:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 30 2012 15:40 Sirex wrote:
So, is it possible to play on ~medium settings on ~60FPS with i5-3570K? Even at late game? Nope, you're looking at 60fps~ at the early-game, 40-45~ midgame and 25-30fps in late game situations, might dip to 20 during huge battles. Thank You for this answer. You tried that yourself? Get a graphics card for $100 and you can play on ultra np. Thanks, i understand that myself. Just want to save those $100 for better GPU in the near future
Unless you're talking about a better GPU for your desktop, there really isn't a near future for laptops. I had the remorse of buying a laptop without a dedicated gpu, thinking I could save up and would be able to tolerate games on low settings. But once I built a desktop, I was pretty glad I had bought that laptop for $100 less because I'm usually on my desktop nowadays.
So unless you're either thinking about buying a GPU for your desktop in the near future, spend some more on a laptop gpu. It really doesn't have to be good. A low end dedicated gpu nowadays is much much better than an integrated gpu.
ehh i got confused. i thought sirex was the op..o well
|
I have to apologize but i understand nearly nothing of what youre speakin (framerates, cpu). Kind of a nap in these things . I want to buy a new product, mainly for work and soundproduction, but the new gear has to run at least sc2 and hots (in the near future). I have no alternative setup to play games, so?
Is a produkt with:
+ 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) with 6MB L3 cache
+ 4GB (two 2GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory, configurable to 8GB or 16GB.
+ Intel HD Graphics 4000.
able to run it so i can play with "fun"?
I am not really into games, only sc2 (cause its sports).
Would you buy such thing???
Thx 4 you commend pce
|
I have Asus UX31 with Intel HD 3000 and i5. I can even play 3v3, 4v4 is too laggy. In 1v1 game works fine on Medium graphic settings - but I play on lowest possible. With ultrabooks... well with most laptops the biggest problem is not the performance but temperatures.
The product you are asking is more then enough to play SC2, but remember, temperatures :D
|
On December 01 2012 21:01 Boogieknight wrote:
I have to apologize but i understand nearly nothing of what youre speakin (framerates, cpu). Kind of a nap in these things . I want to buy a new product, mainly for work and soundproduction, but the new gear has to run at least sc2 and hots (in the near future). I have no alternative setup to play games, so?
Is a produkt with:
+ 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) with 6MB L3 cache
+ 4GB (two 2GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory, configurable to 8GB or 16GB.
+ Intel HD Graphics 4000.
able to run it so i can play with "fun"?
I am not really into games, only sc2 (cause its sports).
Would you buy such thing???
Thx 4 you commend pce
Framerate: number of frames (still pictures) rendered per second and sent to your screen for display. 20ish and below frames per second displayed on your computer starts to look very choppy and makes for an unpleasant experience. 60 frames per second is the maximum most monitors can display. For SC2, everything in between in generally acceptable in the real world, although this varies quite a bit per person (many people have better eyesight than me = notice a big difference between say 30fps & 50fps = are unhappy with a level of performance I find fine).
CPU: Compter Processing Unit, Compute Processing Unit, something like that. The main processor in your computer that does most of the fancy calculations. A better processor generally means a faster or more powerful computer. This is the main part of your computer that determines how well SC2 will run. So "SC2 is CPU-dependent" means the relative strength of your CPU matters a lot more than the relative strength of your GPU (Graphics Processing Unit).
TL;DR, that setup will be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
