Both 5870 and 480 unable to handle Starcraft II official campaign at 30 fps

Quote:

---

One campaign called "In Utter Darkness" in Wings of Liberty could cause a single 5870 to drop below 30 fps easily. With a mothership cloaking a large group of carriers while being consumed by a large Zerg army, the fps dropped down to 20.

Config: 980X@4GHz + Single 5870@850/1200 (non-fullscreen, 1920x1200 max settings, Catalyst 10.3) + 12G DDR3@1866 7-9-8-25-80-2T + 2.7GHz Uncore

---

Quote:

---

It is confirmed that the same thing also happens to GTX 480. It looks like this is due to the cloaking effect from the mothership. Many players suffer from 20 fps unable to do micro control in complicated battle situations.

---

Source (Chinese): http://www.chiphell.com/thread-112270-1-1.html

I don't know what you guys are complaining about showing the min fps in game. The scene I mentioned here doesn't even qualify as a stress test yet. If you know special maps like 1v7 in old Starcraft 1, or 3C maps in Warcraft 3, you should have an idea how 5870 and 480 will be owned soon in special maps in Starcraft 2.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5382/sc2stress.png

Also, another website reported fps as low as 20 as well:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2152/sc2gpus1920.png

Source (German): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,76...giespiel/Test/

To those who claims 30 fps is enough for RTS: can you do at least 60 APM effective? If not, then you probably don't qualify saying so.

10.3? Couldn't they AT THE LEAST test it with 10.6?

There are 10.7 and even 10.7a (Enabling AA for this game) out there...

Not only that, they are not running fullscreen which is adding Windows GUI processing on top of that... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogueagent6

Not only that, they are not running fullscreen which is adding Windows GUI processing on top of that... :rolleyes:

---

WHAT?

What's the point in running in windowed mode? I mean, really, who games in a window?! :wth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky

WHAT?

What's the point in running in windowed mode? I mean, really, who games in a window?! :wth:

---

I always run games in borderless windowed mode if possible (which looks exactly like fullscreen), being able to tab in and out of the game without any delay is useful, if I lose a few fps to be able to do so then so be it.

...and no comparison to other gpus? does it happen to nvidia gpus as well?

window mode? catalyst 10.3? lol, seriously, wtf :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramner

I always run games in borderless windowed mode if possible (which looks exactly like fullscreen), being able to tab in and out of the game without any delay is useful, if I lose a few fps to be able to do so then so be it.

---

Besides SC2 I can tab in and bout of a game w/ next to no lag. SC2 is just buggy and generally doesn't respond afterwards.

Most games I have played are like that. No difference there for me.
The best alt-tab game though is probably Crysis, excellent response, right in right out again!

Hmmmmmmm need some comparison or group test

no issues with a 4850... but with no comparison benchmarks and basically cherry picked situation, i'm going to deem this review an epic fail

I have a 5870 and still running 10.3's. I'll try and remember to fraps bench that mission when I get to it. Kinda busy this weekend though. I won't be playing in a windowed mode though

/end thread?

i wish i still had 10.3 installed 10.7 and my screen goes black sometimes playing sc2

Processor bottleneck

It's starcraft, not crysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Processor bottleneck

It's starcraft, not crysis.

---

eh... I see tops 8% cpu usage while both of my cards are on load 100%

It's the old driver. Well, and the crappy engine. No news here.

for those who are curious. if you play WoW in windowed mode, certain effects from your desktop will lock your framerate at 30fps.

with WoW i can understand windowed, for SC2 its just wtf testing methods

Seem nvidia is in panic mode with this tricks.

Haven't had a problem with my rig at all. Smooth frame rates, all the time. This is with 4xAA at 1920x1200 too. :shrug:
I mean, a new CPU might do me good, but I'm trying to hold off till 2011 on that. This little Q6600 has served me quite well.

Edit: Forgot to say, I'm on 10.7a drivers. Though that should be obvious with the "4xAA" part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loque

eh... I see tops 8% cpu usage while both of my cards are on load 100%

---

the game is single threaded, it dose the same on my 1090 it rocks low usage but thats the bottleneck with all rts games as its a matter of dice calculations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontos

10.7a (Enabling AA for this game) out there...

---

These drivers really aren't all that good. Turning on AA cripples performance. I tried 8x AA w/ an HD5970 and I was getting 1-2 FPS @ the menu. :rofl:

Even 2x AA performed horribly.

This article ticks me off.

This annoys me as well. You're lucky to get 30 fps in that mission, especially with ~8 carriers, a crapload of zealots/stalkers/colossi when the mothership comes around. The cloaking animation dropping it down that far doesn't surprise me, especially since there's usually ~50 units being cloaked by the mothership and dropping in and out of cloak due to moving around to take down the hundreds of zerg marching in at you.

A complete joke and not even properly researched.

I JUST finished that mission not 30 minutes ago on my gaming rig (HD 5870 + i5 750) without a single hitch or hiccup.

