Hardware How many CPU cores does StarCraft 2 use?

We investigate how the latest hit RTS, StarCraft 2, scales across CPU cores.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/1

 

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!

 

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!"

 

I LONG FOR COMBAT!

I was kind of expecting a big bold 2 on the first page, not sure why. Nice article.

 

Very interesting test results and I am hugely disappointed that the game doesn't utilise anything over 3 cores.

 

To be fair no Blizzard games are really optimised.

 

So 3 is the maximum... again?

 

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.

 

Balked maybe?

 

Finally something that uses my 4 cores in my Q6600... Although I think that BFBC2 also uses all of them...

Nice review Bit-tech.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Greetings!

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.

 

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

 

ok now try these tests when you play online in ultra and you simultaneously zerg rushed and bio-balled.