Starcraft 2 Beta

I've been benchmarking my computer with FRAPS when watching replays, it appears that Starcraft 2 utilizes all four cores of my Q6600. Though it mainly uses the first two, some of the load is also on my second two cores. With all settings at max I'm getting dips down into the 20s and averaging around 45 fps. Big battles it really starts to slow down a bit. You're going to need an i7 overclocked to hope to achieve a constant 60 fps, even that might not do it depending on the scale of the battle.


Turns out I was wrong, the game only uses two cores... It does max out 1 core on my Q6600 and about 60% of the second. Turning all of the graphics effects to low and keeping all of the CPU intensive stuff at ultra boosted my FPS up to a solid 125 FPS! I might be wrong, but now I'm thinking it's more GPU related...




Okay so with all of the CPU graphics enhancements turned down, my GTX 280 just isn't cutting it for this game to be played at max settings. Turn off physics, reflections, ect. and the game just isn't holding at 60 fps. Even more so during huge battles and as a lot more units enter the field of play, at GTX 280 just won't hold out at 60 fps with no AA! The game does look really great, especially when there are effects going off everywhere during battle. You're really going to need a beastly machine to run this sucker at a constant 60 FPS.


Another edit: I just tried turning the graphics all the way down, restarting, keeping all of the CPU intensive settings at a maximum and restarted a big 2v2 Battle. I was still getting significant frame rate drops with low graphics. Two of my cores were maxed out, and the others were at about 10-15%.

I'm benchmarking using the replays because I don't have the actual beta, but I'm assuming the in game performance is roughly the same. Fucking old game isn't threaded for quad-core... god damnit!
 
Last edited:
Decko87 said:
I've been benchmarking my computer with FRAPS when watching replays, it appears that Starcraft 2 utilizes all four cores of my Q6600. Though it mainly uses the first two, some of the load is also on my second two cores. With all settings at max I'm getting dips down into the 20s and averaging around 45 fps. Big battles it really starts to slow down a bit. You're going to need an i7 overclocked to hope to achieve a constant 60 fps, even that might not do it depending on the scale of the battle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed when my friend was watching the replays his FRAPS was dipping down into the 20s in big battles.

I guess I don't notice it much during the game, too much is going on I guess to pay attention to hiccups. Lag spikes are much more obvious though.

Q9450 @ 3.6Ghz here with an 8800GTX, 1920x1200 with everything maxed out.
 
Damnit, I hope my game doesn't drop down very much.. I'm Oc'ed a little bit higher than Decko87 and I hope it runs a bit better.
 
anyone getting random minimize crashes to desktop? I can still here sound from the game but I cant click it back to maximize. It says program is not responding....

it doesnt happen every match, but it does happen once in a while. Wondering if anyone else has a similar problem. and i know its still beta....
 
Make sure you guys in beta post on the beta forums with any issues you have. My performance has been a lot better than you guys are describing. Now.. to get a hold of a key somehow.. lol
 
Decko87 said:
I've been benchmarking my computer with FRAPS when watching replays, it appears that Starcraft 2 utilizes all four cores of my Q6600. Though it mainly uses the first two, some of the load is also on my second two cores. With all settings at max I'm getting dips down into the 20s and averaging around 45 fps. Big battles it really starts to slow down a bit. You're going to need an i7 overclocked to hope to achieve a constant 60 fps, even that might not do it depending on the scale of the battle.


Turns out I was wrong, the game only uses two cores... It does max out 1 core on my Q6600 and about 60% of the second. Turning all of the graphics effects to low and keeping all of the CPU intensive stuff at ultra boosted my FPS up to a solid 125 FPS! I might be wrong, but now I'm thinking it's more GPU related...




Okay so with all of the CPU graphics enhancements turned down, my GTX 280 just isn't cutting it for this game to be played at max settings. Turn off physics, reflections, ect. and the game just isn't holding at 60 fps. Even more so during huge battles and as a lot more units enter the field of play, at GTX 280 just won't hold out at 60 fps with no AA! The game does look really great, especially when there are effects going off everywhere during battle. You're really going to need a beastly machine to run this sucker at a constant 60 FPS.


Another edit: I just tried turning the graphics all the way down, restarting, keeping all of the CPU intensive settings at a maximum and restarted a big 2v2 Battle. I was still getting significant frame rate drops with low graphics. Two of my cores were maxed out, and the others were at about 10-15%.

I'm benchmarking using the replays because I don't have the actual beta, but I'm assuming the in game performance is roughly the same. Fucking old game isn't threaded for quad-core... god damnit!
Click to expand...

A couple things. Turning the Shadows down helped me alot, I'm running them at Medium. Other than that the other settings didn't seem to have much of an impact at all. All Low or all High/Ultra.

What I'm more concerned with is an odd bit of framerate hitching going on no matter what the settings are at that lasts like 2-10 seconds, I'm interested in figuring out what that is. Picture a game running at a solid 60 FPS with nothing at all happening, then picture it dipping to 20 FPS for 2-10 seconds and then going back up to 60 FPS, that's what I'm having.
 
I run the game on all the highest settings with no noticeable slowdown so... I'm not sure what your problem is, but I have serious doubts it's from lack of power, considering I'm on a GTX 260 and you're on a 280.


Also, the reaper rush is only powerful on the practice maps, before you start getting rated. The reason why is that there are anti-rush blocks on all starting base + "natural" expansion chokepoints in the practice maps so that all beginning players have at least some time to figure things out; however reapers circumvent this semi-imposed no-rush feature. Other units would obviously circumvent this also (troop carrier-type fliers, colossi, all air-to-ground units), but all of them are high enough in the tech tree that they are irrelevant, except the reaper.

