Might just be something with your hardwareTheExodu5 said:Hmmm from watching some more replays, the game is actually very demanding in terms of performance hardware.
My Q8300 @ 3.0GHz and GTX 275 drops to 30fps in very normal circumstances (bout 45 pop on each team...no battles occurring at the moment). Dropping everything to lowest brings that up to about 70fps. I'm not sure exactly how scalable the game is at the moment, as I could be CPU limited at low settings.
Definitely kind of disappointed I can't maintain 60fps with decent visual settings though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
StarCraft 2 Beta |OT| (Beta Now Reopen, GL HF)
- Thread starter Scrow
- Start date
Hazaro said:
Most definitely not. No hardware problems...I match up just fine in benchmarks.
Interesting thing to note is that GPU-Z reports 85-86% usage on my GPU.
And of course you're getting 20% better frames running at 1080p compared to my 1680*1050. Something is very fishy.
TurtleSnatcher
Member
Mine runs great on high/ultra settings
Athlon X2 6000+
2GB of Ram
Radeon 5670 1GB
Athlon X2 6000+
2GB of Ram
Radeon 5670 1GB
Ice Monkey
Member
something sounds wrong, my anecdotal evidence? I get higher fps on low settings than you do with a freakin laptop running an i7-720qm and a 230m :lol
Ice Monkey
Member
by the way, holy hell I remember why I never played any ladder/melee games on war3 or sc despite having bought them several times...I've played more sc/war3 8 player compstomp ffa tonight than sc2 beta.
I absolutely cannot stand losing as much as I do in ladder/matchmaking games. I know, it's just because I'm terrible but it's just taking way too long for me to learn one lesson at a time, i.e: 20 minute games to learn how to defend against DTs as I'll explain. And I have no idea how to apply my beatings to a respectable lesson most times.
I got completely owned in the last game before I ragequit the beta tonight. I had no joke, 30 marines or more, and 5 medivacs. 5 dark templars destroyed my entire resources and i had to fly my command center away, so i retaliate by destroying the toss player's terran teammate with my m&m. terran player's exp and main base were decimated, and what happens? toss drops in his 5-8 dark templar to the teammates base and my marines are gone in less than 20 seconds. I couldnt do a scan to reveal them because he destroyed that command center.
Anyways, I dont even know what to do in the future to counter any of this. ok maybe some missiles near the command center but by the time i notice he's in the base and get my marines there the missiles are dead im sure, and then he'd do exactly like he did this time: moved the DT away for about 10 seconds when I scan sweep and then get back to destroying the base. not only that but now i have to keep a scan sweep available at all times, bypassing any mules or planetary fortress defense i couldve been getting.
Then, what do i do to counter DTs in general with m&m? weren't science vessels what you used before, but now they're gone?
This game wasnt even endgame, i spammed marines as fast as i could and yet he had DTs up the ass and a billion void rays backing them up by the time I was running in with 30 marines for my m&m.
This is basically every game i've played against toss, their tech somehow always ends up winning the game for them, its no wonder everyone plays toss in the beta matches ive played.
I'm getting really tired of blizzard not allowing harder difficulty compstomp or 8-player maps, or if they need to force matchmaking to let like 20-30 thousand people or more in so I can ACTUALLY PLAY AGAINST PEOPLE MY LEVEL, 9/10 games ive played have been against people way above my skill level.
I absolutely cannot stand losing as much as I do in ladder/matchmaking games. I know, it's just because I'm terrible but it's just taking way too long for me to learn one lesson at a time, i.e: 20 minute games to learn how to defend against DTs as I'll explain. And I have no idea how to apply my beatings to a respectable lesson most times.
I got completely owned in the last game before I ragequit the beta tonight. I had no joke, 30 marines or more, and 5 medivacs. 5 dark templars destroyed my entire resources and i had to fly my command center away, so i retaliate by destroying the toss player's terran teammate with my m&m. terran player's exp and main base were decimated, and what happens? toss drops in his 5-8 dark templar to the teammates base and my marines are gone in less than 20 seconds. I couldnt do a scan to reveal them because he destroyed that command center.
