I'd like to get better StarCraft 2 performance

[mikeymikec]

When playing online and there's a lot going on with the map, SC2 posts a message saying that my computer is slowing things down. It's not "slideshow" slow, but there is a very definite FPS hit that I would like to address.

My PC spec:

Ph2 X6 960T (3GHz)
4GB DDR3-1600
GeForce 750Ti, 1080p monitor
Samsung 840 PRO 256GB
Win7 64 SP1

Looking at old SC2 benchmarks (such as Tech Report's review of the Sandy Bridge processors when they first came out), I'm inclined to think that a platform upgrade (ie. CPU + mobo) would be the best way to achieve at least an improvement of 20fps over what I'm getting at the moment, however I also note that those benchmarks were done on 8GB systems, and while SC2 is a 32-bit game, I wonder whether it's pushing memory usage just far enough to make Windows take action against a low memory scenario.

I guess what I could really do with is someone saying "I tried 8GB RAM to improve SC2 performance and it made zero difference" which is what my current suspicion is. I've thought about overclocking my CPU but in said benchmarks a faster Ph2 by even 500MHz made very little difference to the average FPS.

 

[Essence_of_War]

What settings are playing on and what sort of frame rates are you seeing?

The easiest thing to check would be dropping settings and seeing if your FPS improves. It has the added advantage of being cheap. I very much doubt you are seeing slowdowns from main memory swapping to disk, but I could see vram swapping to main memory if textures, shadows, etc, are high.

If adjusting graphics settings doesn't fix this, then maybe a platform upgrade would be something to consider.

Side question:
Aren't all of the p2x6 chips 1XXX? I thought 9XX was x4 only?

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm running on custom settings these days. I started on the highest, but ones that say they're CPU intensive I've lowered. I'll start up SC2 and attempt to screenshot the settings page.

When the game is running at a calmer moment or say in campaign, it's running to vsync, so 60fps no problem. It's just in multiplayer when something really hectic occurs that in maybe two scenarios out of four I get SC2 reporting that my computer is slowing things down.

Most Ph2s are X4 = quad core etc, but the 960T is a Thuban design along with the other X6s, and the 960T is a 6-core processor with two cores disabled (for various reasons), which are commonly unlockable. My CPU unlocked fine, so I've ran it that way most of the time that I've had it.

The 750Ti has 2GB VRAM which IIRC was double what almost any graphics card had at the time SC2 was released, but I can check its memory usage too in Process Explorer.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Is it wanting to try to disable aero, or automatically turning off the aero setting? I get an error message like that playing of all things, Torchlight 2.

Edit: I suspect you are becoming cpu limited with a lot of units on the screen, but I would not expect an error message from that. Online is supposed to be very cpu heavy, but surprisingly in single player with a HD7770 and an i5, I was gpu limited.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's not an error message, the gameplay continues, SC2 just informs me that my computer is slowing things down. I can try disabling Aero though (though it was my impression on Win7 that Aero is disabled as soon as a full-screen DirectX application is launched).

 

[magomago]

Yup welcome to starcraft. it works much better on sandybridge and later processors from intel than AMD (although I'm not sure about Bulldozer).

Its one of the reasons why i went intel back in early 2011 with SB. If you upgrade to that then you'll see your frame rates increase.

SC2 is just extremely CPU intensive and only makes use of two cores - and I remember looking at an analysis that showed that the second core is only lightly used. That is precisely why Intel fares so much better - single core performance is better than AMD.

That said, what competitive matches are you doing that you experience this? On my SB i5, I only ever get it on 4v4 matches of Nexus Wars when its late game and you have six or more huge blobs of 200 armies all colliding on screen at once.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

drop the unlocked cores and OC

Otherwise ^ magomago ^ +1

 

[mikeymikec]

I've been asking friends their thoughts on this possible upgrade and the questions I'm being asked here and there lead me to the conclusion that I should fire up Process Explorer with full privs and wait for an SC2 game where it shows that message and find out what kind of resource usage the system was experiencing at the time.

