Benchmark Results: 4x AA
The StarCraft II beta doesn't include an anti-aliasing (AA) setting at this time, and it's unclear at this point if the released version will offer that functionality. In the meantime, we tried forcing AA through the Radeon and GeForce driver panels. The feature didn't seem to work on the Radeon cards, but all of the GeForce cards we tested except the GeForce 9600 GT were able to handle AA successfully. Here are the results:
The GeForce 9800 GT seems to have trouble running the game at 2560x1600, probably due to its smaller 512MB frame buffer. Otherwise, the GeForce GTS 250 is on the verge of playable at 1280x1024, and only the GeForce GTX 260 is able to offer playable performance up to 1680x1050. Hopefully, the developers will include a performance-friendly AA option in the game by the time it goes live.
Current page: Benchmark Results: 4x AAPrev Page Benchmark Results: Ultra Quality Next Page Benchmark Results: Frame Buffer
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Nice review, never played the original, will have to give this a try. I'm tired of run and gun.Reply
A small request. Would you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90. I know that my CF/OC 4770's give me 4890ish performance, but have no idea where this is in 5 series.
As you used older Nv cards, I will guess that the game is DX11 but DX10(.1) playable.
With a little luck, a few months from now, I will only need to look at the 5 series charts.
unnn. I wanna play this game, now I feel like your teasing me Tom's.Reply
"For example, Terran Wraiths are gone and there are no more Terran air units that can cloak"Reply
Cool, so one question. When does starcraft 2 come out?Reply
lljonesWould you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90.Reply
I have a Radeon HD 4870, and my performance on the Starcraft 2 beta is about the same (usually better) as my roommate, who has 5770. When I'm looking at the FPS it usually sits around the 78fps mark. I couldn't tell you during an intense battle because... well... I'm not looking at the FPS meter. In general, our cards performs about the same in most games we play. The rest of our systems are also comparable, with the exception that he has a significantly faster hard drive than me, which usually only comes into effect on load times (he can load a Bad Company 2 map about 15 seconds before I can load mine).
Of course our little benchmarking isn't as precise and Tom's is, but maybe that'll give you a starting point.
ragnar-konWhen I'm looking at the FPS it usually sits around the 78fps mark..Reply
This should be 48 fps, not 78. Damn lack of edit.
i would have hopped to see more scaling and not so much cpu dependent oh well... also the multi core code hope that will improve cause everyone will soon have 3-6 cores... and if only 2 cores are giving you any advantage i hope they optimize it at least down the roadReply
why does fps cap seem so low?Reply
I was dissapointed that there were no GTX470/480, since i'm planning on buying them :)Reply
Other thing that bothers me is a CPU :( i have Phenom x4 at 2,3ghz and as i see this game runs better on faster CPU's :(
and man, i can't wait to get my hands on this game :D