Anyways, I dont even know what to do in the future to counter any of this. ok maybe some missiles near the command center but by the time i notice he's in the base and get my marines there the missiles are dead im sure, and then he'd do exactly like he did this time: moved the DT away for about 10 seconds when I scan sweep and then get back to destroying the base. not only that but now i have to keep a scan sweep available at all times, bypassing any mules or planetary fortress defense i couldve been getting.
Then, what do i do to counter DTs in general with m&m? weren't science vessels what you used before, but now they're gone?
This game wasnt even endgame, i spammed marines as fast as i could and yet he had DTs up the ass and a billion void rays backing them up by the time I was running in with 30 marines for my m&m.
This is basically every game i've played against toss, their tech somehow always ends up winning the game for them, its no wonder everyone plays toss in the beta matches ive played.
I'm getting really tired of blizzard not allowing harder difficulty compstomp or 8-player maps, or if they need to force matchmaking to let like 20-30 thousand people or more in so I can ACTUALLY PLAY AGAINST PEOPLE MY LEVEL, 9/10 games ive played have been against people way above my skill level.
Many apologies all, I meant to upload these earlier but I am an idiot, sorry.
A few shots of the lovely zergs, I have rarely touched these guys before, even in the original Starcraft so much practice is needed. These pics are shot with 8xAA + Multisampled transparency AA so my FPS was...rubbish, but hey they look nice.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg2.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg3.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg4.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg5.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg6.jpg
Also: kekekekeke.
A few shots of the lovely zergs, I have rarely touched these guys before, even in the original Starcraft so much practice is needed. These pics are shot with 8xAA + Multisampled transparency AA so my FPS was...rubbish, but hey they look nice.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg2.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg3.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg4.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg5.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stopit.tidyup/Zerg6.jpg
Also: kekekekeke.
I will upload a better video later due to FPS issues and my ventrilo stream being captured too, bloody fraps! It is in 1080p though
pivot said:
Well I have a Q8300 (@ 3.0GHz), but it seems like it could be the issue.
Just confirmed...it is a CPU issue. I dropped my core affinity to 1, and my FPS dropped to 25fps. That means I should be entirely CPU limited at that point, correct? Dropping my graphical settings to low at that point raises my framerate to 110. Something is very wrong with the game.
Ice Monkey
Member
Ok, that's plainly insane, also, that's why I didn't shout my kekeke.Ice Monkey said:
Anyway, I will do better later when I get to grips with the Zergs systems, honest.
It's a bit resource heavy, that's all. Expect optimizations to come later on down the line, I still find it perfectly playable on my rig as it is anyway as long as I don't apply judicious AA.TheExodu5 said:
Alright, more conclusions from testing:
Looks like the game is CPU heavy. Lowering my resolution doesn't even increase my framerate where I was getting 30fps. The problem here is that graphical settings like Shaders and Terrain Detail are taking the CPU. That makes no sense at all, especially since Shaders by definition are GPU calculations.
So essentially, my 3.0GHz quad-core is limiting me to 30fps at times. That is quite disheartening.
I do hope we see some major improvements.
Looks like the game is CPU heavy. Lowering my resolution doesn't even increase my framerate where I was getting 30fps. The problem here is that graphical settings like Shaders and Terrain Detail are taking the CPU. That makes no sense at all, especially since Shaders by definition are GPU calculations.
So essentially, my 3.0GHz quad-core is limiting me to 30fps at times. That is quite disheartening.
I do hope we see some major improvements.
Fragamemnon
Member
Ice Monkey said:
Build a Raven from the Starport (which you had already teched to for medivacs)? When you scan the Dark Shrine, build a tech lab onto the Starport and get one out.
BTW, as I understand it the first ten automatch games you play determine your overall initial league placement, so if you have a rough time of it at the start once you get past those first few games you should have a bit smoother experience. Personally, when playing a new RTS, my goal is to win maybe one game in my first twenty or twenty five as I learn the basics. That's part of the RTS learning curve in 1v1 automatch, though I admit I usually do a bit better than that (but it's important to set realistic expectations).
