Graphics Card for Ultra Settings

Technical Support
AMD Athlon II X2 240 Dual-Core Processor, 2.80GHz
3GB RAM
640GB Hard Drive
Windows 7 Home Premium
ATI Radeon HD 5670 1GB GDDR5 Graphics Card

Isn't this enough to run SC2 on the highest settings with a good amount of FPS (40-60)? Currently I have it on High settings with shaders & light on Medium, but I feel that with the graphics card I have, I could have much higher settings.

What am I lacking in order to run SC2 on the highest possible settings?
Starcraft2 is a processor heavy game. It sounds like what you have is the bare minimum to run high/ultra settings. What is your resolution at? I ask because a higher resolution will tax performance moreso than the graphics settings. Try lowering your resolution.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728.html

This is a great page about system benchmarking on SC2, Im using it as my bible to build a new computer for about $300 right now. Your processor, which is exactly what I plan to buy actually (that or a 255 2.9ghz x2), is right on the bottom of processors that can feasibly handle SC2 on high settings, with definite performance stutters once you get high end graphics + resolution.

If you went with a triple core around 3 GHZ, or even ideally a i5, thatd really be hitting max of the max. From what I understand 30 FPS is okay for SC2, and you should be hitting that except only in the most intense of battles.
Thank you so much for your input and the helpful link. I am currently running 1600x900 resolution. Will lowering that allow me to get slightly higher graphic settings?
Probably but it will look worse than having the high resolution. I have a 5770 and I can't play on ultra without the FPS going low from time to time. I can play on high settings pretty alright though.

I actually run the game on low settings though just because i like how the textures are more simple and the colors are brighter.

So in conclusion, no that graphics card probably won't be able to run on ultra settings with a consistently good frame rate.
The Athlon II isn't a very good series of processors in my experience. They're very low budget bottom rung chips. An intel i5 or i7 with a lower clock speed can usually outperform an Athlon II with a higher clock speed.

If you can run Ultra on that cpu with a decent performance I would be extremely surprised.
Thank you so much for your input and the helpful link. I am currently running 1600x900 resolution. Will lowering that allow me to get slightly higher graphic settings?


Be careful with your resolution. If you're using an LCD monitor and don't have the game running at your monitor's native resolution, your display quality will take a significant hit.



____________________________________________________________________________
If you think I'm being a helpful tech then let us know at- https://www.surveymk.com/s/R6YGTBT

Is your issue urgent? Need direct assistance? Contact an Accounts and Technical Services Rep! http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Good luck with the issue, and good gaming!
____________________________________________________________________________
I'm wondering whats needed too, I got a good deal last month on a computer package:

Windows 7 64 Bit
1TB HDD
i7 870 Quad Core @2.93Ghz
8GB DDR3 (1333MHz)
Nvidia 470 GTX - 1GB DDR5
22" Dell LED 1920x1080
cable connection

But with all this, and settings on ultra, there are times where it lags a bit since the frame rate is dropping. Whats odd is its not all the time, but seems to be particular maps. Steppes of War and Shakura cause it the most.

Should I lower my desktop resolution or the in game resolution or both? Any other suggestions are welcome.

MB
22" Dell LED 1920x1080


I greatly recommend having your desktop and in-game resolution at your monitor's native 1920x1080. As for the frame rate drop, make sure you're running the latest drivers for your 470 GTX and don't have any other programs running in the background while playing.

I know your computer is new, but unfortunately new computers often ship with old drivers.




____________________________________________________________________________
If you think I'm being a helpful tech then let us know at- https://www.surveymk.com/s/R6YGTBT

Is your issue urgent? Need direct assistance? Contact an Accounts and Technical Services Rep! http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/contact.html

Good luck with the issue, and good gaming!
____________________________________________________________________________
I'm running starcraft II on my 460gtx hawk edition (did some overclocking), with an i5 2500k at 4.3ghz. the resolution i am using is 1680x1050 everything runs smooth on ultra settings though there was a ram problem something about pagefile so i installed another 4 gb of ram and now everything runs almost perfect. I had a q6600 at 3.0ghz before with the same 460gtx i couldn't maintain 30 frames in 4v4s on high. Only maps i can't run on ultra now are some custom maps like phantom mode when everyone has a max army.
@megabyte try overclocking your cpu if you have an aftermarket cooler
This is wrong. Brand new high end machines should not require overclocking and tweaks to get good performance out of this game.

I want to know what the devs were thinking when they made this game. Something is wrong here. I am so mad about this and other issues. Blizzard has really lost my respect. I remember when the name "Blizzard" meant something. Now it's just another greedy big corp that makes bad decisions that punish its fans. There are enough of those in the gaming industry already.
01/31/2011 12:33 PMPosted by Nillena
High end is

a hex core cpu, 8 or more Gb of ram, and a multi GPU setup, i happen to ahve one and all blizzard games run fine on it


High end is: 4 core, 4GB of RAM, and a newer graphics card. What you have listed is a waste of money.
01/31/2011 12:33 PMPosted by Nillena
What most people call brand new or high end are rarely, 'new' or 'high end'

High end is

a hex core cpu, 8 or more Gb of ram, and a multi GPU setup, i happen to ahve one and all blizzard games run fine on it

Most of these systems are 'good' and 'average'


Bleeding Edge is not the same as your average high end build. There's budget, high end, and bleeding edge. You described a bleeding edge computer. Most of the people building gaming machines are building high end or budget ones, and a lot of people fall somewhere between the two.

