Wow, its amazing the difference a video card makes.

So I FINALLY got my new video card, after a week of playing SC2 at the lowest settings with it getting 10 FPS, basically I couldnt select a unit running by, cause it was so choppy. Like one game, a guy made a changling and ran it right by my 100 roaches, and I tried for like a minute to select it but I just couldnt do it until he stopped running. I cant select like mutas out of big groups, I had to somehow get 1 muta to go off to the side, and then double click on him. It was even difficult to barely select 1 drone to take it off and build my spawning pool.

Now, I got a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB, which I know is apparently a really crappy card, but my budget right now is really low so $60 CDN is all I could afford. But the difference between this card and my old one, it really feels like a whole new game. I am getting consistently 50 FPS up until lategame huge battles, and I can actually select units!

Im just so happy, now I can finally play and not have to worry about my comp being an issue. Well, even tho my placement matches in 1v1 last week was 9-1 with the old card.. So I am ready to climb the ladder!

I'll be sure to post lots of replays for you guys as I go.

PS: Is there any other "tricks" to raise your FPS? I heard theres some commands you can do in the console, just like in counter-strike, which can help your FPS. I'd love to get at least 65-70 consistently.

I'm baked for an upgrade too, though I get very good fps for my 5 years old system though, since I've been optimizing it, overclocking it and doing everything to get the absolute maximum of it and I'm still wondering how it didn't explode on me so far.
And yes, that card is crap and there have surely been more options for the same money, if you actually asked someone to tell you.

What card do you used to have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyze

So I FINALLY got my new video card, after a week of playing SC2 at the lowest settings with it getting 10 FPS, basically I couldnt select a unit running by, cause it was so choppy. Like one game, a guy made a changling and ran it right by my 100 roaches, and I tried for like a minute to select it but I just couldnt do it until he stopped running. I cant select like mutas out of big groups, I had to somehow get 1 muta to go off to the side, and then double click on him. It was even difficult to barely select 1 drone to take it off and build my spawning pool.

Now, I got a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB, which I know is apparently a really crappy card, but my budget right now is really low so $60 CDN is all I could afford. But the difference between this card and my old one, it really feels like a whole new game. I am getting consistently 50 FPS up until lategame huge battles, and I can actually select units!

Im just so happy, now I can finally play and not have to worry about my comp being an issue. Well, even tho my placement matches in 1v1 last week was 9-1 with the old card.. So I am ready to climb the ladder!

I'll be sure to post lots of replays for you guys as I go.

PS: Is there any other "tricks" to raise your FPS? I heard theres some commands you can do in the console, just like in counter-strike, which can help your FPS. I'd love to get at least 65-70 consistently.

---

On high settings?... that is a lie.

Lucky you! I'm still at 25fps early game and 10fps in large battles :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rashed801

On high settings?... that is a lie.

---

sorry if I mentioned that, I meant to say low settings. It defaulted me to medium and got 40 FPS constant, but putting it to low gives me 50, so low it is!

Dude! You just made me so happy. I have months planning to buy the Nvidia 9500 Gt 1G but I wasnt very sure about it. Now you made my day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyze

sorry if I mentioned that, I meant to say low settings. It defaulted me to medium and got 40 FPS constant, but putting it to low gives me 50, so low it is!

---

50 fps > 40 fps

But medium gfx >>>>>>>>>>>>> low gfx

Why are you on low if you have the opportunity to be on medium. :confused: I'm in the same boat as you were. I'm playing on my laptop and get 6-9 FPS on average, so selecting moving units is nearly impossible. No video card solution to this... I gotta get my PC fixed.

There are usually some graphical settings you can turn down and get a huge incr in performance without sacrificing anything. An example is shadows in most games

Ok. What do we need to have SC2 running with medium settings, 50 fps constant?
I mean CPU, videocard, RAM...

well for a base, since this is what I am running and its low specs.

Athlon X2 3600 (1.9ghz dual core)
2GB of Ram
NVidia GeForce 9400 GT

giving me ~50-60 FPS average on low settings. Probably around 40-45 FPS on medium, so if you have a bit better than that, im sure it'd work. Think the video card is the main difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyze

sorry if I mentioned that, I meant to say low settings. It defaulted me to medium and got 40 FPS constant, but putting it to low gives me 50, so low it is!

---

meh, I get more fps on that with my P4 2.8GHz @ 3.4 to 3.6 depending if i plan to play or not.
x1650pro 512mb DDR2
1gb ddr1 400mhz


whats are your full system specs?

Skyze, there are a few settings that are VERY nice to change for gameplay. I play on a modified "Low" setting myself. Here's a look at my settings attached.

Post-Processing: I've found that it helps me in my using of the interface, it's hard to describe.
Shaders: It's a preference thing, I _THINK_ it also assists in zerg creep.
Shadows: YOU NEED this at medium IMHO. There have been TOO many times that shadows have actually alerted me of an incoming air assault from above a cliff.
Terrain: Easier to "discern" zerg creep helps me out
Models: This assists in micro in higher game battles. I find a loss of 5 FPS helps a lot to be able to discern the difference between 20 zerglings and 15 at a glance.
btw, I could go WAY higher on the resolution, but this one gives the cleanest vision on the livestream. So I'm sticking with it.

