Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: StarCraft II

AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
By

Performance Target: 30 FPS Minimum

Finally, let’s consider StarCraft II, a real-time strategy game notorious for its processor dependency. We start with the 30 FPS minimum frame rate target.

Our minimum goal of achieving 30 FPS proves irrelevant, as the demanding benchmark we use pushes both of these CPUs to their limits. The Core i3's advantage is clear. There’s no point to running a second set of benchmarks targeting 40 FPS when we can’t keep these platforms over 16 FPS, regardless of settings or resolutions.

To the FX-4100’s credit, this is a very demanding benchmark, and most StarCraft games won't push a machine quite as hard. There are some custom maps that tax processor performance, though, so the benchmark's validity stands. If you're wondering why the frame rate climbs over time, that's because units are destroyed and removed, alleviating the load. Regardless of the caveats, Intel's Core i3-2100 shows itself superior in this title.

Display all 11 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 23 February 2012 13:59
    This is an uncharacteristically sloppy report by THG. A significant fraction of the graphs do not have the correct y-axis range for the data.
  • -1 Hide
    13thmonkey , 23 February 2012 15:06
    Is there not a way that you can test Bf3 better, i'm seeing a few people who have claimed much better frames on online bf3 going from dual to quad.
    perhaps rent a server, pay some people to stand around and not do anything, and have the testing machine run a constant path thinking noshar docks, running from under the railway bridge to the B flag, whilst being watched by say 10 people.
    I've seen my frames jump when going to full server to empty so it has to be partly loaded, hence you need the audience. PITA, but it might give you a more realistic test, i'd hope it was the observation that causes load and not just potential impacts.
    Also this page doesn't let me submit unless in compat mode, but most others do...
  • -2 Hide
    13thmonkey , 23 February 2012 23:48
    whats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.
  • 0 Hide
    cleeve , 24 February 2012 01:34
    13thmonkeywhats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.


    The data is valid, I'm not sure what else to answer you with. If you think there's an error and want to look over it personally PM me and I'll send you the excel spreadsheets.
  • -1 Hide
    13thmonkey , 24 February 2012 01:43
    Its the constantly climbing frame rate, assuming x axis is time, it climbs off the top of the graph and yet you claim to have low frame rates. Have PM'd.
  • 1 Hide
    williehmmm , 24 February 2012 01:53
    13thmonkeywhats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.


    I think it was explained by units being destroyed, then removed from the battlefield, therefore less to render, over time less and less, therefore higher frame rates at the end.
  • 0 Hide
    williehmmm , 24 February 2012 01:54
    Yup, as I read in the article.
  • 0 Hide
    mitunchidamparam , 24 February 2012 03:16
    Quote:
    I think it was explained by units being destroyed, then removed from the battlefield, therefore less to render, over time less and less, therefore higher frame rates at the end.

    Is that because of the GPU bottle neck or CPU?
  • -1 Hide
    jrtolson , 28 February 2012 09:15
    did u not know the people that run this site are on Intel's Payroll :-P
  • 0 Hide
    bemused_fred , 5 May 2012 20:42
    jrtolsondid u not know the people that run this site are on Intel's Payroll :-P


    Wait, I'm confused. What about the normal people who like intel's CPUs? Are they on the payroll too?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 20 May 2012 17:21
    I'm not impressed. AMD's quad-core chips clocked almost 20% higher still barely match the speed of a baseline dual-core i3 (which also puts out 30w less heat). In fact, AMD's 2012 quad-core chips are still no faster than Intel's early 2010 i3-530's dual-core "Westmere" (socket 1156) architecture clock-for-clock. Almost 2.5 years behind in performance.

    AMD seriously need a whole new architecture. Piling on more cores / clock speed is just "Intel P4 reloaded".