Starcraft 2: Dual or Quad Core?

Even though SC2 is still in beta, is there any evidence suggesting a preference between dual and quad cores? Which CPU of Intel's i series would optimally run the game on max settings?

 

For the beta version, it showed that it's highly CPU dependant, quad core does give better performance, but not linear scaling, only slightly better performance. Not sure if they would optimize it even more for quad core in the retail version.

 

Considering i3's and i5's (and some i7's) are hyper threaded and can handle four threads well with two cores, I don't think there will be much of an issue if it is optimized for quad cores (or four threads really), because they will be able to handle it.

 

From what I understand, benchmarks optimized for more than 2 cores actually run better on the dual-core 620m than the 720qm. So multiple threads don't necessarily mean more cores will handle it better (due to hyperthreading and turbo boosting of i# CPUs).

Having said that, I haven't been keeping up with the many benchmarks of SC2 on this forum, but I believe an i5-520m (or even 430m) should be powerful enough (and if they aren't, then a 620m or 720qm won't do you a whole lot better).

 

From a programming perspective, Blizzard may make SC2 scale better with more cores. Reason I'm saying this is because with a lot of units battling it out, well there is just a lot going on. Physics, AI, pathing, etc. could be leveraged to work with multiple cores.

If you are looking to buy a computer just to play SC2, don't make your judgment based on SC2 alone.

 

Quad Core > Dual Core and it has been that way for a long time.

 

The real question would be if SC2 makes use of more than four threads. I'll ask ViciousXUSMC if he can comment. He's got a G73 and SC2 beta account.

Edit: LOL, speak of the devil! posted at the same time...

 

Quad core IS better than dual core for SC2 beta, so yes, it does make use of 4 cores, though it's not perfectly balanced so you won't see linear gains with more cores. Also, when you already have a GPU of 5870MR level, the CPU will already be the bottleneck for SC2.

 

I did tests with single, dual, 3 and 4 cores with my machine and I found the 4 cores, despite being only 1.6ghz got better minimum framerates and around the same max framerate, sometime less.

Single core gave highest fps but lowest min fps, and when you start to actually build any army or battle it out, it just dips to hell eventually.

I made the test with 1920x1080 and ultra settings. avrg fps were 25-28 or so.

Curiously, it seems that the game does discriminate between physical and logical cores, using all threads but only giving real loads to the actual core. Additionally, 1 core was used the most where the rest where more balanced out.

 

Dang, haven't talked about SC2 + i5's in a long time...

Will the 450M/520M do it? That's what I'm planning to purchase in the E14.

 

quad but even dual cuts it.. i play on an old dual and its good..

 

I saw a benchmark that it showed FPS scaled with clock frequency and dual core was fine. It just had avg fps I believe. This was tested using the same GPU, I believe an ATI 5870 - the CPU may have been bottlenecked at this pint. Personally, I would probably opt for a faster dual core, even the i5-450/520 if you were concerned with costs. If it's a pure gaming rig, I guess why not a quad core.

 

Hyperthreading is no match for extra physical Cores and in many cases make absolutely no difference in gaming performance.

 

SC2 played just fine on my MSI laptop. Core i5-430, intel HD graphics. 1366x768 resolution i think. I think you will do just fine with a dual core.

 

Most early beta reviews suggested that its a 2 core optimized game, but even then they got better results on Quads n recommened them over dual, a good i5 should be more than enough. Remember the following reviews are desktops cpus, also remember this is beta, so things can change for release or even later.

Legionhardware's StarCraft II Wings of Liberty

Pcgameshardware Starcraft 2 Beta CPU benchmarks

Toms Hardware, StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

I wish a laptop site would test mobile cpus though, as the desktop quads are much higher clocked at based than laptops, so the above statement might or not be valid, but i think a high clocked i5 should be more than enough for sc2.

 

I do not get how your able to play sc2 with intel hd graphics. (lowest possible settings?)
Also how well will a Core i5-450m with ati radeon hd 5650 play sc2? could it play sc2 at high settings fluently/steady? (1600x900 res)

 

My Laptop smokes it with my dual core. I still don't feel like it is time to upgrade yet.

 

I'm able to play it much smoother with a Q9550 + 9800M GT compared to my friend with an X9100 + 8800M GTX ._. It's not that noticable but frame rates, I get about 3-5 fps higher than him on high graphics settings at 1280 x 720

I do get some input lag at times but meh, I'm guessing it's due to me being back in South East Asia with slow internet connection playing a the EU version. At one point playing a 1v7 FFA against AIs, my fps actually dropped to 1-2 for the remainder of the game so I had to quit that one

 

I'm looking to upgrade laptops, sc 2 will prob be the only game i'd play on it. Don't wanna go too extravagant so $850 canadian is prob my limit. I'm leaning between 2 models.

