Request - Phenom II Starcraft 2 benches

[borisvodofsky]

????????

How do dem 4.2ghz phenoms do in Starcraft 2, I didn't find any reliable benches off the google.

Anyone have them, or has seen some?

^_^

Edit: Snippit

Would you guys consider it as AMD SERIOUSLY dropping the ball by not being a performer with SC2? - I mean,, THE super-computer-game of the next 10 years.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

 

[LoneNinja]

Terrible compared to a I5/I7, but good enough to run the game.

 

[soccerballtux]

Can't believe they didnt even properly program this game, a q6600 is a great Processor and has no business running this game at only 20fps. Good job blizzard.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Starcraft 2 doesn't even take advantage of more than 2 cores. I don't see it doing well on AMD processors.

 

[Sokar]

Realistically you don't need a fast system to play SC2 anyways. I really don't think there is a point to buying your hardware for this specific game. Base your purchases on other factors really because a game that can supposedly run on a p4 with a 9700pro won't need more power than pretty much any cpu you can buy.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Can't believe they didnt even properly program this game, a q6600 is a great Processor and has no business running this game at only 20fps. Good job blizzard.

Their programming skills went to the crapper since Wotlk.

 

[Athadeus]

My desktop has an Intel D975XBX, e6300 I got to 2.4 ghz, and 512mb HD 4770. While it can play through most 1v1 and 2v2 matches with 50-70fps, the big 3v3 fights, buildings exploding in 2v2s, and even the first few seconds of 1v1s can have slowdowns that cause me to fall behind (or be slideshow 3 seconds per frame slow in the huge fights).

I almost got a Q6600 off FS/FT, then ebay and was going to get a 4870/5770 with 1gb, but after looking at the benchmarks, I saw that it would hardly help. So I had to get an i7 930 from MC and nearly a grand on the rest of the stuff for a system to run it as well as possible!

 

[MJinZ]

Actually kind of funny, since I'm forcing 4xMSAA and never dip below 60 FPS on highest (Ultra settings)

 

[lopri]

StarCraft II is almost as if tailer-made for i5/i7. Phenoms can't even get close to it. From what I see i7 pulls ahead even @2560x1600. If you're buying/building a system for SCII, i5/i7 is the only sensible choice.

Too bad Phenom's formidable floating-point power means nothing in this game but it reminds us that single-threaded performance is still one of the most important factors in games when GPU isn't the limiting factor, and that certain things cannot really be parallelized (probably forever, unless humans' cognitive/behavioral capabilities take an unprecedented turn).

 

[borisvodofsky]

Actually kind of funny, since I'm forcing 4xMSAA and never dip below 60 FPS on highest (Ultra settings)

LOL,, you liarrr.. hahaha the aa has nothing to do with it, graphically SC2 is

Mehh...oooo-nice... Mehhhhhhh ^_^

Everyone already knows i7 dips to 45 fps in big battles no matter how fast.

Less we're talking 4.5+ then, who knows. "you're close though" lol

 

[borisvodofsky]

StarCraft II is almost as if tailer-made for i5/i7. Phenoms can't even get close to it. From what I see i7 pulls ahead even @2560x1600. If you're buying/building a system for SCII, i5/i7 is the only sensible choice.

Too bad Phenom's formidable floating-point power means nothing in this game but it reminds us that single-threaded performance is still one of the most important factors in games when GPU isn't the limiting factor, and that certain things cannot really be parallelized (probably forever, unless humans' cognitive/behavioral capabilities take an unprecedented turn).

Ah, from what I can see in that benchmark, The performance seems to go up with Cache more than ghz.

So, is 970 the only way to do this? For example,

disable hyperthreading, run DUAL core only, and clock 970/980 to 4.5ghz +

Does disabling cores still retain the 12mb cache?:hmm:

 

[badboyeee]

blizzard must not like AMD/ATI or somethin..

i dont know how hard it is to program it, but hopefully there will be an update where the game can utilize a quad core.. is that possible??

 

[MJinZ]

Ah, from what I can see in that benchmark, The performance seems to go up with Cache more than ghz.

So, is 970 the only way to do this? For example,

disable hyperthreading, run DUAL core only, and clock 970/980 to 4.5ghz +

Does disabling cores still retain the 12mb cache?:hmm:

Triple core is minimum. You should have one core dedicated to system related stuff while 2 cores run the game.

Thus, a Quad Core is just fine. Disable Hyperthreading if you want 4.5+ ghz. Easy.