For a little more you could've gotten a 9800GT which would run it maxed at 1600x1200+ with perfect framerate and filtering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

For a little more you could've gotten a 9800GT which would run it maxed at 1600x1200+ with perfect framerate and filtering.

---

With that card, frame rate will drop below 25 in huge battles, guaranteed.

GTX 260 make it run 60fps on ultra 1260x1024 (same as desktop) but it take up to 2G of ram.

I just got a laptop with the ATI Radeon Mobility 5470 Video Card. Does anyone have any idea how SC2 will run on it? I think the resolution I'll be running is 1366x768.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowToss

I just got a laptop with the ATI Radeon Mobility 5470 Video Card. Does anyone have any idea how SC2 will run on it? I think the resolution I'll be running is 1366x768.

---

probably low with some settings medium.

Im running on an old GTS7600 AGP, is there a way to turn off specific effects? Right now I run at low, 1024x768. I can go to medium but I would like to turn off specular lighting only specifically.

Seems like AMD 780G integrated graphics can run the game in 1680x1050x32bits in low at 30+ fps. Pretty good for integrated graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rashed801

With that card, frame rate will drop below 25 in huge battles, guaranteed.

---

Sure. Keyword: huge. I'm talking normally.

There'll be some UMS and 4v4 matches that'll rape a HD 5970.

On ultra high (and extreme shaders) I get like 50 fps in battles. =)
I've got a Geforce 9800 GTX+ with 512mb of memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

Sure. Keyword: huge. I'm talking normally.

There'll be some UMS and 4v4 matches that'll rape a HD 5970.

---

That's my point, i am very disappointed in Blizzard's optimization of the game, unless ofcourse they haven't finished doing that yet.

I have a GTS 250, and a Radeon 5670 and my frame rate drops below 25 in battles....not HUGE battles...just battles.. now that is gay.

This is an RTS, not Crysis.

Could be something on your end. Drivers perhaps. I've heard those problems quite frequently. Or, it's just your processor. What is it?

I myself also have a GTS 250 512MB and have had no problem either playing in huge battles or watching huge battles through replays. I even use FPS counter :D Constant 70+ in medium battles. Lowest being close to 45.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

Could be something on your end. Drivers perhaps. I've heard those problems quite frequently. Or, it's just your processor. What is it?

I myself also have a GTS 250 512MB and have had no problem either playing in huge battles or watching huge battles through replays. I even use FPS counter :D Constant 70+ in medium battles. Lowest being close to 45.

---

my CPU is Athlon II Quad core, 4 gb ram, and i use the GTS 250 on that comp.

I play on Ultra settings (sometimes high), on 1340 x something screen lcd, beginning of game i get a 70 FPS... as the game goes along.. it drops to 35-40, and when a good amount of unit battle goes on, it drops to 25 FPS... it boggles my mind how, considering its just an RTS.

There's really no need to play on Ultra (unless you can really handle it without any slow down at all).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan

There's really no need to play on Ultra (unless you can really handle it without any slow down at all).

---

High has the same results for me, i will try Medium, but no point when i have a good comp.

Again, poor optimization from Blizzard, this game is more demanding than Crysis lmao.

Quote:

---

I've got a Geforce 9800 GTX+ with 512mb of memory.

---

Whoot! me too *hive 5*

That proves it. If High has the same performance as Ultra then your limiting factor is the Athlon II. Those are incredibly weak processors. And, given that StarCraft 2 is an RTS and Crysis is an FPS, StarCraft 2 is naturally going to have a harder time running on your computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

That proves it. If High has the same performance as Ultra then your limiting factor is the Athlon II. Those are incredibly weak processors. And, given that StarCraft 2 is an RTS and Crysis is an FPS, StarCraft 2 is naturally going to have a harder time running on your computer.

---

Athlon II quad core is a weak processor?? i bought it 2 weeks ago....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rashed801

Athlon II quad core is a weak processor?? i bought it 2 weeks ago....

---

realize that theres so many computer elitists out there, that anything under the $5k machine they buy every year is weak.

I mean, I somewhat understand, having $4000 worth of guitar gear and still not being happy with what I have.. I guess some people just spend all that money on getting new computer specs to brag about.. The difference is, the quality between a $500 guitar and a $3000 guitar can be felt and make a difference when you tour (wont fall apart, makes your playing more comfortable, etc)... where if you buy a $500 computer or a $3000 computer.. What is your goal? I understand if they are doing audio engineering/recording or high-detail graphic work, but if its just gaming, the difference is minimal. a $500-700 gaming computer you could go buy in almost any store right now should be able to run SC2 at ultra no prob.

