First, we’d like to note that StarCraft II’s Medium detail setting delivers slightly less consistent average frame rates than the Ultra detail setting. This is probably because the lighter graphical load creates a situation where the CPU becomes more of a bottleneck, and in this benchmark, the AI can end up with slightly different battles each time, resulting in a variance in CPU load. Regardless, the results are indicative of some solid trends:
We can see that the minimum frame rate doesn't crest more than 30 at any resolutions, indicating a strong CPU bottleneck. All of the cards are quite capable of low-resolution performance, but at 1680x1050 and higher, we can see the GeForce GT 240 and lower-end Radeons begin to lose ground, while the Radeon HD 5830 and GeForce GTX 460 are able to keep their average frame rates quite high, even at 2560x1600.
However, StarCraft II is not a twitch game like a first-person shooter, where success depends on precise, split-second aiming. Even the low-end graphics cards offer passable performance at 2560x1600 because the minimum frame rate is so consistent—assuming CPU power is sufficient.
Don Woligroski was a former senior hardware editor for Tom's Hardware. He has covered a wide range of PC hardware topics, including CPUs, GPUs, system building, and emerging technologies.
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 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.