 

[MJinZ]

LOL,, you liarrr.. hahaha the aa has nothing to do with it, graphically SC2 is

Mehh...oooo-nice... Mehhhhhhh ^_^

Everyone already knows i7 dips to 45 fps in big battles no matter how fast.

Less we're talking 4.5+ then, who knows. "you're close though" lol

I've only had Campagn big battles, so I guess I will see 45 if I do BNet.

 

[ShawnD1]

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

Yikes, I'm surprised how well the scaling is.

Overclocking the i7 by 39% increases frame rate by 32%
Overclocking the i5 by 39% increases frame rate by 40%
Overclocking the i3 by 21% increases frame rate by 29%
Overclocking the Q6600 by 25% increases frame rate by 24%
Overclocking the Ph II X4 by 12% increases frame rate by 11%
Overclocking the Ph II X2 by 19% increases frame rate by 15%

blizzard must not like AMD/ATI or somethin.

Pssst. AMD processors suck and that's why they're so cheap. Don't tell anyone :sneaky:
There's a reason my 6 core AMD processor is the same price as a dual core Intel i3.

 

[magomago]

i'd think its fine....my AM2 6000+ is smooth. only when the battle gets super huuuuugee (only happened in nexus wars lol) does it get laggy. if the i7 pulls 45min, i'd think my min is waay lower...but it still looks smooth to me.

 

[Anubis]

that chart really cant be correct my brother is playing on a 955 BE(stock) with a 5830 (stock) and sitting at 60FPS nearly 100 percent of the time playing at 1920x1080 on a 42in LCD TV Ultra Settings

 

[MJinZ]

that chart really cant be correct my brother is playing on a 955 BE(stock) with a 5830 (stock) and sitting at 60FPS nearly 100 percent of the time playing at 1920x1080 on a 42in LCD TV

Quality settings and on screen activity.

60FPS is pretty low.

 

[AdamK47]

How do you run the benchmark?

 

[Anubis]

Quality settings and on screen activity.

60FPS is pretty low.

hes running everything on ultra, lowest hes seen it is 45 with a ton of shit on the screen

 

[badboyeee]

here is another CPU benchmark:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...p-quads-without-performance-benefit/Practice/

 

[Zstream]

StarCraft II is almost as if tailer-made for i5/i7. Phenoms can't even get close to it. From what I see i7 pulls ahead even @2560x1600. If you're buying/building a system for SCII, i5/i7 is the only sensible choice.

Too bad Phenom's formidable floating-point power means nothing in this game but it reminds us that single-threaded performance is still one of the most important factors in games when GPU isn't the limiting factor, and that certain things cannot really be parallelized (probably forever, unless humans' cognitive/behavioral capabilities take an unprecedented turn).

That is one of the most inaccurate statements I have heard in a while. It is very, very easy to even create a thread-hack in the OS if they wanted to. The easiest way to do this is to create a mini subsystem.

All general calculations go to core #1.
All AI calculations go to core #2.
All sound calculations go to core #3.
All physics calculations go to core #4.

Rinse and repeat if you have more cores. This is done ALL the time in the Linux OS with micro-kernels. The other option is to have a program to monitor CPU core activity and adjust on the fly.

 

[spitfire]

uggh this is going to be such a difficult game to find benchmarks for. So with a good cpu at a standard res there isn't that much of a difference between the midrange (5750 and up) and the high end cards on high settings. Yet being a blizzard game I still don't see it being that crazy on requirements (outside of ultra). And how much do the frame rates change when the computer AI isn't really doing anything (multiplayer) vs single player when the AI is in full control against you.

 

[borisvodofsky]

That is one of the most inaccurate statements I have heard in a while. It is very, very easy to even create a thread-hack in the OS if they wanted to. The easiest way to do this is to create a mini subsystem.

All general calculations go to core #1.
All AI calculations go to core #2.
All sound calculations go to core #3.
All physics calculations go to core #4.

Rinse and repeat if you have more cores. This is done ALL the time in the Linux OS with micro-kernels. The other option is to have a program to monitor CPU core activity and adjust on the fly.

This post gives me hopes that maybe one day they will make starcraft 2 playable on i7 4ghz,,

Now I'm a little pissed off about the CPU requirement, because honestly tell me:

"WHAT is the point of realistic physics when the scale of the units in battle is completely fictional."

Battle cruiser is as big as a command center. like seriously, common. so you're going to have pieces of the BC fall to the ground "realistically", omfg.....

The whole physics thing was just a DICK move by blizzard/ gaming industry to push for more hardware sales..This is how I feel. :thumbsdown:


It's not even about the Money in my case, since I have my parents paying for everything. I just don't feel like taking it up the assssss anymore by tyrannical dictators.