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

Conclusion: StarCraft II Can Put Your PC To The Test

Our new, demanding StarCraft II benchmark shows that this game can really brutalize your PC during large-scale battles. While a decent graphics card is necessary to really enjoy the highest graphical settings, your platform and CPU are even more important when it comes to the minimum frame rates.

It’s a little disappointing that Blizzard didn't code the StarCraft II engine to take advantage of more than a couple of CPU threads. Indeed, there is a lot of room to improve the minimum frame rates here.

We'd like to hope that the developers would upgrade the StarCraft II engine over time to take advantage of today’s multi-threaded CPUs—if this was the case, even budget processors like the Athlon II X3 might show a performance advantage over the quad-core results we see with the game in its current state. Of course, that isn't going to happen.

As things stand, a high-end Core i7, something in the realm of a Core i5-750, or a fast quad-core Phenom II X4 CPU is the best way to experience StarCraft II.

The game engine is relatively easy on graphics cards at Medium details, which remains an attractive setting. This is good news for mainstream gamers who'd like to upgrade to something affordable for StarCraft II. Enthusiasts aiming for the Ultra detail level will want to equip their PC with a graphics card that boasts a little more muscle, such as a Radeon HD 5830 or GeForce GTX 460. Players planning to enable AA should consider Nvidia's GeForce cards--specifically the GeForce GTX 460 or better.

On a final note, we’d like to thank Gigabyte for supplying all of the cards we tested in this StarCraft II evaluation. The fact that all of these boards boast aftermarket cooling solutions helps take noise out of the equation here.

This thread is closed for comments
169 comments
    Your comment
  • duk3
    Nice article.
    I wish the i5 750 was included as a comparison.
  • Doom3klr
    5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
  • Doom3klr
    5770 should run it with a 3 core amd
  • ScoobyJooby-Jew
    a 5750+phenom II 945 runs smoothly with a mix of ultra and high settings. no aa.
  • L0tus
    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.
  • letsgetsteve
    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.
  • nativeson8803
    I wish they would have included my cpu: q9550 OC'd to 3.5Ghz

    Still relevant!
  • madass
    Are you guys sure the NV cards didnt beat the radeons due to bigger frame buffer?
  • kingnoobe
    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.
  • dingo_d
    Doom3klr5770 should run it with a 3 core amd

    Yep it worked flawlessly on my 5770 1GB + Athlon II X3 435...
  • adonn78
    Why is there not a 5770 in the round up?
  • nilfisktun
    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.
  • urlsen
    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.
  • gpharman
    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.
  • letsgetsteve
    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?
  • krolo
    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
  • rockstone1
    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.
  • scrumworks
    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.
  • Gedoe_
    Nexus wars brings anything to its knees, even i5 + HD 5850.

    That is why i always play low quality in nexus wars.
  • jfby
    Wow. I'm continually surprised seeing the performance of the 5850 vs the 460. I'm not complaining, and I wouldn't trade the months of fun I had with my 5850 before 460 was released, but it can be a bit much to swallow to keep seeing benchmarks like this... it just gives me a chance to advise others when they make a new purchase.
  • tipoo
    *Looks at 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo and Radeon 4670*

    *Cries*
  • xanxaz
    c2d e6600@2.4ghz and hd5850 1080P ultra detail and it's very smooth... dont know why they say it needs a dual core at 3ghz or a triple core...