A complete joke and not even properly researched.

I JUST finished that mission not 30 minutes ago on my gaming rig (HD 5870 + i5 750) without a single hitch or hiccup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

Seem nvidia is in panic mode with this tricks.

---

What on Earth does Nvidia have to do with this? :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

What on Earth does Nvidia have to do with this? :shakes:

---

i think that he is saying that NV payed them off to only put that up for ati, as its a site that always is pro NV and is know to bench things to favor them. but this would happen with NV or any1 with that system as its all cpu. just look at it, each attack on each unit has like 10 roles, then when u have over a hounded units all needing the cpu on a single threaded game what else would happen.

this would happen with anything and thats what i think its the comment is for, but i dont see any1 picking a card to play SC2 as its fully playable even with low fps as its an RTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky

WHAT?

What's the point in running in windowed mode? I mean, really, who games in a window?! :wth:

---

Back in the day i use to for d3, every bit of fps counted hehe, But yeah 30fps maby if it was a eyefinity resolution but i dont see how it would be 30 fps on a 1080p or @ 1920 res.. seems low:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

the game is single threaded, it dose the same on my 1090 it rocks low usage but thats the bottleneck with all rts games as its a matter of dice calculations

---

Interesting, I could have swore I saw my cpu hit 50+% usage while playing. Maybe I forgot to turn off another program though, no telling until I play again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i think that he is saying that NV payed them off to only put that up for ati, as its a site that always is pro NV and is know to bench things to favor them. but this would happen with NV or any1 with that system as its all cpu. just look at it, each attack on each unit has like 10 roles, then when u have over a hounded units all needing the cpu on a single threaded game what else would happen.

this would happen with anything and thats what i think its the comment is for, but i dont see any1 picking a card to play SC2 as its fully playable even with low fps as its an RTS.

---

When has chiphell become NV favorable?

I have seen alot of leaks from them that have made NV look unfavorable, especially with unreleased products.

http://www.techreaction.net/2010/03/...h-the-fingers/

E.g gtx 470 vs 5870 in the above article. If they are always pro-nvidia, explain the above article.

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...s-beans-71048/

The above is more accurate than anything and does not seem pro nvidia at all.

Chiphell is way more known for early hardware leaks than anything.

It sounds like your trying to explain a rationalize something, but your just talking out of your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

When has chiphell become NV favorable?

I have seen alot of leaks from them that have made NV look unfavorable, especially with unreleased products.

Chiphell is way more known for early hardware leaks than anything.

---

i remember on the g92 and g200, they had some bias but it could just be those. im not trying to say that they are a toms or legit or start a debate on it. it just looks like its being anti ati from the lack of NV when its the same problem as its a cpu one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i remember on the g92 and g200, they had some bias but it could just be those. im not trying to say that they are a toms or legit or start a debate on it. it just looks like its being anti ati from the lack of NV when its the same problem as its a cpu one

---

One more thing. What was posted was a forum post. Do you think Nvidia, would be paying someone to just post a forum post rather than a article.

Atleast they would get a full fledged article out of it. Just think about it. How much effect you think a forum post is going to attract? And how much damage is going to happen to AMD.

This is just Nintendork being a irrational or fanboyish.

I guess it not impossible though..Look what happened to Nedjo. He stopped posting because his post looked like he was basically trying to sabotage anything that wasn't AMD related and Movieman said, basically if he attacks another NV or Intel thread again, he going to get banned.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...9&postcount=57

Guess what, he stopped posting altogether. Nedjo works for AMD marketing.

So since AMD is capable of paying people to post forum crap, it doesn't make it impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

One more thing. What was posted was a forum post. Do you think Nvidia, would be paying someone to just post a forum post rather than a article.

Atleast they would get a full fledged article out of it. Just think about it. How much effect you think a forum post is going to attract? And how much damage is going to happen to AMD.

This is just Nintendork being a irrational or fanboyish.

I guess it not impossible though..Look what happened to Nedjo. He stopped posting because his post looked like he was basically trying to sabotage anything that wasn't AMD related and Movieman said, basically if he attacks another NV or Intel thread again, he going to get banned.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...9&postcount=57

Guess what, he stopped posting altogether. Nedjo works for AMD marketing.

So since AMD is capable of paying people to post forum crap, it doesn't make it impossible.

---

makes sense we have had that on both sides then. i really hate all of thees sc2 threads made from people who dont do RTS games, rts are all about low fps

Utter crap this post regarding fps, perhaps they should test with some other cards to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aintz

i wish i still had 10.3 installed 10.7 and my screen goes black sometimes playing sc2

---

HAd the same issue; running 10.3 untill beta16, once beta 17 released sometimes black screen, this was reported often in beta forum. upgrading to 10.6 fixed my issue, no more issues afterwards in final release

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

One more thing. What was posted was a forum post. Do you think Nvidia, would be paying someone to just post a forum post rather than a article.