Dell Vostro 3700, i5 450m, 4 gb ddr3, 320gb hd 7200 rpm, nvidia gt 330m, 17.3" LED Display (1600 x 900)

or

Lenovo Y560, i3 330m, 4gb ddr3, 320GB 5400 rpm, radeon hd 5730, 15.6 " HD Wide LED 1366x768

Ofcourse i realize the hd 5730 is probably far superior for graphics, but i've been hearing the game is more cpu intensive. Would be happy to run the game on med-high any input is greatly appreciated!

 

Diesel, you should post that question on the What Notebook Should I Buy forum. Fill out the stickied FAQ, too, and the knowledgeable folks there can tell you what's what about the laptops out there. There are definitely others out there in the same range as what you're looking at, and we might be able to find one that fits you and doesn't sacrifice on either CPU or GPU.

 

Alright i'll go have a look over there thankyou!

 

It ran quite well on my T8300 8600M GT, 1440x900, medium settings averaging 50fps.

In fact, a friend plays it on his laptop, i3-330m, IGP, pretty fluidly as well.

SC2 scales well with legacy hardware... I would say : )

 

Alright good to know..think i have it down to 2 faster cpus though. Either an acer with a phenom ii x4 n930 quad or a i5 450m toshiba both with hd 5650. Those cpus seem to run pretty close performance-wise on some benchmarks any thoughts to wether one would be any benefit over the other due to hyper threading or turbo boost?

 

I personally think that upgrading a laptop just to play a certain game is not a good idea. Mainly, because laptops are expensive compared to desktops. For the price of a laptop, one could build a computer which will be at least 2x faster than the laptop. I guarantee... I understand that one needs to have a mobile PC with outstanding performance, but it's not worth it. The PC I built on my sig came out to be $685 *pretax*. For that price, you can never buy a laptop with that performance, not to mention the monitor...

My opinion, of course.

Best Regards, Leonid

 

For many of us here at NBR, its not about price, but the mobility of laptops. If price were an issue, nobody would ever buy a laptop.

 

I only need point you to the last two sentences of this thread post.

 

FWIW, SC2 beta ran perfectly fine at 30-40 fps on low settings at 1680x1050 on my e1505. It scales VERY well.

 

why would anyone still use dou core instead of quad?

 

1. Some people don't have the money (unlike some people).
2. Some games run better on dual core.
3. Dual cores use up less battery.
4. When you customize a laptop, sometimes the dual core has switchable graphics and the quad doesn't.

TL;DR: Some people aren't made of money or the dual core is more efficient in their needs and not in dedicated gaming.

 

Says a guy allegedly planning to stick a 940xm into his M15x?

Something tells me you aren't really the guy to go to for advice on what components are the best to buy for a laptop.

 

I hope my T5800 C2D will do the job

 

Since I play SC2 on my desktop and have the 3 monitors my cpu widget on my desktop shows on the right monitor.

I can say that SC2 definitely uses all 4 cores on the quad core. I get up to about a 20-30% load on each core but never an equal load on all 4 at once it really fluctuates a lot.

 

makes sense.

even if blizz doesn't say it makes use of the quad core, it does.

 

Has anyone tried playing SC2 on their CULV? Any comments on performance?

 

It does not mean that because a game shows usage of all 4 Cores that it is actually getting much benefit from them, if any. You need to analyse the total percentage use taking into account all Cores and what the highest percentage use is as well. Take GTA IV as an example, that game uses over 94% of all Cores which means a Dual Core will never match that but if a game is only using 30% of each Core than you have to ask yourself what benefit it is getting and whether a Dual Core would be just as good or exactly the same. In most cases a Quad will help because it will deal with any background processes well but I don't think those are enough to make a big performance differences in normal circumstances.

If a game is using 30% of each Core then a Dual Core with usage of about 60% on each Core will be fine unless the game is specifically designed to split activities and functions into separate threads.

 

I didnt say it worked better on quad just saying it used all 4 cores so we know its got threads to do it.

I will maybe look for a scenario that would use more cpu power, also keep in mind this is a 3.6ghz overclocked Q6600 so on a laptop that would be more than 30% load.

 

Search YT for Starcraft 2 m11x. There's also an Asus UL series on there playing SC2.

 

For a laptop it's mainly about battery life. Core i3's and i5's and dual core i7's have internal GPU so you can switch graphics to get much longer battery life. Quad cores don't include the integrated GPU so your battery life is typically cut in half if you have a dedicated GPU.

For 99% of games or other apps out there a dual core i5 or i7 is more than sufficient considering it has the hyperthreading and acts as a quad core.