StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Benchmark GPU

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
896
585
136
http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-test-gpu.html

Playing StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm is better processor architecture is optimized for Intel, and showed that more impressive results in terms of AMD

EiLgYLa.png


1SaqTp3.png


3YUGWx8.png


Game can download only 2 CPU cores, more than two cores game obviously useless. And this is explained by a distinct advantage over Intel AMD. What was the most surprising, is the fact that the game is on Intel technology automatically disables HT, most likely to avoid unnecessary problems
 

Homeles

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2011
2,580
0
0
Pretty typical for a Blizzard game. They've always favored Intel by a wide margin.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Also worth mentioning that the SC2 engine is old and was originally designed for single or dual core. The graphics might be polished to a sheen but the game engine itself was already aging when WOL was released and I doubt they are going to use a newer engine for the third game. As a result most people get very good performance out of it which I believe is what Blizzard was aiming for.
 

Homeles

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2011
2,580
0
0
People can trash talk Blizzard all that they'd like, but the fact of the matter is that they're absolutely fantastic when it comes to supporting new standards. E.g., 64 bit support and DX 11 support for WoW. Wish other devs did this, although it's probably a money problem.
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,432
142
106
I'd love to see Blizzard support 4-8 threads with SC2, but given its relative performance, it seems to play just fine even with a Core 2 Duo or Core i3. The game seems to also heavily favor Nvidia hardware over AMD, but heck, I played it on my HD4000 @ 1080p and it played just fine (with the shaders turned down of course).

It may only support 2 threads, but it'll play on just about anything.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
People can trash talk Blizzard all that they'd like, but the fact of the matter is that they're absolutely fantastic when it comes to supporting new standards. E.g., 64 bit support and DX 11 support for WoW. Wish other devs did this, although it's probably a money problem.

D3 looked and ran like shit on a OCed 2500K/5850. At least their old games like WC3 have mediocre graphics for their time but still ran well on minimal hardware.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
D3 looked and ran like shit on a OCed 2500K/5850. At least their old games like WC3 have mediocre graphics for their time but still ran well on minimal hardware.

Ran great on 3570k + HD4870. I turned shadows down a notch and framerates stayed pegged at 60.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
19,420
12,950
136
@ OP

I'm confused. You mentioned Heart of the Swarm then posted WoL benchmarks. I can't remember where I read it but doesn't HotS have better threading support than WoL?
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,690
136
Look at the poor Phenom II X6/X4, ridiculously low scores. I guess they didn't bother to optimize for AMD at all,it's practically a miracle PD does so good in light of such a poor K10 scores.
 

RyanGreener

Senior member
Nov 9, 2009
550
0
76
It's been like this since the Wings of Liberty days, haha. Only runs best on 2-4 threads and on Intel/nVidia hardware.
 

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
Look at the poor Phenom II X6/X4, ridiculously low scores. I guess they didn't bother to optimize for AMD at all,it's practically a miracle PD does so good in light of such a poor K10 scores.

So there may be a good explanation here. SC2 particularly improved a lot when increasing the CPU-NB speed on the Phenom II chips. However, the changes aren't as much for the FX chips.

I wonder if that has something to do with it? If the CPU-NB setting on those Phenoms was bumped up, it could increase by what 10-20%? I'm almost speculating that perhaps the FX chips sort of achieved the equivalent of that, so they look better in SC2. But then you won't see as much of a bump when you increase the CPU-NB on the FX chips?
 

hyrule4927

Senior member
Feb 9, 2012
359
1
76
@ OP

I'm confused. You mentioned Heart of the Swarm then posted WoL benchmarks. I can't remember where I read it but doesn't HotS have better threading support than WoL?

The charts are mislabeled on the source site, but if you look at the actual article, it is definitely Heart of the Swarm that they are testing.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,690
136
So there may be a good explanation here. SC2 particularly improved a lot when increasing the CPU-NB speed on the Phenom II chips. However, the changes aren't as much for the FX chips.

I wonder if that has something to do with it? If the CPU-NB setting on those Phenoms was bumped up, it could increase by what 10-20%? I'm almost speculating that perhaps the FX chips sort of achieved the equivalent of that, so they look better in SC2. But then you won't see as much of a bump when you increase the CPU-NB on the FX chips?
I doubt it's the NB/L3 clock issue. FX8350 has huge advantage over 1100T, 53% higher min fps and 65% higher avg. fps. That's with 50% less FP units (4 vs 6). Note that this game utilities 2-4 threads max so number of threads per chip means nothing in this case. It's performance per thread that counts(cache seems to have a big influence on performance of different CPUs in this test).