Atleast they would get a full fledged article out of it. Just think about it. How much effect you think a forum post is going to attract? And how much damage is going to happen to AMD.

This is just Nintendork being a irrational or fanboyish.

I guess it not impossible though..Look what happened to Nedjo. He stopped posting because his post looked like he was basically trying to sabotage anything that wasn't AMD related and Movieman said, basically if he attacks another NV or Intel thread again, he going to get banned.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...9&postcount=57

Guess what, he stopped posting altogether. Nedjo works for AMD marketing.

So since AMD is capable of paying people to post forum crap, it doesn't make it impossible.

---

lol you are joking right, or you are a joke with such a post :D Nedjo wasn't payed by AMD to post crap in Intel threads, it was just his own personal intention against Intel.

funny i just did that level with all effects on high/ultra with my phenom 9850 and 4870 1gb catalyst 10.6. noticed no hiccups @ 1680x1050 running borderless windowed mode no less

Wow, blowing up the proportions of a small issue. Just... wow, why is SC II so hyped?

may be cause there ware many fans of SC 1 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

lol you are joking right, or you are a joke with such a post :D Nedjo wasn't payed by AMD to post crap in Intel threads, it was just his own personal intention against Intel.

---

He just forget to mentioned that he works for amd marketing.. so yeah... i guess his opinion has nothing to do with his job at all. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

He just forget to mentioned that he works for amd marketing.. so yeah... i guess his opinion has nothing to do with his job at all. :rofl:

---

so :rofl: you're ANTI AMD and PRO Intel opinion is also lousy so cut the crap, weather or not you work is IT related, one should be able to have his own opinion. same goes for JF - dr who and others....

It's the cloaked effect on the Protoss Units that rape frame rates

my 4870 handled that mission just fine. 1680*1050 everything maxed.

don't think it's an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

Seem nvidia is in panic mode with this tricks.

---

Interesting observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

A complete joke and not even properly researched.

I JUST finished that mission not 30 minutes ago on my gaming rig (HD 5870 + i5 750) without a single hitch or hiccup.

---

I did the same a few days ago with my 4870X2 and AMD 940. No hiccups no lag nothing throughout the entire game.

Hell I'm still running 10.2 drivers here. Windowed mode alone would kill performance probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky

WHAT?

What's the point in running in windowed mode? I mean, really, who games in a window?! :wth:

---

I would always prefer window mode if possible, as I don't have multiple monitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

no issues with a 4850... but with no comparison benchmarks and basically cherry picked situation, i'm going to deem this review an epic fail

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soultaker52

Haven't had a problem with my rig at all. Smooth frame rates, all the time. This is with 4xAA at 1920x1200 too. :shrug:
I mean, a new CPU might do me good, but I'm trying to hold off till 2011 on that. This little Q6600 has served me quite well.

Edit: Forgot to say, I'm on 10.7a drivers. Though that should be obvious with the "4xAA" part.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

A complete joke and not even properly researched.

I JUST finished that mission not 30 minutes ago on my gaming rig (HD 5870 + i5 750) without a single hitch or hiccup.

---

I would be curious to see how you guys claiming no fps drop can handle that situation. Please give a screenshot of mothership cloaking at least 12 carriers in battle, or I'll simply treat these as BS.

@sniper_sung: What is your point?
Everybody who ever played RTS has experienced slowdowns when larger groups of enemies fight - so nothing special here.
Is "lower than 20 fps" too slow? Then watch these graphs (scroll down the german text). It shows the cpu scaling of SC2 with a GTX480 graphics card (@1024x768 resolution without AA/AF to minimize gpu impact). There are a lot of sub 20 fps grey "minimum fps" bars - so nothing special here, either.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,76...giespiel/Test/

Edit: A video of the test scene is shown, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

I would always prefer window mode if possible, as I don't have multiple monitors.







I would be curious to see how you guys claiming no fps drop can handle that situation. Please give a screenshot of mothership cloaking at least 12 carriers in battle, or I'll simply treat these as BS.

---

Do note that I'm not at that mission yet, I meant my experience so far has been great. The title for this article was a silly generalization that isn't true, was my point of posting mine.

Also did that mission on my 5850 + Q9550. No problems on maxed settings.

Load of bs.

The reviewer isn't a gamer...

Sounds like they just don't know wtf their doing.:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

so :rofl: you're ANTI AMD and PRO Intel opinion is also lousy so cut the crap, weather or not you work is IT related, one should be able to have his own opinion. same goes for JF - dr who and others....

---

From what I've noticed JF doesn't post unless he can back up his statements, Dr Who seems to just post his mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

so :rofl: you're ANTI AMD and PRO Intel opinion is also lousy so cut the crap, weather or not you work is IT related, one should be able to have his own opinion. same goes for JF - dr who and others....

