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

[Hornet331]

so 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.

[Sparky]

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

[OutSider]

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

[Nintendork]

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

[Loque]

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

[[XC] Lead Head]

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.

[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.

[Duniek]

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

[tajoh111]

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 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.

[El Mano]

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

[cegras]

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.

Wow, just like quriouss36!!!

ToyStory.jpg: Shills, shills everywhere.

[SamHughe]

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.

[saaya]

WHAT?

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

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

[Mech0z]

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 s up :/ and I like to pretend that I can multitask (Even though my SC micro is horrible!)

[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.

[MrMojoZ]

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?

[Miksu]

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.

[Mechromancer]

So it is like 90% of all PC games?

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.

[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.

[sniper_sung]

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.

@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.

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.

[SKYMTL]

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?

[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.

[sniper_sung]

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.

[El Mano]

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.

[SKYMTL]

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.

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.