The beta initially gives you the option to play 5 free matches. From what I could tell, these matches have no effect on your league placement. They're just offered as an optional warm-up. You're free to skip those first 5 matches and go directly to the 10 matches which determine your league placement. When I completed the 10 league placement matches, I got placed into the 63rd position of the Copper League (7th division). The stats say I've only won 2 matches but I'm pretty sure I have at least 3 (maybe 4) wins.Fragamemnon said:
Ice Monkey said:
The new science vessel is the raven. Every terran must use this unit, it can detect and it has very useful support skill + the missile seeker (better than psi storm but cost a lot of energy).
I watched some replays yesterday and I totally underestimate the reapers.
They are deadly with a good micro. 40 damage per reaper on every building it's insane :lol
Build stuff all the time. Never let money get higher than 400 perferably. Expand and produce while attacking. Have a game plan. Don't get supply blocked. Scout. Counter.sprsk said:
Or just go:
Overlord, pool, gas, OL, Queen, Hatch, Roach and you'll win 90% of your games.
http://starcraft-source.com/unitdatabase/
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=34
Or be David Kim
Right, settings comparison time.
The following settings are set using the Texture and Graphics quality settings.
The difference between Ultra and High is quite subtle (Mainly shadows and detail textures, but the effect on FPS is anything but subtle. Medium and Low look frankly ugly in my view but I'll let you decide for yourselves.
Ultra Settings
High Settings
Medium Settings
Low Settings
The following settings are set using the Texture and Graphics quality settings.
The difference between Ultra and High is quite subtle (Mainly shadows and detail textures, but the effect on FPS is anything but subtle. Medium and Low look frankly ugly in my view but I'll let you decide for yourselves.
Ultra Settings
High Settings
Medium Settings
Low Settings
I can confirm the complete opposite really.TheExodu5 said:
Using Ultra settings, 4xAA/16x AF applied using nHancer, getting around 40-50 fps. MSI Afterburner has a GPU meter and while playing SC2 it is locked to 100% pretty much constantly. The game may like CPU power too but the game is by no means not underutilising my GPU (An ASUS GTX275) by any means.
Also, turning the game down from Ultra, to High, Medium etc causes immediate FPS gains, a clear sign of a GPU, not CPU limited game. My CPU, a Q9400 Overlocked to 3.6Ghz isn't a huge amount faster than yours either, so it isn't much of a factor.
Scrow said:
Like I said, I put myself in a CPU limited situation (locked affinity to 1 core). With 2 cores, I would get 40fps, with 1 core, I would get 25fps. That is CPU limitation, okay? So afterwards, all I do is set shaders to low (don't even need to touch any of the other settings), and my FPS jumps over 100. That means that the shader setting on low is lowering the CPU usage.
The methodology is solid.
Stop It said:
You're running with 4xAA through nHancer, of course you're going to be taxing your GPU a lot more. I've already cleared the fact that I'm CPU limited with high graphical settings, which explains the lower than 100% GPU usage. Also, a 3.6GHz overclock is definitely a big boost...that's 20% extra speed right there. My reported 40fps would be nearly 50fps to you (also your CPU has more cache).
For the record here's my test in full.
Everything ultra (affinity set to 4 cores, with Starcraft utilizing 2 cores):
Setting the affinity to 1 core:
Since I got a major FPS drop, we can conclude that I am CPU bound. There should be no arguments here.
Settings, for reference:
Now let's try just changing Shaders to low.
As shaders are purely GPU operations, we should not see an increase in FPS as I am still CPU bound. Shaders are having an absolutely enormous hit on CPU requirements when they should not at all. The CPU requirements would have to be 4x as high with shaders on High/Ultra, which is ludicrous!
Also, Shaders, Terrain Detail, and 3D portraits are the only options that actually have an impact on my framerate at this point.
Everything ultra (affinity set to 4 cores, with Starcraft utilizing 2 cores):
Setting the affinity to 1 core:
Since I got a major FPS drop, we can conclude that I am CPU bound. There should be no arguments here.
