StarCraft II Revisited: How Much Gaming PC Do You Need?

Benchmarks Results: Ultra Quality, 4x AA

As we've mentioned, AMD’s Catalyst 10.7 beta driver and Catalyst 10.8 allows for AA in StarCraft II, which means that we can test the feature on both manufacturers' GPUs.

We're limiting the benchmarks to cards that can handle the Ultra quality setting with 4x AA applied:

The Radeon cards are clearly bested by their similarly-priced GeForce counterparts here. Even the high-end Radeon HD 5870 is surpassed by the GeForce GTX 460, especially when it comes to minimum frame rates. None of the Radeon cards can really handle 4x AA in this benchmark at anything more than 1280x1024. Meanwhile, the GeForce cards can offer performance that is on the edge of playable up until 1920x1080.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
169 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • A very enjoyable article. Few points:
    1. While the benchmark the author kindly put a lot of effort to make is nice, I believe it's much worse than the worst case scenario for most ppl, most people play online against human opponents or play against the AI in the single player campaign or to get some training before diving into multiplayer. IMHO it should have tuned down a little or the GPU/CPU recommendation should be stated with less certainty. Readers should put that well in mind.

    2. ATI released CCC10.9 after the article was written and it is said to improve the performance while AA is on, but I really have to test this to confirm. If anyone tested the new driver please share the results!

    3. For those whiners about not including their hardware in the piece: STOP! It is near impossible to include all the hardware out there, besides I always noticed that Don is somehow limited on the hardware side, so he only used what cards Gigabyte offered, and that was clearly stated in the article. As for the CPUs he did a comparison of 1, 2, 3 and 4 phenom 2 cores, so this should give you a good idea how the game scales with CPU cores and it is obviously not threaded well enough to make use of Phenom II x6 6 cores.

    Feel free to thumb me down! :)
    20
  • i wish the test was re-run with a bigger overclock so we could see how cpu limited the game really is and what card will really let it stretch its legs.
    16
  • gpharmanI run it fine on my X58 Extreme3, core i7 920 @ 3.60ghz. 12GB DDR3 1600, 2 evga GTX470SC in SLI, Win 7 64 @ 1920x1080 with aa maxed on ultra.


    show off :P care you maybe share some frame rates with your bragging?
    14
  • Other Comments
  • Nice article.
    I wish the i5 750 was included as a comparison.
    2
  • 5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
    8
  • 5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
    -15
  • a 5750+phenom II 945 runs smoothly with a mix of ultra and high settings. no aa.
    1
  • Quote:
    The Radeon cards are clearly bested by their similarly-priced GeForce counterparts here.


    Hence why I regret my ATI purchase.

    It's good hardware but the constant driver issues & benchmarks such as these make you think twice.
    -4
  • i wish the test was re-run with a bigger overclock so we could see how cpu limited the game really is and what card will really let it stretch its legs.
    16
  • I wish they would have included my cpu: q9550 OC'd to 3.5Ghz

    Still relevant!
    -9
  • Are you guys sure the NV cards didnt beat the radeons due to bigger frame buffer?
    6
  • I don't reget my ati purchase at all. I'd rather deal with driver issues *which I never seemed to have with ati only nvidia.. for some odd reason*. Then deal with crap hardware with nvidia..

    Of course this is just personal exp.

    Some games will run better with nv, and some better with ati.. Don't really care as long as I can play it smoothly. And usually 1-5 fps don't determine that.
    -6
  • Doom3klr5770 should run it with a 3 core amd

    Yep it worked flawlessly on my 5770 1GB + Athlon II X3 435...
    5
  • Why is there not a 5770 in the round up?
    8
  • Well my E8400 @ 3.6Ghz, and a gtx260 seems more then capeable of playing sc2. I got everything on ultra, and it have allways been running smooth for me. Even in me vs 7 FFA insane AI opponents.
    2
  • I run it just fine on my P5b deluxe 1080P,E8400,4 gb ddr2,8800 gts 320mb, win7 64.
    -2
  • "Our 6 or their 4" I'll take their 4 any day of the week.
    1
  • I run it fine on my X58 Extreme3, core i7 920 @ 3.60ghz. 12GB DDR3 1600, 2 evga GTX470SC in SLI, Win 7 64 @ 1920x1080 with aa maxed on ultra.
    -18
  • gpharmanI run it fine on my X58 Extreme3, core i7 920 @ 3.60ghz. 12GB DDR3 1600, 2 evga GTX470SC in SLI, Win 7 64 @ 1920x1080 with aa maxed on ultra.


    show off :P care you maybe share some frame rates with your bragging?
    14
  • Yeah i wish my 9550 was in the benchmarks to see how the core2 duo stacks up.
    -4
  • I wish the hexa cores from amd were included esp the 1090t
    1
  • My GTX 260 and Phenom II 940 (overclocked to 3.5 GHz) plays nice with Starcraft 2... Ultra setting at 1920x1080 is beautiful, and I've never seen a slow down.
    0
  • L0tusHence why I regret my ATI purchase.It's good hardware but the constant driver issues & benchmarks such as these make you think twice.


    What driver issues you are talking about? I had none. If you don't care about power consumption, temps and noise then perhaps you should consider Germi.
    1