In any rated game you'll see that rushing reapers isn't any more effective than anything else since there is no anti-rush blocks. It's still a valid tactic as early-game harassment is key to controlling the board, however it's no game-winner as most players you'll come across by then will expect a rush of some sort, whether reapers or not, and will have base defenses. It really doesn't take much to fend off an early rush on your territory as starting units in general have less power in SC2 compared to SC1. The low tier unit upgrades are much more pronounced. Cheap (usually only like 50 minerals, 50 gas), easy to acquire, and much more powerful than in SC1, but it takes time, time enough to naturally lessen the importance of rushing, instead of forced like in the practice maps.

Right now, people are sticking to very crude tactics and hardly anyone uses new units to their full extent, or even at all. The most common tactic is just to rush air superiority. Mass carriers, mass battleships, etc. It's really boring if games devolve into that, we'd be basically playing SC:BW with better graphics. Terran turtle tactics really don't work as well anymore. Early zerg rush has been curbstomped but replaced by other races rushing (reapers, zealots). There's some creative ways to get ground units to places you want them now but hardly anyone uses them as most games, as I said, devolve into mass capital ships + attack-move, as that is much easier to micro than a well placed troop drop-in. I suspect this will change soon as people get used to all the new units.
 
Last edited:
first time I survived a carrier rush from Protoss aerial rush, I have my vikings and a couple of battle cruisers, took down the mothership and everything went down so fast that when I advance my vikings, no other units are on except easy to take out photon cannons, haha :D
 
Someone do us all a favor and post a video of a battlecruiser being deployed so we can hear the updated "battlecruiser operational" sound byte.......:D
 
Neurofreeze said:
I run the game on all the highest settings with no noticeable slowdown so... I'm not sure what your problem is, but I have serious doubts it's from lack of power, considering I'm on a GTX 260 and you're on a 280.
Click to expand...

You have a better processor than me, that's about all that matters when it comes to this game.
 
Decko87 said:
You have a better processor than me, that's about all that matters when it comes to this game.
Click to expand...

Your performance is worse than a lot of people with similar or lower end set-ups.. I know a fella that gets solid 50 without any dips on his run of the mill laptop at low settings, and another fella who's playing med at 60 FPS without any dips on a Pentium D. It really seems like something is a little off on your side. Maybe some sort of incompatibility somewhere. I'm sure you tried newer/older drivers? Defrag maybe? Maybe there's some answers on the beta forums.

Anyway, it seems like you know your stuff, hope you get it sorted out man.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Holy crap @ the cpu scaling part.

By the way... does anyone know if SC2 supports triple wide resolutions?
Click to expand...


I read in a review that the FOV doesn't change just the quality improves with resolution and with the competitive play with this game I don't see them allowing 3 up gaming.
 
I imagine that it will not support triple screening. That is a huge advantage in an RTS, and the camera is part of the mechanics. What you can see and what you decide to look at is exactly what this game is all about. Managing your units etc.
 
Decko87 said:
You have a better processor than me, that's about all that matters when it comes to this game.
Click to expand...

I hear getting the newest drivers does alot for better performance in this game. Do you have the newest version?
 
Ugh even when i watch replays at 1920x1080 why does the resolution still look like 800x600 i really wish you could zoom out farther.....

on another note, fire it out.
 
Oh man, totally forgot to opt-in for the beta, will have to do it when I get home.
 
Blubikins said:
Ugh even when i watch replays at 1920x1080 why does the resolution still look like 800x600 i really wish you could zoom out farther......
Click to expand...
Yeah. This has got to be the only modern rts that doesn't do this.
GlowingBurrito said:
I haven't gone through the entire thread but does anyone know how often Blizzard lets people in?
Click to expand...
You went to blizzcon or know someone at Blizzard. Or you're lucky enough to win the lottery.
 
wave 2 might be within a week from lurking various forums, but nothing official and besides there was only like what 5000 people in the first wave. I doubt any of us will get in lol
 
I hope its soon. I signed up for the beta a while ago but have not gotten an invite either :p Can't wait until they get more betas out.
 
have had the bliz account for some time now... well over a year wait for this beta release...

oh and I still have not go accepted, I check it a few times a day :p

I have only 1 game on my bliz account, Starcraft 1, I bought it 2 days after it came out :D
I wonder if they take that into account :confused:
 
I'm pretty sure its the invites are just random doesn't matter what games or if you attended blizzcon or not.
 
I remember drooling over the StarCraft 1 box art and in-game images on the back of the box back in 1998 (this was when PC game boxes were substantial and not the tiny thing PC games usually come in today). Needless to say, I quickly purchased a copy. :) Can't wait for StarCraft 2 to be released.
 
dj_2004 said:
I remember drooling over the StarCraft 1 box art and in-game images on the back of the box back in 1998 (this was when PC game boxes were substantial and not the tiny thing PC games usually come in today). Needless to say, I quickly purchased a copy. :) Can't wait for StarCraft 2 to be released.
Click to expand...

I've always thought Blizzard made some awesome cover arts for their games. I think blizzard games are possibly the only games I'll ever buy boxed copies of now, just so I can say I own the disc :p. Everything else can be digitally purchased.
 
agreed. except I will buy half life 3 if that ever comes out. i mean wait episode 3 wait what
 
Blubikins said:
I'm pretty sure its the invites are just random doesn't matter what games or if you attended blizzcon or not.
Click to expand...
My friend who is a CS graduate student got a first wave pass from a Blizzard employee guest who visited his university. As for the rest of us, no matter what long term membership or system specs, I'm sure it's just random.

Edit: I also found a site that hosts replays. http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showforum=3505
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top