---

Lol you really should do something against your anger problem. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

I would always prefer window mode if possible, as I don't have multiple monitors.

---

Neither do I, just have one monitor, but I run full screen only. Can't see any reason to run windowed mode - if I'm playing a game I'm playing a game, not doing other things on the PC at the same time :shrug:

I like to play in window mode too :). Everyone is different and that`s the beauty of life.

Playing without fraps. You end enyoing the game wich I think is the main purpose of a gamer.

about window mode.. I prefer it too, but crossfire only seems to work in fullscreen mode, any way to enable in window ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

Playing without fraps. You end enyoing the game wich I think is the main purpose of a gamer.

---

+1.

If I enable an FPS counter or FRAPS in a game that stresses my GPU/CPU a lot I always get fed up with the low FPS numbers. If I turn the FPS counters off I end up enjoying the game far more - even if it does get choppy in places.

Its now august, 2 weeks from now we should have cat 10.8; ill wait till then to draw judgment on ati/starcraft compatibility.

5870 and i7 and 30fps @ full hd?
someone here kidding me ?

i have 5870 2gb and amd x4 925 stock and played very smooooth @5040x2100 res maxed out of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

Utter crap this post regarding fps, perhaps they should test with some other cards to.



HAd the same issue; running 10.3 untill beta16, once beta 17 released sometimes black screen, this was reported often in beta forum. upgrading to 10.6 fixed my issue, no more issues afterwards in final release



lol you are joking right, or you are a joke with such a post :D Nedjo wasn't payed by AMD to post crap in Intel threads, it was just his own personal intention against Intel.

---

Notice nedjo last post date. He basically stopped posting 4 months ago after he was told to stop thread crapping in competitors threads or get banned.

If he has no other opinions(since he quit posting) besides crapping in competitors threads and he either the most hateful person ever and just enjoys angst.

Oh my God, that review is just a perfect waste of internet traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

He just forget to mentioned that he works for amd marketing.. so yeah... i guess his opinion has nothing to do with his job at all. :rofl:

---

Wow, just like quriouss36!!!

ToyStory.jpg: Shills, shills everywhere.

Some people just out there to create controversy and fanboy chatter. Don't be fooled by it and don't discuss it here giving these guys unnecessary hits. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky

WHAT?

What's the point in running in windowed mode? I mean, really, who games in a window?! :wth:

---

people who want to hint at a driver bug or badly coded driver ;)

I use windowmode when possible as I have 2 screens and when if you play a game in none window mode the other screen normally :banana::banana::banana::banana:s up :/ and I like to pretend that I can multitask :) (Even though my SC micro is horrible!)

after the 480 also suffers from this problem i think we can say that the sc2 engine is just crap... according to some reviews/benchmarks (e.g. pcgh) sc2 does give a poop about quad cores and seems to only use 2 cores at most. no wonder the performance sucks when half of the system is sitting idle all the time. i really don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

after the 480 also suffers from this problem i think we can say that the sc2 engine is just crap... according to some reviews/benchmarks (e.g. pcgh) sc2 does give a poop about quad cores and seems to only use 2 cores at most. no wonder the performance sucks when half of the system is sitting idle all the time. i really don't get it.

---

So it is like 90% of all PC games? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

Its now august, 2 weeks from now we should have cat 10.8; ill wait till then to draw judgment on ati/starcraft compatibility.

---

Hmm, why wait? Here's 12 GPUs tested in Starcraft 2 and the results seems to be inline with every other game out there:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,76...giespiel/Test/

480 is the fastest, then 5870, 5850, 470 and so on. It's interesting how there seems to be much of negative SC2 related AMD news lately: First the "poor performance" (some benchmarks based on SC2 beta), then the missing AA and now the whole power virus thingie. Ok, Nvidia had AA support from the start and AMD didn't. But I personally fail to connect the poor performance and power virus with AMD's cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

So it is like 90% of all PC games? :confused:

---

This is a game released in Q3 of 2010. It should use more than two cores if enough is going on inside the game to keep the cores busy. From what we've seen, they probably could have made use of extra cores/threads.

First of all, if you have a properly performing system with a decent GPU, this mission should not be an issue at all. Yes, it is simply the most intense and unit heavy 30-50 minutes of the single player campaign (anyone beat this on Normal and able to unlock the +250 kill achievement?) but the only way to really bog down a system with it is to build more than a dozen and a half carriers or more.

The issue is these 18++ carriers will likely lead you to loose the mission on anything but the easiest mode due to their build times and resource-sucking costs. No only that but they are quite weak against the hybrid enemies faced in the mission. Yes, the main point of the mission is to die (no, really) but I have found it extremely hard to get the 1500 kills using a carrier-centric force; even on Normal.

Here is the thing: what we are seeing is a completely unrealistic test conducted in what seems to be sub-par conditions. Within the game itself and even in multiplayer, there is no way a player would be able to build up the unit quantites seen in that mission. It also seems like the cards in question may be throttling due to the game's heat bug. Nonetheless, the mission really does display a worst case scenario for Starcraft 2 which makes it perfect for GPU benching.