I play a lot of the arcade map 'Desert Strike HotS' and 'Trapped in Hel' [sic] at the moment, and slowdown typically occurs late on in both (yes, when large numbers of units are duking it out), but there's slowdown caused by other players or battle.net, or there's slowdown and that message occurs thereby pointing the finger straight at my system.

drop the unlocked cores and OC

Otherwise ^ magomago ^ +1

Please take a look at the TR link I posted in the OP, even an X4 that runs 500MHz faster than mine only goes about 2FPS faster on average, and even the max FPS isn't worth messing around with an OC IMO.

 

[Cerb]

Please take a look at the TR link I posted in the OP, even an X4 that runs 500MHz faster than mine only goes about 2FPS faster on average, and even the max FPS isn't worth messing around with an OC IMO.

You need to OC the NB a bit to get more, but that then increases heat quite a lot, and you may end up also being limited by your RAM.

Upgrading from a 2008-era CPU core, that allows overclocking, is really the only viable hardware option, IMO (4690K, $30-50 HSF, and ~$100 Z97 mobo, FI). A GTX 750 Ti should be able to handle around medium/high settings on any map without any issues. If you have any optional physics effects on, though, turn them off, to shave off some needed CPU time.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Please take a look at the TR link I posted in the OP, even an X4 that runs 500MHz faster than mine only goes about 2FPS faster on average, and even the max FPS isn't worth messing around with an OC IMO.

That is a paltry gain. Looks like a new rig is in your future! Budget?

 

[mikeymikec]

That is a paltry gain. Looks like a new rig is in your future! Budget?

Bear in mind that I'm in the UK where the prices are nothing like the US's. I might try RAM first anyway on the logic that I can use it in the new build if need be anyway. I'm probably going to go for a high-end i5 + z97 as my research suggests an i7 would be a poor investment considering that gaming is the most demanding thing I do (apart from a bit of encryption / zipping work for backups etc).

 

[Prey2big]

From www.hardware.fr's grueling Starcraft 2 benchmark!

(link to article: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/905-5/performances-jeux-3d.html )

 

[Essence_of_War]

Bear in mind that I'm in the UK where the prices are nothing like the US's. I might try RAM first anyway on the logic that I can use it in the new build if need be anyway.

You can probably sit on task manager watching memory usage, but unless you're sure you're swapping and that's what's slowing you down, spending money on RAM seems pennywise, pound foolish to me.

 

[magomago]

Yup welcome to starcraft. it works much better on sandybridge and later processors from intel than AMD (although I'm not sure about Bulldozer).

Its one of the reasons why i went intel back in early 2011 with SB. If you upgrade to that then you'll see your frame rates increase.

SC2 is just extremely CPU intensive and only makes use of two cores - and I remember looking at an analysis that showed that the second core is only lightly used. That is precisely why Intel fares so much better - single core performance is better than AMD.

That said, what competitive matches are you doing that you experience this? On my SB i5, I only ever get it on 4v4 matches of Nexus Wars when its late game and you have six or more huge blobs of 200 armies all colliding on screen at once.

Just quoting what I had before.

RAM isn't going to help you. 4 gigs is more than enough for SC2. Its single core processing power that is your heavy bottleneck. More ram won't stop those messages from appearing on screen.

 

[mfenn]

SC2 wants two fast cores, especially when the unit count starts going up. Your Phenom II-era chip is what's holding you back. A Haswell i3 would be the lowest cost way to improve this application, but when factoring in normal usage and other games, and i5 is a better overall balance.

 

[Gardener]

arcade map 'Desert Strike HotS'

I play the same map, on a 955BE @ 4ghz, and my Asus gaming laptop which has an i7-4710hq (turbo = 3.5ghz) with similar video capability as my desktop. Both slow down after rd 60 or so, and the final battle round is a slideshow. Its a problem with SC2 only using 2 cores, exacerbated by the 1000+ units on the map in late game. I think my in-game video settings are between medium and high.

