Skip to main content

StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

Benchmark Results: Frame Buffer

StarCraft II recommends the ultra texture resolution for graphics cards with 1GB of video RAM and the high texture resolution setting for cards with 512MB of video RAM. We've found that even graphics cards with less memory can often handle higher texture settings without a notable performance penalty, so we've tested StarCraft II to see how much of a difference the amount of video RAM makes.

We tested the difference by benchmarking the graphics cards with less than 1GB of memory at the ultra setting and again using the high setting.

As you can see, most folks with a 512MB graphics card can use the ultra texture resolution without concern. There is a slight performance hit at resolutions of 1920x1200 and higher, but it isn't significant enough to negatively affect gameplay.

  • bmadd
    no GTX480/470??
    Reply
  • LLJones
    Nice review, never played the original, will have to give this a try. I'm tired of run and gun.

    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.
    Reply
  • Gin Fushicho
    unnn. I wanna play this game, now I feel like your teasing me Tom's.
    Reply
  • IzzyCraft
    "For example, Terran Wraiths are gone and there are no more Terran air units that can cloak"
    banshees yo...
    Reply
  • patdohere
    Cool, so one question. When does starcraft 2 come out?
    Reply
  • Ragnar-Kon
    lljonesWould you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90.
    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.
    Reply
  • Ragnar-Kon
    ragnar-konWhen I'm looking at the FPS it usually sits around the 78fps mark..
    This should be 48 fps, not 78. Damn lack of edit.
    Reply
  • drutort
    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 road
    Reply
  • Lessqqmorepewpew
    why does fps cap seem so low?
    Reply
  • deividast
    I was dissapointed that there were no GTX470/480, since i'm planning on buying them :)
    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
    Reply