IGN: StarCraft II Perfomance Tests

From several year old PCs and Macs to brand new gaming powerhouses, IGN ran StarCraft II on just about everything they had around the office, documenting the game's performance on all major graphical settings during both gameplay and cutscenes. Some results were great, others horrifying.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GrilledCheeseBook3209d ago

•CPU: 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo--------???
•Memory: 2GBs of DDR2 RAM -------???
•GPU: ATI Radeon HD 5970 -------- ???
•Output Resolution: 1680 x 1050

odd matchup

moe843209d ago

I'd have to agree with you there. If you're buying a $700.00+ video card, and putting into a system that old, and underpowered you've got something loose up in the head.

The entire system they tested there(minus the gpu) is cheaper than a single 5970(which I would love to have 2 of..mmmm..)..

El_Colombiano3209d ago

This article is COMPLETE BULLSH*T. You're telling me a 5970 only hits 30fps on ultra at such a low resolution!? My 5770 and *outdated* Athlon 64 X2 2.8GHz runs Starcraft 2 at 1080p on Ultra settings without a hitch! IGN is TRUELY IGNorant!

moe843209d ago (Edited 3209d ago )

I had a hard time believing it at first also, but after I saw the other specs I became a believer. There are several factors that contribute to fps performance in video games. Cpu, memory, gpu and drivers to start with.

Not to mention, SC2 is having so many issues with drivers it's unreal. Especially with Crossfire. The 5970 is a dual gpu card, meaning it has two gpus. Making it a "Crossfire" card by itself. Essentially two cards running on one slot.

Until Blizzard, nVida and/or AMD start releasing patches to fix all the issues with their products, shotty performance with top end hardware is what we're stuck with.

But anyway, I've never liked IGN, so call em what you want!

El_Colombiano3209d ago (Edited 3209d ago )

I understand that and took into account the processor and RAM. An Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz processor will have absolutely no problem running Starcraft 2, even when you ignore that absolutely ridiculous bottleneck. This game will run on a damn Pentium 4 for God's sake. The 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo will eat the game alive.

Speaking on the 5970, I understand and fully know it is a dual GPU card, but even if the second GPU was completely thrown out that would leave you with a slightly underclocked 5870 which would destroy Starcraft 2 at Ultra settings and plenty higher than the minuscule resolution they used anyway.

I have a feeling IGN do not have a clue how to benchmark, or even the first thing about PC gaming. Perhaps the culprits are the drivers. Starcraft 2 tells you when you have outdated drivers upon installation though, so I can't fathom why they wouldn't update them if they are told to do so by the damn game.

moe843209d ago (Edited 3209d ago )

Yeah, IGN fails. But...

... the problem people are having with SC2 isn't all driver related. Some of it is simply the game. I've been lucky enough to not have any game crashing issues(just a minor mouse cursor issue, which is all on AMDs' shoulders), but for the thousands who can't play the game with i7 and gtx 480.... something isn't right. A lot is driver related though... and that's up-to-date drivers as well as outdated.

I love the game, but Blizzard definitely dropped the ball when it comes to hardware support with SC2. And I have this sinking feeling, it's going to get worse with the newer hardware on the horizon. Especially with the new lineup coming from AMD/ATI.

And actually, that cpu if running at a stock clock would have some problems running SC2 on higher settings. The game is optimized for a max of 2 cores, which it has on lock down. Problem is the actual clock speed. SC2 loves taxing your cpu as well as gpu. The CGI is more cpu dependent than the gpu. A lot of players are having problems with processors under 3ghz, let alone one at 2.33ghz. Sure, a p4 and slower chips will play the game but not very well.