I tried last night to recreate the framerates the original article talks about but I just can't. With 16 carriers my HD 5870 + i5 were still working at 40-60 FPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

First of all, if you have a properly performing system with a decent GPU, this mission should not be an issue at all. Yes, it is simply the most intense and unit heavy 30-50 minutes of the single player campaign (anyone beat this on Normal and able to unlock the +250 kill achievement?) but the only way to really bog down a system with it is to build more than a dozen and a half carriers or more.

The issue is these 18++ carriers will likely lead you to loose the mission on anything but the easiest mode due to their build times and resource-sucking costs. No only that but they are quite weak against the hybrid enemies faced in the mission. Yes, the main point of the mission is to die (no, really) but I have found it extremely hard to get the 1500 kills using a carrier-centric force; even on Normal.

Here is the thing: what we are seeing is a completely unrealistic test conducted in what seems to be sub-par conditions. Within the game itself and even in multiplayer, there is no way a player would be able to build up the unit quantites seen in that mission. It also seems like the cards in question may be throttling due to the game's heat bug. Nonetheless, the mission really does display a worst case scenario for Starcraft 2 which makes it perfect for GPU benching.

I tried last night to recreate the framerates the original article talks about but I just can't. With 16 carriers my HD 5870 + i5 were still working at 40-60 FPS.

---

It looks like you didn't get the point.

a) You'll need a mothership to cloak the carriers;
b) You'll need a computer more powerful than 5870/480 to play special maps like 1v7 in Starcraft 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mibo

@sniper_sung: What is your point?
Everybody who ever played RTS has experienced slowdowns when larger groups of enemies fight - so nothing special here.
Is "lower than 20 fps" too slow? Then watch these graphs (scroll down the german text). It shows the cpu scaling of SC2 with a GTX480 graphics card (@1024x768 resolution without AA/AF to minimize gpu impact). There are a lot of sub 20 fps grey "minimum fps" bars - so nothing special here, either.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,76...giespiel/Test/

Edit: A video of the test scene is shown, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

The reviewer isn't a gamer...

---

If you guys can't do at least 60 APM in Starcraft 2 then you probably don't qualify saying that 30 fps is enough for an RTS game. I have to say that the cloaking is an effective strategy to force the opponent with a poor graphics card to disconnect the game. Did you guys ever play any special RPG maps in Warcraft 3 before? I guess no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

a) You'll need a mothership to cloak the carriers;

---

A mothership arrives 3/4 of the way through the mission. Framerates dip to around 40 -45 fps when I bring it into the middle of a large carrier group.

What's your point?

Happens or not I couldn't care less, I passionately dislike RPG/MMORG/strategy/etc games, 480 sucks, 5970 5870 sucks everything sucks.
The truth is, SC2's engine sucks balls.
There's nothing in those games to justify the graphics card stress and the CPU under-utilization.

I wonder why you guys buy those games when they're outright... sub-par products in term of engine work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

A mothership arrives 3/4 of the way through the mission. Framerates dip to around 40 -45 fps when I bring it into the middle of a large carrier group.

What's your point?

---

By looking into Miksu's link the point is you've got a super powerful computer faster than the others.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2152/sc2gpus1920.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

The truth is, SC2's engine sucks balls.
There's nothing in those games to justify the graphics card stress and the CPU under-utilization.

I wonder why you guys buy those games when they're outright... sub-par products in term of engine work.

---

I totally agree with that.
I do like RTS games though but SC2 is a waste of resources. The engine looks like two years old, to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

I wonder why you guys buy those games when they're outright... sub-par products in term of engine work.

---

I happen to think the game is one of the funner products released in the last few years. That's what games are all about: having fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

By looking into Miksu's link the point is you've got a super powerful computer faster than the others.

---

Hmm. That's a real head scratcher for me, especially considering my experiences with a mid-range rig. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Maño

I totally agree with that.
I do like RTS games though but SC2 is a waste of resources. The engine looks like two years old, to say the least.

---

i was thinking more like 5+ years old
there were plenty of 3D RTS games since 2004-2005.

i think the lower settings are good enough for any gpu, but i wonder if they just didnt care to optimize anything for the high end

The game was started about 5 years ago, but got halted when some of the designers got pulled off to work on WoW temporarily. They based everything on the hardware they saw at the time. Hence, it looks a bit older :-/...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

By looking into Miksu's link the point is you've got a super powerful computer faster than the others.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2152/sc2gpus1920.png

---

The point here is that they benched a 2on2 multiplayer with lots of units - this puts heavier load on the cpu. Watch the video shown there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mibo

The point here is that they benched a 2on2 multiplayer with lots of units - this puts heavier load on the cpu. Watch the video shown there.

---

If you really watched the video carefully, note the smoothness increase when the mothership gets destroyed.

