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

[Manicdan]

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

[xVeinx]

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 :-/...

[mibo]

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

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.

[sniper_sung]

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.

[Frontl1ne]

Blizzard games always run like dog . 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.

[cegras]

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 ; (

[Jowy Atreides]

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

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

[RaZz!]

So it is like 90% of all PC games?

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

[Loque]

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 ?

[Etihtsarom]

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....

[Unoid]

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

[Rava6e]

Happens or not I couldn't care less, I passionately dislike RPG/MMORG/strategy/etc games, 480 sucks, 5970 5870 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting5970 5870end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting5970 5870end_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 :-)

[El Mano]

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.

[Shadov]

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.

[cegras]

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.

[shiznit93]

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.

[Rava6e]

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.

[Teemax]

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.

[FischOderAal]

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

I had nearly 2000 kills on normal in that mission.

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.

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.

[Splave]

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

[El Mano]

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.

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.

[Xoulz]

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.

[damha]

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

[Sn0wm@n]

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???

[iddqd]

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.