The advice to overclock that 960t (@ 4 cores) or upgrade to Intel will help, but you will still be low single digit framerates in final.

Are you getting to a point where you lose cursor control?

 

[mikeymikec]

@ Gardener

I need to double-check when exactly I receive the message. I don't think I've ever reached round 60

Loss of cursor control? I don't think that's ever happened.

- edit - wait, levels or rounds? I assume 'round' means both sides send each of their waves once.

 

[Yuriman]

Haswell will be 60%+ faster per clock than Phenom. It's 60%ish faster (on average) than Piledriver, which I think might have a slight advantage over Phenom II.

Your options:

Haswell-based Pentium G3258 ~ $60 + heatsink
-Unlocked dual core, can be overclocked in many (much cheaper) non-Z chipset motherboards, will frequently hit 4.4ghz+
-Unfortunately, being a dual core, it will have limitations and in some cases (not SC2) will be slower than your x6

Haswell i3 (4160) ~ $120
-Locked dual core with HT, at 3.6ghz, no point in getting a Z chipset board as it cannot overclock
-Less single-threaded performance, but due to HT, superior total throughput even vs an overclocked Pentium
-Can be used with stock cooler, sips power, solid all-around chip

Haswell i5 (4690k) ~ $230 + heatsink
-Unlocked quad w/o HT, turbos to 3.9ghz so faster at stock than an i3
-Should be paired with a (more expensive) Z series chipset, 4.4ghz+ is expected with an aftermarket cooler
-Will match Pentium in SC2, and will greatly outperform your current x6 in multithreaded programs too

Haswell i7 4790K ~$330
-Unlocked quad w/HT, 8 threads total, turbos to 4.4ghz
-Z series chipset optional, as this chip already turbos close to Haswell's maximum frequency on air cooling with reasonable voltage, allows a cheaper motherboard
-Best performance singlethreaded w/o overclocking, best multithreaded performance period


You might also consider a locked i5 for ~$190, but IMO it's worth the extra $40 for the K chip as the resale value is much better.

 

[sm625]

It's not your RAM. You could almost double your framerates with a G3258.

Note: "AMD FX 4100 is 6% slower than AMD Phenom II X4 960T with Starcraft 2 using Normal Quality." Accordign to ultimatehardware.net, so a 4300 probably matches your 960T exactly.

 

[Gardener]

@ Gardener

I need to double-check when exactly I receive the message. I don't think I've ever reached round 60

Loss of cursor control? I don't think that's ever happened.

- edit - wait, levels or rounds? I assume 'round' means both sides send each of their waves once.

You don't spawn every round, it alternates between all the players on your team, so each side spawns only 1 player's army each round. Your army will spawn every third round, so in a 60 round game you only spawn 20 times.

Its not uncommon to get the message you mentioned, that particular map style pushes the limits of the game. Its only a problem if the game becomes unresponsive/unplayable at your end. Its not like original StarCraft, where a laggard slowed down the entire game.

 

[mikeymikec]

I have recently been playing a map (Turik 6v6 + DP Terran Full Tech mod) and it literally turned into a slideshow particularly when sending off an attacking force (heh, I chose brood lords to do the job as well). I noticed that memory usage was within the boundaries where I've normally noticed a performance drop-off (87% RAM usage) in other scenarios, I thought I'd give extra memory a try, and sure enough, absolutely zero difference Memory usage was exactly the same after up'ing total memory to 12GB.

I can't say I was surprised, but I was curious about it.

I wish Blizzard would pull their collective finger out and make SC2 more multi-core friendly.

Admittedly I think this map is exceptional with regard to processing requirements, allowing a max of 12 teams, then that mod allows 400 units per team. I was playing it with a friend against 6 CPU teams, the sheer number of peons alone I imagine was probably enough. His 18-month-old i7 @ 3.5GHz was struggling with it as well.