Blizzard games always run like dog :banana::banana::banana::banana:. My quad core at 3.8ghz and 5870 at 1000/1200 gets choppy under 8xAA and 2560x1600 res playing WoW, however both are only being utilised at around 30 - 50%. Same with SC2, except sc2 doesn't even have AA. Now swap to BC2 and everything is glorious at 4xAA and 2560 res, 'cause it's chewing up 90% gpu and 80% cpu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

First of all, if you have a properly performing system with a decent GPU, this mission should not be an issue at all. Yes, it is simply the most intense and unit heavy 30-50 minutes of the single player campaign (anyone beat this on Normal and able to unlock the +250 kill achievement?) but the only way to really bog down a system with it is to build more than a dozen and a half carriers or more.

The issue is these 18++ carriers will likely lead you to loose the mission on anything but the easiest mode due to their build times and resource-sucking costs. No only that but they are quite weak against the hybrid enemies faced in the mission. Yes, the main point of the mission is to die (no, really) but I have found it extremely hard to get the 1500 kills using a carrier-centric force; even on Normal.

Here is the thing: what we are seeing is a completely unrealistic test conducted in what seems to be sub-par conditions. Within the game itself and even in multiplayer, there is no way a player would be able to build up the unit quantites seen in that mission. It also seems like the cards in question may be throttling due to the game's heat bug. Nonetheless, the mission really does display a worst case scenario for Starcraft 2 which makes it perfect for GPU benching.

I tried last night to recreate the framerates the original article talks about but I just can't. With 16 carriers my HD 5870 + i5 were still working at 40-60 FPS.

---

You should put a spoiler alert tag next time ; (

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky

Neither do I, just have one monitor, but I run full screen only. Can't see any reason to run windowed mode - if I'm playing a game I'm playing a game, not doing other things on the PC at the same time :shrug:

---

I run windowed as I play wii and ps2 games on my pc and I prefer rpg's

It's very useful to alt+tab quickly to a guide if you're doing a puzzle dungeon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

So it is like 90% of all PC games? :confused:

---

yeha, that's true, but most of these games don't run at such low fps. i mean, if the game has 100 fps but only uses one core it's not as bad as a game that doesn't utilize most of your system but has craptastic performance. that's what i'm angry about :mad: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

By looking into Miksu's link the point is you've got a super powerful computer faster than the others.

[IMG]imgsnip[/IMG]

---

is that replay file available for download ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

First of all, if you have a properly performing system with a decent GPU, this mission should not be an issue at all. Yes, it is simply the most intense and unit heavy 30-50 minutes of the single player campaign (anyone beat this on Normal and able to unlock the +250 kill achievement?) but the only way to really bog down a system with it is to build more than a dozen and a half carriers or more.

The issue is these 18++ carriers will likely lead you to loose the mission on anything but the easiest mode due to their build times and resource-sucking costs. No only that but they are quite weak against the hybrid enemies faced in the mission. Yes, the main point of the mission is to die (no, really) but I have found it extremely hard to get the 1500 kills using a carrier-centric force; even on Normal.

Here is the thing: what we are seeing is a completely unrealistic test conducted in what seems to be sub-par conditions. Within the game itself and even in multiplayer, there is no way a player would be able to build up the unit quantites seen in that mission. It also seems like the cards in question may be throttling due to the game's heat bug. Nonetheless, the mission really does display a worst case scenario for Starcraft 2 which makes it perfect for GPU benching.

I tried last night to recreate the framerates the original article talks about but I just can't. With 16 carriers my HD 5870 + i5 were still working at 40-60 FPS.

---

This problem involves teh mothership cloaking.
It's so weird, that side-story from Zeratul was the most epic battle in the game....

I never noticed a slowdown on my 5850... I wasn't frapping but I never noticed stutters or unsmooth gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Happens or not I couldn't care less, I passionately dislike RPG/MMORG/strategy/etc games, 480 sucks, 5970 5870 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting:banana::banana::ba nana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::bana na::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:5970 5870:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banan a:end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting:banana::banana::ba nana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::bana na::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:5970 5870:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banan a:end_of_the_skype_highlighting sucks everything sucks.
The truth is, SC2's engine sucks balls.
There's nothing in those games to justify the graphics card stress and the CPU under-utilization.

I wonder why you guys buy those games when they're outright... sub-par products in term of engine work.

---

Not everyone plays games for the graphics you know. That being said, its still better gfx than any c&c game which is my fav RTS franchise, untill c&c 4 ruined that.

But SC2 really is an awesome RTS game. Great variety in missions in the campaign. Great cutscenes, and a cool story. Sure it doesnt look like crysis. but its a freaking RTS. And i can run it on "ultra" 1920*1200 using a 4850, getting lag only in very few places in very few select missions. This game is great :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rava6e

Not everyone plays games for the graphics you know. That being said, its still better gfx than any c&c game which is my fav RTS franchise, untill c&c 4 ruined that.