@Skyze: I only just recently upgraded my PC from 2003. It was an Athlon 3000, 6800GT. I upgraded to an i5 750, GTS 250 for 750$. Hardly went the way you said. The fact is that the Athlon II's are the very lowest of the budget end for processors. Not only that but it's a quad core so in dual core optimized games it's going to run even worse because the clock speed is so slow. I could understand if I had said an E8400 was incredibly weak or some other processor. But, these processors were low-end budget processors upon release. Now they're almost a year old on top of being an old architecture. If you don't believe me, check benchmarks which compare it to other quad cores and dual cores. Then, consider the fact that they're slow clocked quad cores running a dual core game meaning that it's only using two slow clocked CPUs. Then, surely, you can fully understand what it is I am saying.

@Rashed: The Athlon II's are an old architecture re-released to capture the budget market. It may be new to you but they're incredibly old in architecture and poor performing (for a new CPU). Check the benchmarks. The problem isn't the card or the optimization. This is proven by the fact that there are dozens of people in other threads who've said they they get great performance with a GTS 250/4850 (equal in performance). Hell, HuskyStarCraft uses a 9800GT (GTS 250 = GTX9800++) to play and he plays at 1920x1080 with everything but shadows maxed. Also, the fact that you get the same performance in High as in Ultra shows the CPU is slowing you down. Ultra should almost cut in half the FPS of High.

Hopefully, that was enough to nip this in the butt and there will be no more of this "you're a PC elitist" or "Blizzard, you suck at optimization".
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

@Skyze: I only just recently upgraded my PC from 2003. It was an Athlon 3000, 6800GT. I upgraded to an i5 750, GTS 250 for 750$. Hardly went the way you said. The fact is that the Athlon II's are the very lowest of the budget end for processors. Not only that but it's a quad core so in dual core optimized games it's going to run even worse because the clock speed is so slow. I could understand if I had said an E8400 was incredibly weak or some other processor. But, these processors were low-end budget processors upon release. Now they're almost a year old on top of being an old architecture. If you don't believe me, check benchmarks which compare it to other quad cores and dual cores. Then, consider the fact that they're slow clocked quad cores running a dual core game meaning that it's only using two slow clocked CPUs. Then, surely, you can fully understand what it is I am saying.

@Rashed: The Athlon II's are an old architecture re-released to capture the budget market. It may be new to you but they're incredibly old in architecture and poor performing (for a new CPU). Check the benchmarks. The problem isn't the card or the optimization. This is proven by the fact that there are dozens of people in other threads who've said they they get great performance with a GTS 250/4850 (equal in performance). Hell, HuskyStarCraft uses a 9800GT (GTS 250 = GTX9800++) to play and he plays at 1920x1080 with everything but shadows maxed. Also, the fact that you get the same performance in High as in Ultra shows the CPU is slowing you down. Ultra should almost cut in half the FPS of High.

Hopefully, that was enough to nip this in the butt and there will be no more of this "you're a PC elitist" or "Blizzard, you suck at optimization".
.

---

Hmm....What CPU do you recommend?

Honestly, I don't see why your current CPU isn't running StarCraft 2 great. Although, we know for a fact it's bottlenecking you for the above reasons. I recommend you turn down physics and see if that helps. That should take some load off your CPU.

If, for some reason, you can get a new computer: I highly recommend my build (i5 750, GTS 250). That's the best deal I could find in over six months of thorough researching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

Honestly, I don't see why your current CPU isn't running StarCraft 2 great. Although, we know for a fact it's bottlenecking you for the above reasons. I recommend you turn down physics and see if that helps. That should take some load off your CPU.

If, for some reason, you can get a new computer: I highly recommend my build (i5 750, GTS 250). That's the best deal I could find in over six months of thorough researching.

---

It runs great at Ultra / High settings, it just when i have a large battle (say 30 vs 30 units), FPS goes down below 25, that's what ticks me off.

That definitely should not be happening.

It's easy to test, just set the graphic settings on Low. If there is no slowdown, it's the video board.

I'm playing on a borrowed laptop, so I have no idea what it has, but I play on the lowest settings possible. It still trips up from time to time because of programs that periodically run in the background, but I don't have the option of turning those off since it's not my laptop. I really need to save up and get a desktop of my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

It's easy to test, just set the graphic settings on Low. If there is no slowdown, it's the video board.

---

The higher settings put more strain on the CPU as well. You should change that comment to "Set all of the CPU-intensive settings on Low".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

The higher settings put more strain on the CPU as well. You should change that comment to "Set all of the CPU-intensive settings on Low".

---

I meant the combo that sets everything globally, just set it to Low, and it deactivates even physics. But yes, a better test would be to lower all settings that say "this will eat CPU like there's no tomorrow". If there are no slowdowns that way, it's probably safe to say it's the CPU.

Anyways, the game can run on Low in an Athlon X2 7750 with ATI 780G integrated graphics, with 30 fps minimum, with no visible drops in performance.

The easiest way to see if it's the CPU, would be to open the task manager in the performance tab before running the game. When it starts to die, Ctrl-tab, and take a look at the CPU usage in that instant. If it's very high, you have a problem with the CPU.

Take a look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,2570-7.html
.