bit-tech.net

How many CPU cores does StarCraft 2 use?

Comments 1 to 25 of 53

Reply
aron311 18th August 2010, 09:21 Quote
The only other moderately recent game that comes close in terms on addictiveness for me is Supreme Commander..

No real surprises with the results of this test, a decent dual core is just fine!
Queelis 18th August 2010, 09:42 Quote
Really useful article here - every (male) friend I've met since the release of SCII said "Hello" by saying something along the lines of "My life for Aiur!" :D
docodine 18th August 2010, 09:59 Quote
I LONG FOR COMBAT!

I was kind of expecting a big bold 2 on the first page, not sure why. Nice article.
leveller 18th August 2010, 10:04 Quote
Very interesting test results and I am hugely disappointed that the game doesn't utilise anything over 3 cores.
Unknownsock 18th August 2010, 10:07 Quote
To be fair no Blizzard games are really optimised.
perplekks45 18th August 2010, 10:10 Quote
So 3 is the maximum... again?
borandi 18th August 2010, 10:15 Quote
No, 3 is just the limit until something else in the system becomes the bottleneck. Using such a high resolution, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the 1GB frame buffer maxing out and saturating the memory latency on the GPU or the PCI-e bus.

Normally, games are written for single core. Then specific games came out, written for dual core. They could have used adaptive thread management back then, such as OpenMP, but didn't. Now they all do, meaning that *where possible* (the most important phrase) the code will split between cores. There's no longer any code 'optimised for dual or tri or quad core' - it's all written to take advantage of whatever cores are there *where possible*. Until something else becomes the bottleneck - in this case, it's more than likely the GPU or something GPU related, as I wrote above.
Hugo 18th August 2010, 10:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Unfortunately the desktop software gadget bawked at showing 5-cores

Balked maybe?
V3ctor 18th August 2010, 10:35 Quote
Finally something that uses my 4 cores in my Q6600... Although I think that BFBC2 also uses all of them...

Nice review Bit-tech.
okenobi 18th August 2010, 10:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by docodine
I LONG FOR COMBAT!

Somebody call an exterminator?!

Fascinating </Spock>

Would've expected more benefit from quad over dual from this game. Good news for those on a budget.
Platinum 18th August 2010, 10:42 Quote
3 cores will always be the sweet spot because that's how many the 360 has...
B1GBUD 18th August 2010, 12:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
3 cores will always be the sweet spot because that's how many the 360 has...

I wonder how true this is... you may have stumbled onto something there.
Hustler 18th August 2010, 12:27 Quote
Once again 3 cores is shown to be the sweet spot, as it has been for the last 18mths since the Phenom X3 720 was launched, benchmark after benchmark has shown you get 90-95% of the performance of a 4 core CPU for only 60-70% of the cost....in games anyway.

Yet time and time again people overlook this fact....and ignore buying 3 core CPU's....so fixated they are on the Quad core myth....

If your after a cheap gaming rig, 3 cores maximum is all you 'need'......of course 4 cores is what people 'want'

Cant see it changing for at least the next 2yrs either, given that so much of what we get on PC's nowdays are console ports, of which the Xbox 360 is the lead development platform, which has a 3 core CPU.....

Coincidence?.....i think not.
void 18th August 2010, 12:29 Quote
Where does hyper threading stand in this?

Can we assume a hyper threaded i3 is worth about 3 physical cores?
Pete J 18th August 2010, 12:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by void
Where does hyper threading stand in this?

Can we assume a hyper threaded i3 is worth about 3 physical cores?

Ohh, good question! Any chance of some more results BT?
wuyanxu 18th August 2010, 12:35 Quote
computers are a binary system. next one up from 2 is 4. that's why i didn't buy tri-core system, or tri-channel memory systems.

after all the trouble i've had with my 8800gtx, gtx260 when trying to get hackintosh working, it's best to stick to powers of 2.

still, bring on large amount of x3 users praising themselves.
impar 18th August 2010, 12:39 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
computers are a binary system. next one up from 2 is 4. that's why i didn't buy tri-core system, or tri-channel memory systems.
Yep. No point on messing with the "x2 system".

A stock quad-core or an overclocked dual-core...
Considering ambient temperatures of ~30ºC, stock quad-core, thanks.
Bindibadgi 18th August 2010, 12:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
Quote:
Originally Posted by void
Where does hyper threading stand in this?

Can we assume a hyper threaded i3 is worth about 3 physical cores?

Ohh, good question! Any chance of some more results BT?

2 cores + HT? It'll have to be on this i7 system so not quite Clarkdale exactly, but it'll give you an idea. I'll even pull out a memory stick so it runs with 4G in dual channel ;) I'll update you later - need to finish an SSD review first :D
kingred 18th August 2010, 14:14 Quote
ok now try these tests when you play online in ultra and you simultaneously zerg rushed and bio-balled.
maverik-sg1 18th August 2010, 14:31 Quote
CPU manufacturers already stating the cores will continue to replace mhz in terms of development (that is to say number of cores will continue while clock speed increases will be relatively minor) The big question is:

When will we really see everyday programs and games that are designed to scale in line with the number of (real) cores available?
Hakuren 18th August 2010, 14:53 Quote
Ignoring here all SC2 theme. SC1 was seriously bad and SC2 isn't any better. Supreme Ruler 2020 or EU3 (e.g.) trash it by huge margin for me.

On a hardware front. HT is useless addition to mainstream CPUs (no matter P4 family or i7). HT is only useful in Really Heavily loaded server environments (VM). Running (e.g.) i7 with 4 real cores and 4 virtual HT is total waste. In particular if CPU is OCed, HT after all hampering OC capability, and as a bonus - disabled HT = lower power consumption and less heat.

Nice review. Proving that running OCed i7 today is completely bonkers (6 core in particular). Thumbs up for that, maybe some people will see the light now, because OC is lifestyle thingy today. I running i7 920 at stock speed [easily can pump it up to 4.1 GHz without toying with voltages etc... - tested for 2-3 weeks with my MSI Eclipse SLI] with all energy saving C-states enabled and never ever had a single application/game stuttering because CPU was to slow. Amazingly, even with permanently running WCG/BOINC a lot of software still can't max out 4 cores. I rest my case.
DrTiCool 18th August 2010, 14:59 Quote
another game that proves that 3 cores are enought for today's pc gaming
billysielu 18th August 2010, 15:13 Quote
You don't want a game to use all your cores - otherwise your other processes will lock up.
Platinum 18th August 2010, 15:15 Quote
There is something wrong there if Boinc doenst max out all the cores, thats what its designed to do, to use all spare CPU cycles for the projects.
schmidtbag 18th August 2010, 15:44 Quote
This is why i'm proud to know I went with a $75 AMD triple core (and unlocked the 4th) and didn't waste $200+ on something I'm not going to use. I don't care about having the latest and greatest if it won't actually contribute to anything I do. Surprisingly the most CPU intensive game I have is the free steam game, Alien Swarm, and that only brings my CPU up to about 80% usage at most (which is weird because it doesn't always do that, even if i'm playing the same map), but on average its about 50%.

I'm sure what many of you also don't realize is your 4GB+ of RAM is typically useless for games (unless you're running 64 bit vista). I have 2GB in 32 bit Windows 7 and it has yet to be maxed out. Keep in mind, PS3 uses 256MB of RAM.

People with stuff like i7s and 6GB of RAM can brag all they want but IMO its kinda like driving a hummer with a little better gas consumption. The vehicle sure looks cool, its so big you could probably live in it, and can handle probably any kind of terrain you'd encounter, but its incredibly overkill for most people and very expensive. Would you some day need it? Probably, but not any time soon. In the mean time, a Jeep would do just fine (no I don't own or plan to own a jeep).
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums