EPTStarcraft 2 CPU for >60fps/low details/400 food? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Franthier
China64 Posts
| ||
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
On December 01 2012 06:34 Franthier wrote: Are you just strictly relying on the built in GPU of CPU? You need a standalone video card to help you boost FPS. He has a 6770, which is just at the point where you can play on ultra (max) graphics settings with pretty much no performance penalty. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
people tend to tab out of a game and surf the net, chat, skype and listen to music, and theres a operating system, virus scanner and things like that, too. so im happily giving sc2 2 full cores and have 2 for the rest. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
On December 01 2012 07:30 Cyro wrote: SC2 can see quite a bit of benefit on minimum FPS from a third core AFAIK, but does not rely heavily on it at all in terms of usage, and doesn't benefit at all from a fourth core on a powerful CPU thats of course when nothing else is running on the computer. back in the times, when you had to close every task that was eating memory and cpu? no, thanks. and yes, sc2 has 10-20% more fps on 3 cores compared to 2 cores. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
god_forbids
United States111 Posts
I know that SC2 is optimized for dual core - and I think that's cuz the game's a little old, the design's been going on for a long time - I was wondering if HotS is gonna be optimized for tri-core or quad-core? Lead Software Engineer, Graphics Dominic Filione said: We actually didn't specifically target dual core, it's just that happened to be how it balanced out. And there's actually more than two cores [being used] but, yeah, the third and the fourth one are actually very low. [Engine design] is a constant process, it's not necessarily just going to be Swarm, WoL we're gonna patch it up and as we make performance upgrades WoL will get the same thing. The answer is YES, we're gonna target more cores as- we just need to re-code some of the engine to take advantage of that. Very Blizzard answer. Who knows when they plan to "re-code some of the engine." May not even be HotS 1.0. In any case, when it finally happens it will be a free performance upgrade for everyone and the OP's scenario might become possible. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On December 01 2012 07:49 Medrea wrote: SC2 doesnt use the third core, everything else thats not SC2 gets dumped on it and thats why you see the performances increase. Do people really do that though? Im pretty picky about that, and i run 0% CPU usage starting at desktop with almost no other processes and under 900mb RAM used from boot on Windows 7, i remember increases of like 30+% on minimum FPS between 2 and 3 core in 1-2 benchmarks, its a pretty big deal if enough CPU resources are being used to affect framerate mins that much | ||
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
So it might not actually be those "other" system demands going onto the third core that provides the benefit. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
On December 01 2012 08:01 god_forbids wrote: At Blizzcon 2011 Art & Technology Panel (VIDEO LINK at 42:35), Belial88(?) said: Lead Software Engineer, Graphics Dominic Filione said: Very Blizzard answer. Who knows when they plan to "re-code some of the engine." May not even be HotS 1.0. In any case, when it finally happens it will be a free performance upgrade for everyone and the OP's scenario might become possible. You know he said that, but that's bs. The usage of the third and fourth cores is only background applications and the operating system being offloaded onto the 3rd and 4th core because the application in question, SC2, is only optimized for dualcore and is hogging all of the first 2 cores. Hence why you'll see benchmarks say "game X is optimized for dualcore, but you can see there is a slight gain in performance with a third and fourth core!". Not really, what you are seeing is the OS and background apps move over. An i7 locked to 2 cores is going to perform SC2 a million times better than a phenom hexacore, and if you ran nothing in the background and had a very unintrusive OS, that phenom x6 would not perform any better than an x2. And nothing has been done for WOL, and it doesn't appear HOTS has been threaded any better. And to think people said you should buy AMD x4/x6 because 'very soon games and software is going to be optimized for more cores and they'll be more future proof than intel!'. Software isn't going true quadcore or hexacore annytime soon, dualcore is going to stay for a long time. Even BF3 is just dualcore. Well if you look at benchmarks for SC2, the quad-core i5-3450 or i5-2400 do better than the i3-3220 or i3-2100, which doesn't make much sense if the game only uses two cores. But I always heard it wasn't the non-SC2 stuff being offloaded to the third core, but rather the larger L3 cache available on the processor. So it might not actually be those "other" system demands going onto the third core that provides the benefit. Core i5 has better architecture and a better IMC (which SC2 greatly appreciates), you have a locked i5 dualcore it's going to outperform a comparable i3. The performance gain of tri/quad cores over dualcore for gaming/sc2 is because of background applications and the OS getting off the first and 2nd cores. SC2 itself gains nothing from third and fourth core (that's why you see a very flat,small, and identical increase from dual to tri as tri to quad). Your system gains from more cores. Set core affinity to background applications to the unused cores by SC2, then set sc2 priority to above normal. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
Rollin
Australia1552 Posts
On December 01 2012 15:02 skyR wrote: i5 does not have better architecture, what do you smoke? I think he means it has more cache and is allowed to turbo-boost, which apparently constitutes calling it an entirely different architecture, even though it's the same architecture. | ||
|
covetousrat
2109 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
SC2 uses whichever core is available that wants to pick up the process. You shouldnt manually divert resources anywhere with affinities. It does not, it uses 2 cores. I did not say it always uses core 0 and 1, or something to that affect. I think he means it has more cache and is allowed to turbo-boost, which apparently constitutes calling it an entirely different architecture, even though it's the same architecture. yea architecture wasnt the right choice of words there, and i was thinking ib5 vs sb3. | ||
|
Hwotk
32 Posts
not only is the stream super HQ but the game runs just as i would like it to at home on at leasth high/ultra settings from i can tell by the looks of the game the computers used by GD studio as far as i know are asus rog's i want to get one used to stream this but its hard to get in uk | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
There's no secret, you just need to make the game perform well with any CPU that can handle basic encoding workloads (720p60, 1080p30) unless you want to have more extreme settings that nobody really does, 2500k/3570k/2600k/3770k give the strongest game performance and are not even close to being capped usage-wise | ||
| ||
