http://guru3d.com/article/starcraft-...s-performance/
it's a bit weird, yet accurate
at least in my case
Printable View
http://guru3d.com/article/starcraft-...s-performance/
it's a bit weird, yet accurate
at least in my case
Ah thank you for this! I'm so glad I waited so now I can purchase a gtx 460 for my SLI mobo.
Also, CPUs:
http://i25.tinypic.com/2z3nwc4.png
http://i30.tinypic.com/2dkedl3.png
now with that CPU graphs I wouldn't be soo sure as I can clearly achive alot more with a similar i7-860 and a 5870
I get 128FPS constant, during huge battles it drops to 97FPS @1920x1200
and my CPU was clocked at 3.66GHz when I was testing CPU frequency
A 2.66 Ghz i7 performs better than a 3.6Ghz E6600? Did they optimize StarCraft 2 for four cores now?
-- Nevermind. I see the second one is a Q6600. I guess the i5/i7's are just that much better of an architecture :D
I wonder how all this would run with horizontal cameras in game, and in-game cinematics (not pre-rendered, I mean).
FPS drop alot, in my case it's about from 20 to 30 FPS lower during huge battles (if you ask about horizontal cameras in game)Quote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
Man. Waiting 3 more years for a new rig it is then. It's awesome that you had this checked out. Been dying to know for some time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by spychi
Thanks, Spychi.
I don't know dude, that much wait, things will vastly changeQuote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
I am pretty sure this will run on my PC fo sho.
Poor bastard. I guess you weren't in beta :(
The core i series has this little thing called turbo boost, where if not all the cores are utilized it will overclock the currently used cores. That and they have way more cache. So you don't loose anything by going with one even if the program isn't multi-threaded yet. SC2 is dual threaded if I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
I have one. I know about turbo boost :D However, usually when a reviewer compares the i5/i7's they turn off turbo boost unless they say otherwise, especially when they specifically state that the clock speed is 2.66.
Mine, however, is 3.46 with turbo boost (3.2 without) so I'll be running this game like butter :D
yes, yet as you mentioned you don't loose performance if the program isn't multi-threaded, moreso you achive multi-application use during gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
Well, I just don't know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by spychi
I was saying about the 3 years waiting for a new PCQuote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
That's strange, why would they turn it off? Anyway, I was just replying to you since you seemed puzzled why an i7 outdoes a 2duo. Some of it is the architecture, but that feature is why it's superior to a core 2 quad, that and it has more cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
StarCraft 2 is weird game in terms of hardware performance, it really brings a twist in hardware recommendationQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
We should talk more about this over a couple of drinks and two pairs of women. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spychi
Srsly, ... ah, forget seriously-ness-ess.
and that is why? i r confuzQuote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
Turbo Boost is completely random. Sometimes I just sit and watch the clock speed go from 3.3347, 3.126, 3.267, 3.421, and all around there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
As for the twist, the ATI drivers suck for the game, at the moment, so the game is less optimized. Hell, most cards have texture errors and glitches :D I would've been better off with a GTS 250 512MB. Oh well, it was a free upgrade and I don't regret it.
It's like having a quad core but only able to use two. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spychi
Sorry, I may have had too much to drink. Honestly, I can't keep up with hardware stuff. So, my brain just went dead right there, and started streaming incoherent-ness.
yet you can use other programs at the same time without loosing performance muchQuote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
for example I can record in beyond HD (1200p) with fraps in a stable for an eye 60FPS, get steam downloading stuff, firefox working and browsing
Makes sense because of background tasks that may be eating up a core, which could ultimately effect your performance anyway even without the TB.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
And regarding ati,
I didn't have too many problems, except on certain maps where I could see through the doodads. I'm on a hd 5450 so it's not a very good card anyway (it handles alright on medium). I am considering an HD 5670 for it's low power consumption but we'll see. With my overall experience with driver issues in the past it might be worth it considering nvidia again.
Before I got a new computer i was playing beta with and nividia 6200 and 2.3 ghz the only problems i had with it was how bad the graphics were like not showing blood or frequent glitching
No, I mean Turbo Boost under the exact same condition will be random. It's just how it is.
get what Tychus have if you are aiming at low TDP GPU'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
HD 5770 or maybe the 5750
If possible, go nVidia.
Because 6200 is an integrated GPU. You're not suppose to play with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion
K. For whatever reason, we can agree the i series is a good series of CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
We'll see, I'm not into dishing too much dough for a graphics card, but I am waiting a few months so by that time maybe I'll afford a 5750. Or a GTS 250, not too concerned seeing how I can still play all the game I need to without trouble.Quote:
HD 5770 or maybe the 5750
Nice, as I actually have a QC 6600. Does upping my RAM and changing to Windows 7 help to speed things up? I currently have a 2gb ram. They say XP can't handle more than 2gb. Is this true? Video card is ati's 3870 512.Quote:
Originally Posted by spychi
They're the bestest :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny
I <3 my i5 750
As for the graphics card, a HD 5770 is more than you need for this game, honestly. I haven't checked benchmarks but I doubt the HD 5670 would disappoint you unless you want high resolution in the in-engine cut scenes.
You're limit is 4 gb, so upgrading wouldn't hurt if you plan to do things like HD video rendering. To go beyond that, I think you'd need Win7 64 bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk
Quote:
I <3 my i5 750
As for the graphics card, a HD 5770 is more than you need for this game, honestly. I haven't checked benchmarks but I doubt the HD 5670 would disappoint you unless you want high resolution in the in-engine cut scenes.
Yeah same CPU. i5 ftw.
I've checked YT and a 5670 does max SC2 (on some res I think it was 1200ish width). But considering I have a beast CPU I know a 5750 could unlock more of it's potential, so I'll wait and see.
The limit for Windows XP is 3GB.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
4gb
Hmmmm, ironically that's what I thought but I did a Google search and found:
http://www.google.com/search?q=3gb+w...ient=firefox-a
It never made since for RAM to be limited in an off number like this since RAM comes in doubles (128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048)
-- EDIT: Oh, I see. Apparently, it depends on the service pack/
Okay, nice. I have so many questions still lingering though.
Dayum, time to buy some cooling and OC my 920 to 3.5ghz!
Why? You don't need it :D
We do what we can because we must :P
Then why not 9000Ghz?
If you add up the clock speeds on each core @ 3.5ghz it will be...