Settings, for reference:
Now let's try just changing Shaders to low.
As shaders are purely GPU operations, we should not see an increase in FPS as I am still CPU bound. Shaders are having an absolutely enormous hit on CPU requirements when they should not at all. The CPU requirements would have to be 4x as high with shaders on High/Ultra, which is ludicrous!
Also, Shaders, Terrain Detail, and 3D portraits are the only options that actually have an impact on my framerate at this point.
Not 100% correct. To say something is CPU Bound means that the CPU is the limiting factor to FPS. Just because a game actually utilises more than one core (The shock!) proper does not make it CPU bound.TheExodu5 said:
As I said, when I change graphics settings, my FPS changes, AND my GPU usage is near 100% with or without AA applied, the result is more FPS, because of the GPU being the limiting factor. As long as you have a decent CPU, the GPU is the limiting factor in Starcraft 2 (As it stands), it also likes CPU power like any decent 2010 game should, that is all.
You're applying flawed logic to your methodology and looking at things at a very basic level, the graphics settings ARE GPU settings, you've just got your wires crossed. Download MSI afterburner, look at the GPU usage. When you do, come back and try to tell me SC2 is CPU bound.
All GPU limited settings. Case closed.
Edit: The GTX275 is quite the beast, however if the CPU isn't feeding it at the pace it requires, FPS WILL SUFFER. Set Crysis to 1 core affinity and tell me you get the same FPS as Dual/Quad core. OMG CRYSIS IS CPU BOUND!
FieryBalrog
Member
zoukka said:
That's what you might think, but the most common problem for newbies is nothing to do with micro, its their economy management and lack of any good build order.
So for a newbie:
Find an opening build order that makes sense.
Spend your money.
Expand when appropriate.
Make more units.
Win.
Stop It said:
You're not getting it.
YOU'RE RUNNING AT 100% USAGE SO YOU'RE GPU BOUND. OF COURSE CHANGING THE SETTINGS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR GPU PERFORMANCE.
IF DECREASING MY CPU SPEED MAKES ME HAVE FAR LOWER FPS, THEN I AM CPU BOUND AT THAT POINT. THEREFORE, DECREASING GRAPHICS SETTINGS WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE SINCE I SHOULD NOT BE DECREASING THE LOAD ON MY CPU BY CHANGING THEM.
I don't think you understand what CPU bound means.
edit: setting my affinity to 1 core was a way to prove that I was CPU bound at that point. Decreasing my CPU performance had a direct impact on the FPS, which meant it was the baseline for my framerate. If my baseline fps is determined by my CPU at that point, which I have proven, then how would decreasing the GPU load increase my framerate? The only way it could is if that setting also decreased CPU load.
Dreams-Visions
Member
nobody's games scale like Blizzard's games.TheExodu5 said:Hmmm from watching some more replays, the game is actually very demanding in terms of performance hardware.
My Q8300 @ 3.0GHz and GTX 275 drops to 30fps in very normal circumstances (bout 45 pop on each team...no battles occurring at the moment). Dropping everything to lowest brings that up to about 70fps. I'm not sure exactly how scalable the game is at the moment, as I could be CPU limited at low settings.
Definitely kind of disappointed I can't maintain 60fps with decent visual settings though.
No, you don't.TheExodu5 said:
Killing an entire core will of course destroy your FPS is a multi-core optimized game, THAT IS NOT CPU LIMITATION (In your case, it merely proves that people still using Single core CPUs are...silly.). You test CPU limitation by decreasing CPU SPEED, Not CPU cores. As I said before, you can prove every game is "CPU Bound" by turning off cores that otherwise are in use.
Again, if a multi-core game is limited to 1 core, the throughput required to render the game is greatly changed, it chokes the GPU as well as the CPU because of it. You need to put your PC to your USUAL settings, I.E, no affinities set, default settings etc, THEN change the quality settings. If your FPS changes when changing GPU settings, you are GPU, not CPU limited.
