Benchmark Results: CPU Performance
Since StarCraft II is clearly CPU-limited, we run our benchmark with different CPUs at various clock speeds:
Granted, our benchmark is meant to represent a worst-case scenario of what the gaming enthusiast might encounter in StarCraft II, but we’re still surprised that it takes a 3 GHz quad-core Phenom II to achieve a 20 FPS minimum. A 2.5 GHz Phenom II X4 barely offers playable performance.
Now let’s see what happens with fewer CPU cores:
StarCraft II takes a minor hit when the number of CPU cores drops to two, but on a single-core CPU, things really slow down.
In our previous StarCraft II beta benchmark article, we suggested that a dual-core CPU at 2 GHz would be the minimum you’d want to use for this game. Today's more demanding benchmark suggests that this class of CPU is probably less than you’d want under your hood during large battles, where the AI is controlling a lot of units. It might suffice, though, for smaller engagements, or at even lower resolutions and quality settings.
If you want to keep things playable during epic battles, we recommend at least a 3 GHz dual-core or a 2.8 GHz triple-core processor. We also suggest that you opt for a 3.4 GHz Phenom II or a Core i5-750 at the very least to ensure smooth gameplay at all times.
Related Stories :
- StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Goes On Sale Today
- StarCraft II: Heart of Swarm Beta for Those Who Pre-ordered
- StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Finally Gets Release Date
- Blizzard Releases StarCraft II Demo (Yes, demo)
- LEAKED: StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Ending
- StarCraft II Going Pre-Paid Overseas [UPDATED]
- Blizzard Sues StarCraft II Hackers
- Blizzard Banned Over 5,000 StarCraft II Players
- StarCraft II Revisited: How Much Gaming PC Do You Need?
- So Long, StarCraft II Cheaters! Enjoy the Ban!
Nice article.
I wish the i5 750 was included as a comparison.
5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
a 5750+phenom II 945 runs smoothly with a mix of ultra and high settings. no aa.
Hence why I regret my ATI purchase.
It's good hardware but the constant driver issues & benchmarks such as these make you think twice.
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.
I wish they would have included my cpu: q9550 OC'd to 3.5Ghz
Still relevant!
Are you guys sure the NV cards didnt beat the radeons due to bigger frame buffer?
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.
5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
Yep it worked flawlessly on my 5770 1GB + Athlon II X3 435...
Why is there not a 5770 in the round up?
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.
I run it just fine on my P5b deluxe 1080P,E8400,4 gb ddr2,8800 gts 320mb, win7 64.
"Our 6 or their 4" I'll take their 4 any day of the week.
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.
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.
show off
Yeah i wish my 9550 was in the benchmarks to see how the core2 duo stacks up.
I wish the hexa cores from amd were included esp the 1090t
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.