CPU bottleneck for starcraft 2 on 1440p?

[mrchow19910319]

Recently  I posted this thread about not being really happy about the performance of my new Ryzen 1200. 

This thread somewhat echoing that thought and I am trying to be more specific here. 

 

While playing startcraft 2 on 1440p,

• most of the settings are set to high. shadow quality to medium. 
• 4vs4 huge map. (4 player vs 4 AI)

the initial gameplay has a fps of 140+. everything is really smooth while in mid game once you produced a lot of units, the frame rate starts to drop below 60, and pretty much at the 20 minutes mark when you almost hit 200/200, and your teammates are fully maxed out, the fps dips to <20. 

 

Is it because my GPU is too weak? (GTX1060 3GB) or my ryzen 3 is too weak? 

I am more leaning towards the CPU part. 

 

If I want a 60FPS minimum playing experience, what CPU should I get? I am going to ditch ryzen platform to switch to intel 8th gen. 

 

[nishe1]

2 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

If I want a 60FPS minimum playing experience, what CPU should I get? I am going to ditch ryzen platform to switch to intel 8th gen. 

 

Maybe you could just overclock it...

[Skiiwee29]

honestly sounds more like VRAM limitations. Try turning the settings down and see if performance improves. 

[WereCat]

Well, that is to be expected.

Strategy games are usually CPU bound and most of them are CPU bound to single core performance.

The more units you or the enemy has, the less performance you get. Overclocking your CPU and RAM would help significantly since the R3 1200 runs on quite a low clocks at stock.

[Rupe]

I was reading the previous thread and just out of interest why did you replace your 4770 with a Ryzen 3?

[Atmos]

Almost certain its a cpu problem.

Starcraft runs off a single thread unfortunately.

Blizzard some years ago touted that they would add multicore support, but it never came to my knowledge. Even if I go crazy, with an overclocked 4790k I get sub 20fps on some coop scenarios and such. In 3v3 at end game im also well below 60fps.

[mrchow19910319]

11 minutes ago, Rupe said:

I was reading the previous thread and just out of interest why did you replace your 4770 with a Ryzen 3?

died on me. 

[mrchow19910319]

15 minutes ago, Atmos said:

Almost certain its a cpu problem.

Starcraft runs off a single thread unfortunately.

Blizzard some years ago touted that they would add multicore support, but it never came to my knowledge. Even if I go crazy, with an overclocked 4790k I get sub 20fps on some coop scenarios and such. In 3v3 at end game im also well below 60fps.

if i want to switch back to intel, which CPU should I buy? 

[Atmos]

1 minute ago, mrchow19910319 said:

if i want to switch back to intel, which CPU should I buy? 

Depends on what you need, and what your budget is.

If you have the money, a 7700k is about the best you can get for gaming. If you want some save some cash then something like a 6700k, or 5820k might do you well.

If you don't have the money for an I7 then going to an I5 like the 6600k or 7600k might do you well; although those would just be sidegrades for the most part, you'd be gaining only around 9-15%, and maybe a max of around 25-30% at the best in cases like sc2 and its "im going to only use a single thread to crunch all 800 of these independent moving units and changing meta values" approach.

 

Games like SC2, arma 2/3, and the like are a dying breed. Single core optimization is going away in favor of multicore processing, like it should. I can't really in all faith tell you to drop what would be something to the tune of $450 for what would be in most cases a marginal improvement. If you have the cash to upgrade straight to an I7, that's a whole different deal. It just depends on how much money you can afford to sink into the upgrade, and is that increase worth it in the long run for you.

[mrchow19910319]

6 minutes ago, Atmos said:

 

I think that I just want to save up a bit and get the best I can. So within 4,5 years I won't be upgrading my PC anymore. About the CPU, I am gonna get a 8th gen one cos the Z270 chipset is pretty much dead. At least Z370 is new and in the future if I happen to be upgrading I won't be buying another motherboard. If you count the 8th gen CPU in, is a 8600k gonna do me good? I heard it has the same performance as a 7700k. Also will the 8400 suffice? If let's say that I upgrade my CPU from 1200 to a 8400, do you think it is a waste? 

[Atmos]

4 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

I think that I just want to save up a bit and get the best I can. So within 4,5 years I won't be upgrading my PC anymore. About the CPU, I am gonna get a 8th gen one cos the Z270 chipset is pretty much dead. At least Z370 is new and in the future if I happen to be upgrading I won't be buying another motherboard. If you count the 8th gen CPU in, is a 8600k gonna do me good? I heard it has the same performance as a 7700k. Also will the 8400 suffice? If let's say that I upgrade my CPU from 1200 to a 8400, do you think it is a waste? 

from a 1200 to an 8400? probably would be a bit of a sidegrade there. I wouldn't recommend it.

From a 1200 to a 8600k? No, that would appear as reviews indicate, to be just fine as a choice. We'll know more, as we see more, so you know.

[mrchow19910319]

19 minutes ago, Atmos said:

 

okay what if I dont want a overclockable CPU? which one should I choose? cos honestly i am too lazy to do it. 

 

CPUs that I can afford (I will get the mobo later)

• i7 7700
• i7 7700k
• i5 8400    lets take this one out for the reason you gave above.
• i5 8600k

i7 8700 and above is a little bit of a stretch. I can afford it, but I think I need to save up for at least half a year. 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by mrchow19910319
minus one option

[Atmos]

9 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

okay what if I dont want a overclockable CPU? which one should I choose? cos honestly i am too lazy to do it. 

 

CPUs that I can afford (I will get the mobo later)

• i7 7700
• i7 7700k
• i5 8400    lets take this one out for the reason you gave above.
• i5 8600k

i7 8700 and above is a little bit of a stretch. I can afford it, but I think I need to save up for at least half a year. 

there's no real reason not to get a k skew cpu. just because the option to overclock is there, doesn't mean you have to. I run my 4790k at stock most of the times, except when I get into editing videos, photos or the like. I just drop in my bios settings and let the increase to render speeds make up for the time spent punching in a few numbers. You also only save like 20-25$ going for the non-k skew, and the k skew has a higher turbo clock (automated overclocking without your input) than non-k skews typically. 

 

If you really wanted to avoid overclocking, and dont want the performance of the increase base clock speed and turbo clock speed to save 30$, then the 7700 is probably the way to go. If you're comfortable with those then apparently as reviews indicate the 8600k would be the winner

[mrchow19910319]

17 minutes ago, Atmos said:

 

thanks. 8600k it is.