Applying artificial limitations to try to prove a point is stupid, You haven't proven anything other than Starcraft being multi-core enabled. Post your FPS in game AT ULTRA AND LOW, if it is different at your NATIVE RESOLUTION (Not 800x600 or anything hilarious) YOU ARE GPU LIMITED.
Comprende?
Stop It said:
I'm done talking to a brick wall.
If you want to explain your way out of this, do so. You claim I hit a CPU wall at 51fps there (the different resolution shots clearly indicate that I am CPU bound at that point, as decreasing the GPU load did not increase my framerate). How could I ever go above 51fps without decreasing the load on the CPU at that point?
If you can't answer that, I'm done.
BudokaiMR2
Member
I can't believe that I didn't get in. I really convinced myself that having that little SC beta mark on my battlenet acct meant i was getting in.
I really convinced myself that having that little SC beta mark on my battlenet acct meant i was getting in.Thanks, Try actually using other than black and white methodology and you may learn something.TheExodu5 said:
Moving swiftly on, I'll be moving onto the Protoss at some point, should be interesting.
It means that you've found one limitation, your CPU cannot do more than 51 fps. However, if you increase GPU settings and it lowers your FPS, you move the bottleneck to your GPU, like I have done.TheExodu5 said:
You have proved one thing, that you, like many others do not realise that bottlenecks aren't absolute, you can find the limits of one component, then push the other until that becomes the bottleneck. You've proven that Starcraft 2 likes CPU power, I have never disputed that. However, if you can get your FPS to change at any point by using GPU settings then you have successfully moved the bottleneck from your CPU to your GPU.
Your CPU limits SC2 to 50ish FPS, that we know, the question now should be, can you use the excess GPU power to change the limiting factor, if the answer is yes, then you know the game is balanced for both GPU and CPU power. If however you CANNOT get your FPS to change, no matter the settings/effect, Then you are fully CPU limited, a good test of this is by changing CPU speed.
No, I did not, read again.TheExodu5 said:
51fps is your FPS cap thanks to your CPU at certain GPU settings (I said this above, and even then, you've shown higher FPS than that, which shows your bottleneck is far more complex than "lulz it's all CPU"), however stating that SC2 is CPU limited because of YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is incorrect.
All games are made with certain limitations in mind, and this is no exception. SC2 has been made with a certain CPU speed in mind, below that and the game clearly becomes FPS capped, however, ALL GAMES EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOUR, just look at Crysis (Still the harshest GPU test ever) CPU benchmarks if you don't believe me.
This is further proved by the fact that I am GPU limited, for 2 reasons:
1: My CPU is clearly faster than Blizzard expects it to be, my CPU is not 100% utilised when playing SC2, meaning my GPU is the limiting factor. Given the relatively small difference between mine and TheExodu5 CPUs (600Mhz isn't huge, our CPU is the same class, both have 6MB of cache) the SC2 engine tops out CPU usage between these speeds.
2: My max resolution is higher than TheExodu5, Sorry, but even my native res of 1920 x 1080 is barely high enough to make the GPU the limiting factor nowadays (Tech Sites use 2560 x 1600 to remove CPU limitations). 1680 x 1050 is just not high enough to push the GTX275 unless if you use lots of AA/AF.
Simply put, you've proven why you cannot buy a high end GPU and expect a low/mid range CPU to keep up, especially when you're not using the GPU correctly. Get a better monitor, get the AA/AF on and actually push your GPU to your limits.
sprsk said:
I'm in a similar boat. I haven't really played much of SC with the exception of the campaign and that was many many years ago. What I can say though is that every game I learn something new. So now I've played 18 games, I can say I have a much better stragey with the Terrans against the Protoss - I know what to avoid and what to go for, but there's still a 50/50 chance I'll get screwed by building the wrong type of troop - or not micro'ing my resources. I'm still either mining too much and spending too little or visa versa. Still, after getting another 18 games down I'm hoping to win a few more ~.
Despite being beat a lot in this game, I really enjoy it. I never feel like its the games balance, or stability of the game or the design of the game when I loose. I really do feel its really balanced and that every win and every loss is mine and mine alone.
Oh, just noticed a slightly different question in there, it threw me a bit.TheExodu5 said:
You're assuming that the CPU does nothing for the GPU, which isn't correct, your GPU is clearly capable of generating more FPS but your CPU cannot keep up with your GPUs constant rendering requests.
When you reduce the GPU settings, the GPU has less to ask of the CPU, especially when it comes to physics calcs and rendering calls, as I said, the marriage between CPU and GPU is complex. In a good engine, if you reduce the load on one and usually you'll reduce the load on the other.
A truly CPU limited game would not increase FPS with lower settings, because the engine still wouldn't cope. What you have demonstrated is that SC2 (Especially at Ultra settings) needs both CPU and GPU strength, and it WILL expose either one if they are not. When you reduce the settings, it reduces CPU load also, a sign of a game engine that is dynamic and uses all components in a dynamic way, trying to push as much out of each system as best it can.
As I stated above, SC2 has exposed a mis-balanced system, TheExodu5, and you have exposed a Blizzard engine that is highly scalable, which they are known for.
Minsc
Gold Member
Stop It said:
It makes sense to me. He's going this these steps:
1) Once you can prove you're CPU limited your framerate is the highest it can get and lightening the GPU load shouldn't improve the framerate, since you're CPU limited.
2) Same framerate across high and low resolutions means CPU limited... lowering the resolution puts less load on the GPU, so frame rate normally goes up if you are not CPU limited.
3) Lowering shaders (normally a GPU feature) increased the framerate by over 100% - should have had no effect if his CPU is limiting the framerate.
So this is either a bug, or shaders include items that are being calculated by the CPU.
LowParry
Member
Curious question. Would framerate be different with a live online game vs a replay?
In any event, those who are 3v3 or 4v4 are gonna have a crazy time with this. Large scale battles are crazy but they certainly drop your fps down bad. 2v2 looks to be the sweet spot with High settings. Average fps I get are around 60 - 65 fpg. The big battles of 2v2 drop me down around 25 - 30 fps (Protoss carriers zerg).
My rig for reference:
1920 x 1080 x 60 hertz
AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE
4 gig RAM DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB
I wouldn't mind upgrading my GPU to adding another 4870 or getting a 5700 series card since it was shown earlier that there is a good boost.
In any event, those who are 3v3 or 4v4 are gonna have a crazy time with this. Large scale battles are crazy but they certainly drop your fps down bad. 2v2 looks to be the sweet spot with High settings. Average fps I get are around 60 - 65 fpg. The big battles of 2v2 drop me down around 25 - 30 fps (Protoss carriers zerg).
My rig for reference:
1920 x 1080 x 60 hertz
AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE
4 gig RAM DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB
I wouldn't mind upgrading my GPU to adding another 4870 or getting a 5700 series card since it was shown earlier that there is a good boost.
Minsc
Gold Member
CcrooK said:
It's possible some of the effects are turned down for replays vs live gameplay, but its probably the same.
As interesting as it is to see all the performance results and how framerate scales, Blizzard could still make some pretty drastic improvements for performance for the release (or perhaps fix those few bugs), so I wouldn't necessarily purchase hardware based on the beta's performance.
deathberry
Neo Member
Reading the comments here is making me a little excited. There hasn't been a worthwhile game for me to overclock my system
so I'm wondering what kind of performance boost I can get out of my semi-old rig with everything set to Ultra.
The fps gain from a Radeon HD 4870 to 5770 is negligible, get another 4870 if it's cheap and you're desperate to get more fps in the beta. Unless you're planning to play Metro 2033 with Tesselation
Crysis sucks
CcrooK said:
The fps gain from a Radeon HD 4870 to 5770 is negligible, get another 4870 if it's cheap and you're desperate to get more fps in the beta. Unless you're planning to play Metro 2033 with Tesselation
thesoapster
Member
I haven't started recording my frames yet but I haven't noticed a single slowdown or hiccup. Playing on ultra at 1680x1050 with i7 965, 4GB ram, dual GTX 280 SLI, 7 64-bit.