Benchmark Results: CPU Performance
We've seen that StarCraft II is a CPU-limited title at the medium detail setting, so just how much CPU do you need to run the game comfortably? Let's start with some CPU-speed benchmarks.
Clearly, the game's performance is tied closely to clock speed. Having said that, playable performance can be achieved even at 2 GHz on a Phenom II X4 CPU, with a minimum frame rate of just under 20 FPS. Let's see if the number of CPU cores has much of an impact on performance.
The number of CPU cores has less of an effect than clock rate, although there is a clear performance deficit once a single CPU core is used.
From these numbers, it looks like you'd want to run at least a dual-core CPU above 2.0 GHz to play StarCraft II. For smoother gameplay, a dual-core over 2.5 GHz should be enough to do the trick. Admittedly, playing against multiple difficult AI opponents might be a little more taxing on the CPU than our benchmark, so if you're upgrading with StarCraft II in mind, we'd recommend the higher end of this spectrum. A triple-core CPU at 2.8 GHz or more should be able to provide all the performance you'd want for StarCraft II.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Graphics Cards News
- 20/05 – Qualcomm Hires Former AMD CTO Demers
- 18/05 – Nvidia Responds to GeForce 600 Series V-Sync Stuttering Issue
- 18/05 – Behold: Here Are The First Unreal Engine 4 Screens
- 17/05 – Nvidia Debuts GK110-based 7.1 Billion Transistor Super GPU
- 17/05 – GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation
Latest Graphics Cards reviews
- 18/05 – Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX...
- 09/05 – Video Teaser: Radeon HD 7800 Series Remains A Solid Value
- 08/05 – Benchmarking AMD's 768-Shader Pitcairn: Not For Public...
bashees can cloak
So yeah, unless your machine is from the stone age, it will run Starcraft 2.
But that's exactly what the article says, or am I missing something? Sorry excuse indeed..
What a sorry excuse for an article. You actually haven't said anything. But since I'm in the beta I can tell you this: the game requires at least 2 GB of RAM, or it crashes. I played it on a AMD/Ati powered Toshiba laptop with everything on low and is very playable. Don't know the exact configuration, but it had 2GB of RAM, Windows Vista and the only other game that runs on it is WoW at the lowest graphic settings. So yeah, unless your machine is from the stone age, it will run Starcraft 2.
Not so, I have this running on my old Athlon X2 4200+ with an ATi 9600XT 256MB with 1GB of system RAM and it runs fine (at 1920x1080, Low settings of course).
dont forgeth the option to play in 2D
btw, the 2D option dosen't seem to be available at the beta version because you can still rotate the image when you select that option, maybe with the final version more older computers will also be able to run the game
I play SC I until today. It is the oldest game I own I still play regularly. Second place comes Diablo II. No more needs to be said.
On the strategy side, I sure miss "moving in formation" option from Warcraft III. I hate micro-managing a large battlegroup because the Aerial units rush ahead their ground cover (and vice-versa), which doesn´t happen in Warcraft III. Ohhh, the SC I medics are such suicidal girls, aren´t they? Try not to micro them, see what happens.
Pentium III 700MHz, 512mb system RAM, Radeon 9000, 1280x1024, ran pretty well on Low. Gotta love Blizzard
free ati 5830 giveaway at battleempire.com
This is a terrible preview. The writers lack of knowledge of cloaked Banshees sums it up. It's a great game but nothing like even the leap from Warcraft 2 to 3. It's more like Starcraft 1.5, I don't know why he is calling it such a drastic change. A few new units and mechanics. Identical controls and interface. What is the drastic change you are talking about?
This is a terrible preview. The writers lack of knowledge of cloaked Banshees sums it up. It's a great game but nothing like even the leap from Warcraft 2 to 3. It's more like Starcraft 1.5, I don't know why he is calling it such a drastic change. A few new units and mechanics. Identical controls and interface. What is the drastic change you are talking about?
The article is about the graphical performance of the game, not the game itself. Read before you rant.
Read before you rant.
erghh! that will messeses up teh internet. Never read TFA. Neever proof a post.
erghh! that will messeses up teh internet. Never read TFA. Neever proof a post.
I lolz at yre postz... ;-)
Well, I tried Beta Version of Starcraft II on my laptop, Turion X2 2,1 Ghz, ATI RADEON HD2600 512 MB and operating on 4GB DDR 2 667 Mhz. The game works fine, MEDIUM settings, 1280 x 1024. I haven't played that on-line but I doubt it can influence hardware demands.
Once again Tom's Hardware fails to benchmark in the native resolution of almost every consumer pc monitor sold in Australia! 1920 x 1080 Epic Fail!
Once again Tom's Hardware fails to benchmark in the native resolution of almost every consumer pc monitor sold in Australia! 1920 x 1080 Epic Fail!
This is the UK site...
@ Herr_Koos: Der mate they dont have an Australian site.... Do you happen to work in retail sales for computers & monitors?
Nope. Why do you ask?
@ Herr_Koos I was just curious
Once again the max AA used in the entire review is 4x, SINCE THE ATI CARDS FRAMERATES CRUMBLE AT ANYTHING ABOVE 4X AA !
When will the massive bias END ! ?
( don't think gaming fans, suddenly on the super expensive high end cards, 8xaa and 16xaa and 32xmsaa DON'T EXIST AND ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED! JUST PLAY ALONG LIKE WE NEVER HAD 8X OR 16X FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST ALONG WITH EVERY REVIEW ON THIS SITE!)
Play along, for the sake of ATI and their CRAPPY framerates EXCEPT in 0xaa and 4xaa, the ONLY THINGS SHOWN ANYMORE !
@ Silicondoc: is there really any need for more than 4 x given the super high resolutions that we use now? ie 1920 x 1080 or higher?