A bleeding edge build is considered by most people to be a waste of time and money.
Nevermind. I can see this is a waste of my time.
I agree that i probably don't need to overclock the graphics card because at my resolution stock clock is fine. However cpu is another story depending on what map you're playing (custom maps) an overclocked cpu will help maintain the max frames you can achieve on your graphics card. And all this talk about high end low end, it all depends on the person some would consider a 460gtx high end meanwhile some will consider it low end from an enthusiast's point of view.
There is no set system for declaring high end and low end its all personal preference. Just like poor and rich how do you determine who is rich and who is poor?
@Davidba

Thanks for the recommendations. Unfortunately, all the drivers are up to date, wish it was gonna be that easy. As far as the resolution, I do have both running at the same 1920x1080, maybe I should try lowering both to something like 1600x900 and see how it runs.

@Hero
No can overclock, just a stock fan in the tower =(

Thanks for the tips though. I'll keep tinkering.
The Athlon II isn't a very good series of processors in my experience. They're very low budget bottom rung chips. An intel i5 or i7 with a lower clock speed can usually outperform an Athlon II with a higher clock speed.

If you can run Ultra on that cpu with a decent performance I would be extremely surprised.


Duh. That's like saying Civics are a horrible series of car, Ferrari usually outperforms them. Which one is the better deal though?

Thank you so much for your input and the helpful link. I am currently running 1600x900 resolution. Will lowering that allow me to get slightly higher graphic settings?


Resolution is really the most taxing thing on the graphics card, since it has to draw more, make sense? So yes (native resolution as Blue said is important though).

This is wrong. Brand new high end machines should not require overclocking and tweaks to get good performance out of this game.

I want to know what the devs were thinking when they made this game. Something is wrong here. I am so mad about this and other issues. Blizzard has really lost my respect. I remember when the name "Blizzard" meant something. Now it's just another greedy big corp that makes bad decisions that punish its fans. There are enough of those in the gaming industry already.


They dont require overclocking, obviously people don't know how to configure a computer. How is Blizzard the problem when its your fault you cant configure a computer? As for 'greedy big corp' the reason they make sure good games is because they are so greedy, its one and the same. The more money, the better the talent, better the games. Otherwise talent can simply go somewhere else, or make their own company, instead of work for Blizzard. Hell you bought the game, and your going to sit here and say Blizzard sucks when you support the 'sucking'. And can you honestly say this game is not one of the 10 best games out right now, or at least the top 5 in strategy games? Did you actually regret that $60, or do you usually get more value for the money?

Chill out, SC/BW arent nearly as fun, even if they were better at their time.

But Nilena is an idiot, apparently it takes at least 4 cores just to run Solitaire according to his crap. What the OP posted is enough to play High, which is extremely good. He is just barely under for both his CPU and GPU, a CPU/GPU worth $20 in both would be enough to hit the minimum for Ultra in 1v1 smoothly.
02/01/2011 12:32 AMPosted by Belial
The Athlon II isn't a very good series of processors in my experience. They're very low budget bottom rung chips. An intel i5 or i7 with a lower clock speed can usually outperform an Athlon II with a higher clock speed.

If you can run Ultra on that cpu with a decent performance I would be extremely surprised.


Duh. That's like saying Civics are a horrible series of car, Ferrari usually outperforms them. Which one is the better deal though?

Thank you so much for your input and the helpful link. I am currently running 1600x900 resolution. Will lowering that allow me to get slightly higher graphic settings?


Resolution is really the most taxing thing on the graphics card, since it has to draw more, make sense? So yes (native resolution as Blue said is important though).

This is wrong. Brand new high end machines should not require overclocking and tweaks to get good performance out of this game.

I want to know what the devs were thinking when they made this game. Something is wrong here. I am so mad about this and other issues. Blizzard has really lost my respect. I remember when the name "Blizzard" meant something. Now it's just another greedy big corp that makes bad decisions that punish its fans. There are enough of those in the gaming industry already.


They dont require overclocking, obviously people don't know how to configure a computer. How is Blizzard the problem when its your fault you cant configure a computer? As for 'greedy big corp' the reason they make sure good games is because they are so greedy, its one and the same. The more money, the better the talent, better the games. Otherwise talent can simply go somewhere else, or make their own company, instead of work for Blizzard. Hell you bought the game, and your going to sit here and say Blizzard sucks when you support the 'sucking'. And can you honestly say this game is not one of the 10 best games out right now, or at least the top 5 in strategy games? Did you actually regret that $60, or do you usually get more value for the money?

Chill out, SC/BW arent nearly as fun, even if they were better at their time.

But Nilena is an idiot, apparently it takes at least 4 cores just to run Solitaire according to his crap. What the OP posted is enough to play High, which is extremely good. He is just barely under for both his CPU and GPU, a CPU/GPU worth $20 in both would be enough to hit the minimum for Ultra in 1v1 smoothly.



Plan to build a computer, and basically cost > SC2 performance are my concerns.

Here's my setup right now, and I think I'm pretty decided on it. My concerns are making sure it all plugs into eachother correctly as i have no experience making computers, and my computer knowledge is 3 days of intense research + common sense.

lol.

You sure talk alot of *@*# for someone that admits not knowing anything about computers and has to run multiple threads on several site's for a simple $450 build.


So quit trolling this thread. You just keep saying no, but you have yet to post a single link, or provide any math, or even supply any anecdotal evidence or horror stories.


Take your own advice and stop trolling and psoting advice when you admitedly have NO experience with PC's.
^ You don't need any experience or knowledge to know things like what I said, about resolution being more taxing, or that SC2 is cpu intensive. Its all over the internetz.

If anything I said was wrong, say so. Otherwise, you just come off as an elitist jerk because 'you know more about computers'.

But I don't know much about computers. I do know a lot about Starcraft 2 specifications, specifically, what the performance will be theoretically with different pieces of hardware. And its not so much I know this, but I've read a million legit articles on the subject. Everything I stated, I'll be happy to provide at least 3 links backing it up from sites like Tomshardware and xbit.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum