- Sep 24, 2011
- 275
- 0
- 18,790
I've seen a lot of evidence that the new Intel HD 4000 should be able to run Starcraft 2 quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYoG_xH6RU
This video seems to show the player running at medium at least, with no lag, and he claims he was reaching 60 FPS, this is on the older HD 3000.
AnandTech posted benchmarks which showed the game should be playable at least at 1600 x 900 on medium: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/15
I started out thinking the advances from 3000 to 4000 would allow me to play at my full resolution, 1920 x 1080 (with medium graphics quality), and at first it almost looked like it could handle it. At the start of a round I was at around 40 FPS. But as soon as multiple units entered the map and when I first hit real combat the frame rate literally dropped down to one. I restarted at 1600 x 900 and put the graphics to the lowest option, again it worked quite well until I met the first enemies. The FPS dropped to 5 and my whole game crashed.
This is perticularly upsetting to me because my computer is a considerable upgrade from my last one. I owned an AMD athlon II x2 220, with an nVidia 9200 GPU (a tiny thing that I think was designed to run in laptops). Yet with this old thing I managed to get at least 1600 x 900 gameplay. The FPS would often drop to 15 or so, but it played, and it never crashed. I've ordered a GTX 670 and it should arrive sometime this week, but it doesn't seem normal that the integrated graphics in my new rig would be functioning so badly, especially when there seems to be ample evidence on the net that it should run quite well. Does anyone have any idea what might be causing this?
I have an i5-3570K, a 128GB M4 SSD from Crucial as my boot drive and 16GB of DDR3 1600 MHz RAM (also from Crucial). I can't see what bottleneck would be causing me to see weaker performances than in the benchmarks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYoG_xH6RU
This video seems to show the player running at medium at least, with no lag, and he claims he was reaching 60 FPS, this is on the older HD 3000.
AnandTech posted benchmarks which showed the game should be playable at least at 1600 x 900 on medium: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/15
I started out thinking the advances from 3000 to 4000 would allow me to play at my full resolution, 1920 x 1080 (with medium graphics quality), and at first it almost looked like it could handle it. At the start of a round I was at around 40 FPS. But as soon as multiple units entered the map and when I first hit real combat the frame rate literally dropped down to one. I restarted at 1600 x 900 and put the graphics to the lowest option, again it worked quite well until I met the first enemies. The FPS dropped to 5 and my whole game crashed.
This is perticularly upsetting to me because my computer is a considerable upgrade from my last one. I owned an AMD athlon II x2 220, with an nVidia 9200 GPU (a tiny thing that I think was designed to run in laptops). Yet with this old thing I managed to get at least 1600 x 900 gameplay. The FPS would often drop to 15 or so, but it played, and it never crashed. I've ordered a GTX 670 and it should arrive sometime this week, but it doesn't seem normal that the integrated graphics in my new rig would be functioning so badly, especially when there seems to be ample evidence on the net that it should run quite well. Does anyone have any idea what might be causing this?
I have an i5-3570K, a 128GB M4 SSD from Crucial as my boot drive and 16GB of DDR3 1600 MHz RAM (also from Crucial). I can't see what bottleneck would be causing me to see weaker performances than in the benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram