Quad core optimization for Starcraft 2

Gaming, Entertainment and Science
They didn't want to force people to renew their hardware,not everybody can do that for just a single game even if it is epic,that is why they made the game that way.This is a good and bad thing.As a quad owner i don't care much,but i feel really sad for those who has i7
I know ppl which play sc2 (on lowest settings ofc) on PC's which they bought 6years ago for like 700$. Like literaly XP machines with 2.1 dualcores, 256mb cards of geforce 7000/8000series and 2 - 3000 ram, laggy in modes above 2n2 but yet the game works and doenst crash, so your actual point doenst really make much sence.
Especially it hardly makes sence, since the min. system requiments dont have anything to do - or stay in any connection - with the fact that PC's capeable of running the game maxed out get trottled down on purpouse for w/e reason.

If at all you could say they made it so if Player WoodPC has laggs, Player 5.000.000.000$ NASA PC has laggs aswell, out of balance basicly. Which ofc then doesnt make sence again taht the game lets you choose different graphic settings and stuff, whilest playing on highest settings gives a clearly in adwance in some cases, especially at making out invisible units on the screen.


and btw. an almost all I7 CPU's still "only" have 4Cores, just with the different off adwanced thread functions (8x per core), so basicly I7 owners need to feel sorry for Quadcore owners, since we suffer the least from the non-quadcore support.
As exmaple: my I7 loads the game faster on max settings then my Q9550 on min settings, and if I max. out the system on my Q9550 it needs like 20sec longer to load then my I7.
:P
I'm not against ppl who has older computers.While those people do well with theirs i want my computer to do as well.I really paid a lot to run the game flawlessly,at least it's a lot for me.250$ for gpu and 300$ for cpu and look what they have made.Any maxed out army combats leave you with 20~ fps.I hope we won't have problems like this in Diablo 3
I have the same issues on i7 2600k @ 4.8 ghz
and a NVIDIA GTX680

game still runs friggin slow and VERY LOW fps in big fights.

This means 30-40 fps in big 1v1 fights
under 20 fps in 4v4 fights!

These fps values on graphicscard not going over 40% load
and CPU not going over 40% use. (only 1 core goes to 80-100%)

With a high end machine? BLIZZARD! please start supporting quad core and graphic card properly!!

This is the worst hardware game design I have ever seen in any game. I don't know any other game where high end machines get slowed down by the game itsself
Not only Quad cores.
How about SLI?
No support for that whatsoever.
My 2nd card is just sitting there at 0% usage while playing.
Not only Quad cores.
How about SLI?
No support for that whatsoever.
My 2nd card is just sitting there at 0% usage while playing.


haha, dont get me started about graphics usage in sc2, as it is almost non existant. my gtx680 is used less than 40% when the game runs at 15fps. it's heavily bottlenecked by the CPU. as long as sc2 doesnt support quad core, newer graphic cards will never be used to their theoretical performance.

the game runs almost as bad on my new gt680 as on my gtx460.
Basically older processors (Intel Core 2 Duo) would be much better for running SC II than newer processors such as the AMD FX-8xxx series or the Intel Core i7. Recommended system requirements for SC II: Nvidia GTX 8800, Windows 7 or Vista, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.4 Ghz ... 2 GB RAM.

So essentially 'downgrading' to older processors would play this game better because they only use 2 cores.

Hmm...
stop talking crap you know nothing about.
quad core is benefiting Sc2 indirectly. since 1/2 cores will run Sc2 constantly while others run the baxkground programs.
and btw, Sc2 uses more GPU than CPU.

if it were to use all 4 cores, the game would be unusable for those without directx 11.


Worst reply ever. EVER. sc2 is well known for getting cpu limited. I was running a geforce 550ti on my old rig with an i5 2500k clocked at 4.5ghz. Im now running an i7 and a gtx680 but because the i7 is also running at 4.5ghz (literally to test this) the fps is almost identical to the old system.

If you run a system with plenty of overhead you can see it very clearly in coretemp. SC2 doesn't even take advantage of hyperthreading. If i run a huge battle and watch the cpu usage i get a solid 50% on one core and fluctuating up to 50% on a second core. It's actually one of the most cpu-speed dependent games i've ever seen.

Also, it doesn't have to NEED four cores to run. It's not a simple matter (as many have mentioned) but games can be written to run on 1/2 cores but still optimise if it finds 4/8/12 cores.
How about separate client optimized for Quad core processors and legacy client for older machines.
Worst reply ever. EVER. sc2 is well known for getting cpu limited. I was running a geforce 550ti on my old rig with an i5 2500k clocked at 4.5ghz. Im now running an i7 and a gtx680 but because the i7 is also running at 4.5ghz (literally to test this) the fps is almost identical to the old system.

If you run a system with plenty of overhead you can see it very clearly in coretemp. SC2 doesn't even take advantage of hyperthreading. If i run a huge battle and watch the cpu usage i get a solid 50% on one core and fluctuating up to 50% on a second core. It's actually one of the most cpu-speed dependent games i've ever seen.


The game is not CPU limited.

The CPU simply doesn't have enough things to do to have higher load.

There is a relationship between the threads. The mainthread is the Ui thread, that does calculations for the GPU to use in render. Thats why one core has higher usage than the other. The second core does the calculations for like, damage, mineral gathering, etc etc

You kidding me?
Since when does a perfomance boost does not origin in the hardware you use?


get the highest end PC in this world, and install windows 2000 on it. See how performance goes along.

You claim to be a developer, but you seem to not understand the relationship between hardware and software. If the system is not optimized well enough, your hardware will simply not be able to work at full efficiency, and will eventually break down. You want to tell me that defragmentation in both memory and HDD has nothing to do with software?

You want to tell me that segmentation on execution threads has nothing to do with software? You want to tell me that a program will work on quad core better in all circumstances if you have 4 threads in it?

Now to all the smart boys here wanting quad core.

Tell me guys, what would you put on 4 threads? Maybe you want to to split the graphical thread in two? you know what that would require the programers to do? synchronize the two threads, synchronization that will and shall cause fps drops. If you find 4 things that are heavy enough to be run constantly on every 4 cores of a CPU, ill just quit programming forever.

Real time programming like starcraft 2 should never be put on multi-threading. It is a wonder they managed to get it working on two threads with such good performance.

Now, for the argument "starcraft 2 uses more CPU than GPU"

Who the lolz fooled you into thinking that? What exactly does the CPU do in starcraft 2? have you looked at your CPU usage during starcraft 2? it barely goes above 40% in 4v4. And you know why? because the CPU doesn't have enough things to do in this game. Yes, it calculates the position of every unit in the game on the map. Yes it calculates collisions and physics. Yes, it counts your minerals and processes your input. That's all it does. All these instructions are very easy to calculate for a CPU.

What does the GPU do?

Well, the GPU needs to render every unit, every terrain details, needs to calculate every shader, 60 freeking times per second, sometimes even more. So, you do the math. Do you actually believe the CPU does more job than the GPU? If you do, then i'm sorry, you have nothing to do in this conversation.

Now if we talk about supporting something, that would be SLI and XFire, to help improve the insane amounts of calculation done by the GPU. And YES, your GPU is the one that bottlenecks not the CPU. The CPU can't bottleneck on a decent system due to process segmentation.

morale of the story

Having more threads in a program does not implicitly equal to having better performance.

Read some articles on multi-threading and see for yourself.

Just google it, you'll find a lot.

here's a nice one for nuggets like you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(software)

Also keep in mind that the performance of your game is directly influenced by the performance of the other players on the map, so in case they slow down the game, so will you to prevent abuses

I know ppl which play sc2 (on lowest settings ofc) on PC's which they bought 6years ago for like 700$. Like literaly XP machines with 2.1 dualcores, 256mb cards of geforce 7000/8000series and 2 - 3000 ram, laggy in modes above 2n2 but yet the game works and doenst crash, so your actual point doenst really make much sence.
Especially it hardly makes sence, since the min. system requiments dont have anything to do - or stay in any connection - with the fact that PC's capeable of running the game maxed out get trottled down on purpouse for w/e reason.

If at all you could say they made it so if Player WoodPC has laggs, Player 5.000.000.000$ NASA PC has laggs aswell, out of balance basicly. Which ofc then doesnt make sence again taht the game lets you choose different graphic settings and stuff, whilest playing on highest settings gives a clearly in adwance in some cases, especially at making out invisible units on the screen.

and btw. an almost all I7 CPU's still "only" have 4Cores, just with the different off adwanced thread functions (8x per core), so basicly I7 owners need to feel sorry for Quadcore owners, since we suffer the least from the non-quadcore support.
As exmaple: my I7 loads the game faster on max settings then my Q9550 on min settings, and if I max. out the system on my Q9550 it needs like 20sec longer to load then my I7.
:P


OMG YOU HAS BRAINZ

gtfo this forum is not for us.
Moonshadow - go read wikipedia. Learn how works displaying graphics. Every action in DX9 games (newer also as i recall) is CPU dependant. So every poly needs to be calculated first by CPU to be transformed, textured and postprocessed before it can be displayed on monitor.

And as for now parallelizing graphics is very easy - but it would cause FPS drops only on slower machines (2cores and less - below 3GHz on a core)

How to make it multicore?

1. Collision detection + physics translation.
2. Sound
3. Graphics
4. Calculations

And graphics threads does not have to be synchronized if at least 2 threads work on ~performance cores. That problem is solved by using buffer and l3.

StarCraft 2 is CPU limited - If you would do some testing you would see, that every hundred MHz changes a lot.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
and: majority/minority players - look for a trends.

I know a lot people who tries to play SC2 od GMA 950 - so we should optimize game for them?
Ok, who is right dough, you both have strong arguments and sound convincingly enough...
AAAAAARRRRGGGHHH must choooss-seeee siiii-deeeee.aaaggahhhahhhhhhrrrrruughhhh
xx
I think with every update they put out slow the game down.
i have my system on lowest setting just to play 3v3 on big battles to 45fps
and my specs aren't that bad.
they really need to have multi cpu support.

i7 970 @ 3.6
24gb of ram @ 1866
160 intel ssd
and 770 gtx 4gb.

if you say these specs are bad well then lots of people have it worse.
26/10/2014 19:53Posted by AMSG
I think with every update they put out slow the game down.
i have my system on lowest setting just to play 3v3 on big battles to 45fps
and my specs aren't that bad.
they really need to have multi cpu support.

i7 970 @ 3.6
24gb of ram @ 1866
160 intel ssd
and 770 gtx 4gb.

if you say these specs are bad well then lots of people have it worse.


We have exactly the same problems with Heroes of the Storm, since it uses Starcraft 2 engine. If you take a look into HotS forums, you will see a lot of posts reporting bad performance issues.

Blizzard commited a big mistake using that old, crappy and unoptimized game engine to run HotS on it.
I have an i7 when I play StarCraft 2 it seems only to run on one core. All the cores are at 0% load while only core is pegged out.
Is this still true when I switch my Win7 /64-bit to emulate StarCraft as WindowsXP?
Their is a fix that may kinda sort your problem right click sc2 in the task manager the click got to details then right click then change its priotity to a higher setting (THIS MAY CAUSE SYSTEM INSTABILLITY).

I'm not responsible with what u do with this!!

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum