Hardware How many CPU cores does StarCraft 2 use?

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?

 

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.

 

another game that proves that 3 cores are enought for today's pc gaming

 

You don't want a game to use all your cores - otherwise your other processes will lock up.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Depends on what you do with the chip I guess, PC's can do more than game you know , a faster CPU in the right system (High end GPU / High res screen) can make a difference, if it comes with more cores then all the better.
I run a 24" screen that runs at 1920 x 1200 with a 5870 GPU there for I want a high end CPU to go with it, I went for the 920 in the end.
I generally tend to look at the top of the line chips and get the lowest clocked then clock it up to hopefully beyond the clockspeed of the top end chip.
I am also a big Folding fan so the fast many core CPU's are a big benefit to me (Bigadv units).
The main reason I overclock though is because I can and I want to see how far I can push the CPU, True a 920 at stock clocks might be enough for me but where's the fun in buying the kit and leaving it at that , Oh and there is also the matter of epeen to think about .

 

I beg to differ, with BF3 finally dropping XP support and becoming DX10/11 only, and some decent PC releases i can see the PC becoming quite big within the next few years..

Especially if you run Eyefinity/3d setups.

 

if an game can use 2 threads an 3x or 4x core system is better suited as the system can use the 3rd core for system use, HT with 2 cores would of been interesting due to the i3 cpus (put he posted he come back to us on that later on) AMD Cpus are slower then an i7 core (and Phonom's require way bigger coolers just to keep them cool i only use Althlon X2 cpus as they run very cool even at 3ghz)

windows 7 is quite good on ram use my sisters laptop can happy work with 512mb of ram in it, but i would use 4gb as the default nowadays as you only looking at £30 for each 2gb of ram (£50-£70 for 4gb dual chan kit does not need to be super fast ram as real use its 1-2% performance dif) Win7 has superfetch that can make programs loading bit faster (under vista its the First thing i disable as it was the issue with Disk trashing but fixed under win7 as it stops when other disk I/O happens and only operates at 25-50% disk time)

 

So i assume the game uses two cores and the bonus from having a third is that it can free up resources by doing all the background tasks.

 

It almost seemed that three cores were actually being used. The third looked busier than a background core according to the six core usage. But that's just my lay opinion.

And a side note, I really like these tests Bit! Very helpful.

 

bit off topic but it might help, I like to use an app called powerstrip- it lets you select a game and then on launch elevates the priority on that game.. it helps with certain titles

can do this with a vb script too

 

may be in your case, you didn't need the power of i7 processors. but not everyone running i7/6GB+ RAM are leaving them to rot.

have you considered playing more demanding game such as BFBC2? where it will use all 4 of your cores? have you considered if you need to encode some video for your mobile player for next hour? what do you do in that hour while your machine is tied up encoding? have you considered some university student's need to run multiple VM for coding environments and calculations? what to do while its calculating in using its virtual 4 cores on your tri-core?

you are trying to fit a 5 men band into a hatchback, it will just fit. you'll have problem when they grow old with beer belly.

 

lol like the way you think wu.. it's worth it if you encode video a lot- I use badaboom if I want something quick but it's nowhere near as tweakable as adobe media encoder

vm's need a lot of ram too

 

well i own a i7/12gm ram and its because i do alot of video encoding plus it runs all day but amd has a hard fight to get to the top once more plus sc2 runs great on this machine

 

More articles like this one please! - mutli-core CPU performance in games generally needs more examination, including comparisons of different CPU architectures.

 

These test are brilliant btw!

Not sure why people seem to think they're future proofing their system when they clearly have high end kit, bought it when it came out, and will probably lap up the next offerings :/

Also! I would love to see the AMD Intel comparison as frontline says.

 

Thanks, doesn't have to be the exact system as you said it give us a good idea. I've always been curious what the efficiency of HT is when compared to physical cores.

 

depends on what is been done but most of the time only Media stuff benefits from HT, but some games may but its Very small and more then 4 threads would have to be maxed out before you get to the HT (windows norm trys to keep the load on the real cores uses HT when

personally with HT on system seems smoother, BC2 seems to take longer to map load when HT is off as well

 

Actually it utilise 2 cores. The 3rd core is for OS and other running apps. With 3 core, the game have all the 2 cores, and don't need to share them. That's the cause.