But SC2 really is an awesome RTS game. Great variety in missions in the campaign. Great cutscenes, and a cool story. Sure it doesnt look like crysis. but its a freaking RTS. And i can run it on "ultra" 1920*1200 using a 4850, getting lag only in very few places in very few select missions. This game is great :-)

---

Ever played Dawn of War and DoW II? Chaos Rising? Company of Heroes?
Joint Task Force? Supreme Commander?

Any/All of them are good RTS. Starcraft II is to RTS what classic Out Run is to racing simulation.

You are right that there are variety in missions, great cutscenes and so, but the gameplay is disappointing.

Despite the popular claims, micro-management is almost but completely unnecesary.
It just happens that most of the people who plays SC has never played a different RTS game and they don't know what heavy-micro is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Happens or not I couldn't care less, I passionately dislike RPG/MMORG/strategy/etc games, 480 sucks, 5970 5870 sucks everything sucks.
The truth is, SC2's engine sucks balls.
There's nothing in those games to justify the graphics card stress and the CPU under-utilization.

I wonder why you guys buy those games when they're outright... sub-par products in term of engine work.

---

Remember those old arcade machines? They had quite bad graphics but were fun like hell.

Now it seems the players community is finally maturing and people start to understand that graphics (while still important), do not guarantee a successful and -> fun to play <- title.

SCII has nice graphics, lots of work has been put into the details and playability. What do you want more if its again *fun to play*?

On a side note: Want true CGI graphics? Go to the cinema but I guarantee you that I'll be having more fun with SCII then you can stand watching the same rendered scenes over and over again. :D

While I've been a major proponent of immersion in the form of convincing animations and graphics, that is more for first / third person games. For RTS I am a lot more forgiving, and I used to have a ton of fun playing WC3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramner

I always run games in borderless windowed mode if possible (which looks exactly like fullscreen), being able to tab in and out of the game without any delay is useful, if I lose a few fps to be able to do so then so be it.

---

problem with benchmarking like that is that Aero is vsynced and it forces vsync on the game no matter what you chose in the driver or the game. You would have to disable Aero or go to the game's shortcut's properties and set to run without desktop composition. I used to do it with WoW because I didn't need vsync at all on my 120hz but I still wanted to use the other monitor during downtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Maño

Ever played Dawn of War and DoW II? Chaos Rising? Company of Heroes?
Joint Task Force? Supreme Commander?

Any/All of them are good RTS. Starcraft II is to RTS what classic Out Run is to racing simulation.

You are right that there are variety in missions, great cutscenes and so, but the gameplay is disappointing.

Despite the popular claims, micro-management is almost but completely unnecesary.
It just happens that most of the people who plays SC has never played a different RTS game and they don't know what heavy-micro is.

---

Yeah i played almost all of the above, i love dawn of war too, for me its in the same league as SC2. I just mentioned C&C because most people should know that name.

What do you find bad about the gameplay in SC2? For me its certainly one of the best RTS experiences ive had. Simply because the missions are so well created.

And i never use all that micro macro whatever stuff, i dont even really know what it is, i play RTS offline in singleplayer hehe. Online games for me are FPS games like battlefield, and unreal tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Maño

Ever played Dawn of War and DoW II? Chaos Rising? Company of Heroes?
Joint Task Force? Supreme Commander?

Any/All of them are good RTS. Starcraft II is to RTS what classic Out Run is to racing simulation.

You are right that there are variety in missions, great cutscenes and so, but the gameplay is disappointing.

Despite the popular claims, micro-management is almost but completely unnecesary.
It just happens that most of the people who plays SC has never played a different RTS game and they don't know what heavy-micro is.

---

SC II has no need for "micro-management"??

We must be playing very different games...


How do you define "micro-management"? In SC II, you don't generally select individual units to move them back and forth (though some extreme micro experts manage to do it); the actions are too fast paced and there are too many units to control to do this effectively. However, you have to micro-manage your troops to survive, even in single player at higher difficulty.

However, if you are looking to manage a small group of troops with special attention to each individual member, go for Warcraft III and the likes. It's a different kind of game play.


If you say SC II isn't Starcraft, you're either a moron or have never really played the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

(anyone beat this on Normal and able to unlock the +250 kill achievement?)

---

I had nearly 2000 kills on normal in that mission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

The issue is these 18++ carriers will likely lead you to loose the mission on anything but the easiest mode due to their build times and resource-sucking costs. No only that but they are quite weak against the hybrid enemies faced in the mission. Yes, the main point of the mission is to die (no, really) but I have found it extremely hard to get the 1500 kills using a carrier-centric force; even on Normal.

---

I build two or three carriers, not more, in that mission. I concentrated on ground forces and positioned Colossi (is that the plural?) on the higher grounds of the entrances (set on "Hold"). The Zerg had to move quite a way to get to them, if there were no flying forces involved. The flying Zergs were taken care of by my airships (carriers and the like). I had a big group of Zealots, Stalkers and Immortals which I send to the entrances where they were to expected.

