• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could Starcraft 2 be bogging down my 2500k?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Prey2big said:
That is definately not a CPU-intense demo. That is most certainly a pretty standard 1v1 match demo.
In intense 3v3 or 4v4 battles you will not see such framerates on any PC at any graphical settings, for years to come I can assure you.
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
Prey2big said:
That is definately not a CPU-intense demo. That is most certainly a pretty standard 1v1 match demo.
In intense 3v3 or 4v4 battles you will not see such framerates on any PC at any graphical settings, for years to come I can assure you.
Click to expand...

Exactly multiply...or rather divide those scores by 8 and your getting close. Then there are things like mothership cloaking teams of units which will drag it down to like 15-20 fps.
 
I play SC2 alot 4vs4 custom maps.

On my previous 920 @ 3.8 fps was very good I would see it drop alittle when all 8 races had there army's built and the main fighting started. It wasn't choppy per say but you did notice it.

Since i've upgraded to the 6 core 970 I don't see this drop and i'm at 4 Ghz so this game is cpu limited for sure. As other have stated doesn't help that it only uses 2 cores. You would figure by now they would have released a patch to address that. However with that said your 2500k is fast, I don't see how you would be getting a large slowdown.

I will try to use fraps on my next 4vs4 custom play thru and see what my fps are now.
 
Last edited:
Prey2big said:
That is definately not a CPU-intense demo. That is most certainly a pretty standard 1v1 match demo.
In intense 3v3 or 4v4 battles you will not see such framerates on any PC at any graphical settings, for years to come I can assure you.
Click to expand...

Agreed you will never see fps that high in 4vs4!
 
Try playing the 4v4 fast map (by williams)

With 8 players building like crackheads with 300 unit max, it will bog down anything.
 
Stoneburner said:
Try playing the 4v4 fast map (by williams)

With 8 players building like crackheads with 300 unit max, it will bog down anything.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying. I just wasn't sure if it was my CPU or GPU (or both). With a zillion units on the screen destroying each other it's a lot of information to process. It's a great hardware benchmark actually.
 
SickBeast said:
That's what I'm saying. I just wasn't sure if it was my CPU or GPU (or both). With a zillion units on the screen destroying each other it's a lot of information to process. It's a great hardware benchmark actually.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's the reason I upgraded from p2 x4 to 3770k.
 
It won't. Trust me. Will be a huge upgrade in such a game. Benches don't show the full picture. If not, sell it for a small loss
 
Puppies04 said:
I have yet to see one game in the history of the universe that achieves this, games are either coded for "high end gaming machines" or run of the mill desktops and laptops with integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

I think RTSs are natural app for multithreading, most of the logic for each unit are not memory bound but computation bound which makes it a perfect candidate to use higher cpu count. but bliz to choose to use only 2 threads is not forgivable. It should pipe down to 2 threads on a dual core and scale higher when you got more cores on the cpu.
 
E7200@stock + 8800GTS@stock here.
I haven't been bothered by lag in 1v1 and FFA. Good thing I don't play customs and teamgames, apparently.
 
Wow they have 4x4 maps with over 200 unit caps per player? Gonna have to download that tonight and try it out.
 
nyker96 said:
I think RTSs are natural app for multithreading, most of the logic for each unit are not memory bound but computation bound which makes it a perfect candidate to use higher cpu count. but bliz to choose to use only 2 threads is not forgivable. It should pipe down to 2 threads on a dual core and scale higher when you got more cores on the cpu.
Click to expand...

to me it's a conspiracy to get people to buy Intel:
http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/blizzard-entertainment
http://software.intel.com/sites/bil...tertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

back in my WoW days I remember blizzard forum admins posting about how great the core i7 chips were because they had turbo on one core to get more work done when the rest of the cores weren't busy.

also, I'm pretty sure it uses a variant of the WoW engine (which is very old and not exactly multithreaded either), just like Diablo 3.
You can get FPS increases past 4 cores even though 4 cores run at ~35-45% load-- so why won't they let you just move those threads that would run on cores 5-8, onto cores 1-4? If we could find a way to emulate 8 cores on 4...
 
Last edited:
nyker96 said:
I think RTSs are natural app for multithreading, most of the logic for each unit are not memory bound but computation bound which makes it a perfect candidate to use higher cpu count. but bliz to choose to use only 2 threads is not forgivable. It should pipe down to 2 threads on a dual core and scale higher when you got more cores on the cpu.
Click to expand...

Umm.. I would think the opposite is true. RTS requires more user inputs than other genres of games. A super-human can theoretically control every single unit individually, which will interact with every other units (of your own and of your opponents) And those user inputs occur all in a rapid sequence, and there will always be a case where single-thread performance of CPU becomes a performance limit. It is one of the few tasks that I can think of, in which human brain isn't always a bottleneck in modern computing.

With that understanding, I think the blame on Blizzard is misplaced. Blizzard has hit a sweet spot as always with the SC2. With 4v4, you are also dealing with other people's systems/network as well. (I don't know how B.net is setup these days, though) Your system/router may have to wait for the response of others to your action taken in game.

Said that, I gave up on the 2v2's due to rampant cheese, and only played 1v1s. I don't know how you guys can stand 4v4s. When I played SC2 (1v1s), I was GPU bound at 2560x1600/Extreme preset.
 
Pia said:
E7200@stock + 8800GTS@stock here.
I haven't been bothered by lag in 1v1 and FFA. Good thing I don't play customs and teamgames, apparently.
Click to expand...

try an 1x1 of full zerglings... probably you will get some

With that understanding, I think the blame on Blizzard is misplaced. Blizzard has hit a sweet spot as always with the SC2. With 4v4, you are also dealing with other people's systems/network as well. (I don't know how B.net is setup these days, though) Your system/router may have to wait for the response of others to your action taken in game.
Click to expand...

actually, blizzard tryed to promote team games, even at pro levels....but had to drop it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top