Skip to main content

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.

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

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

    Still relevant!
    Reply
  • madass
    Are you guys sure the NV cards didnt beat the radeons due to bigger frame buffer?
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • dingo_d
    Doom3klr5770 should run it with a 3 core amdYep it worked flawlessly on my 5770 1GB + Athlon II X3 435...
    Reply