After some time I think they come from all directions in massive numbers and that was when I took my army back to the facilities. After I reached 1700 or so kills I didn't bother to produce any new units. I think I could've gone for quite a few more kills if I had produced any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I tried last night to recreate the framerates the original article talks about but I just can't. With 16 carriers my HD 5870 + i5 were still working at 40-60 FPS.

---

I had no issues with my HD 5850 and my i5 750 (both on stock clocks) as well.

played this mission last night 4870 512mb AMD7850 @ 2.95ghz 10.2 drivers and didnt get the slow down
res 1920x1080 no AA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teemax

SC II has no need for "micro-management"??

We must be playing very different games...


How do you define "micro-management"? In SC II, you don't generally select individual units to move them back and forth (though some extreme micro experts manage to do it); the actions are too fast paced and there are too many units to control to do this effectively. However, you have to micro-manage your troops to survive, even in single player at higher difficulty.

However, if you are looking to manage a small group of troops with special attention to each individual member, go for Warcraft III and the likes. It's a different kind of game play.


If you say SC II isn't Starcraft, you're either a moron or have never really played the original.

---

Just as I said, if your concept of micro management is moving back and forth then you should play more RTS games.

Back in Winter Assault days, in order to barely survive the first tier and IG player had to out-dance enemy squads while individually targeting each of its grenade launchers, capturing strategic points, teching etc. THAT was real micro, not just moving back and forth.

JTF required you to allocate crew to vehicles. You had to give weapons to each individual soldier.

DoWII doesn't even have structures: you have your initial building and nothing else. It's all about micro-ing your squads: move to cover, manage abilities, charge, retreat, flank the enemy etc...

By the way, thanks for calling me moron but I don't recall saying that SCII was not SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rava6e

Yeah i played almost all of the above, i love dawn of war too, for me its in the same league as SC2. I just mentioned C&C because most people should know that name.

What do you find bad about the gameplay in SC2? For me its certainly one of the best RTS experiences ive had. Simply because the missions are so well created.

And i never use all that micro macro whatever stuff, i dont even really know what it is, i play RTS offline in singleplayer hehe. Online games for me are FPS games like battlefield, and unreal tournament.

---

Hi Rava6e,
SCII is fun to play but I humbly think that DoW or Supreme Commander demand much more skill and attention.
I wish you could hide troops in buildings like in CoH or World in Conflict. It's a mere example.

I'm utterly dissapointed @ Blizzard for this game.

First, it's no different than StarCraft, it's only a glamor version of the original. It's too simple and back wards from what Age of Empires and StarCraft hinted at. The game is simply not deep enough, even for a 12 year old. Technologies don't matter as much as force en'masse ( ), so there is no push-pull & meta game that goes on while playing chess and strategy (real time strategy game). Such as epoch'ing/upgrading your society over expanding it, etc. (upgrading over building..)

The game is far too much twitch, than it is outmaneuvering your opponent. I'm 50% and the game is boring as hell because it's run of the mill tactics, instead of 2 well placed upgraded units.. to 20 low-grade base units. The cost of upgrading is way to low and way too fast. It should be like 1,000 crystals, 1,000 gas to upgrade your armor, but it should also actually mitigate more dmg than it does. That way scouting only tells half the story, until only a few units.. looks like an easy kill from the air. But when engaged you realize your opponent has upgraded his tech, instead of build forces, etc...



Secondly, I bought the box. I could've easily downloaded the game for cheaper, but in my ignorance, I had thought like almost every RTS in history, StarCraft II would've come with a big fold-out of the tech-tree/units...?

This gross neglagence illustrates how out of touch Blizzard and the gaming industry in whole has become. You don't need them while playing, you need them when devising. I use to keep them near teh crapper, to study. Kinda like Magic: the gathering & chess, they can be played out in your head, if you have the right visuals/info, etc..

May seem trite to some, but there must be an added level of respect for those who pay more for the box.. a fa'qing notepad & 4 glossed Guest Passes ..?

R U KIDDING ME ^^..?



Blizzard didn't set out to make StarCraft II, just money as cheaply as possible.

Last 3 pages rarely discuss the issue at hand. Can we have a starcraft haters thread somewhere over there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

Last 3 pages rarely discuss the issue at hand. Can we have a starcraft haters thread somewhere over there?

---

i supose so .... are you joining the fun???

I was actually playing this very mission last night (on my 5870, beta 10.7a). Started lagging pretty badly when I got that cloaking mothership. I had to disable AA to get back to playable framerates, after which it was fine.

The bigger problem, i think, is that using the vortex ability on the mothership confuses the pathing AI, so my carriers will just sit there doing absolutely nothing as long as there are any enemies in a vortex at all. so stupid.