On September 15 2011 21:30 skyR wrote:
PrObeLife is not knowledgeable and is the one giving bad advice. Starcraft II doesn't utilize four cores so having a 2500k which is a quad core as opposed to a core i3 2100 which is a dual core makes no difference at all. The only difference between the two you'll see in Starcraft Ii comes from the difference in the amount of cache and the frequency they run at. Not to mention that both the core i3 2100 and core i5 2500k are Sandybridges and was released alongside each other back in January of this year. Old architecture would be Bloomfield which is the core i7 900 series or Lynfield which is the three digit core i3, core i5, and core i7s (ex core i3 540, core i5 750).
The core i3 2100 is also not the best option either. The Pentium G850 which is basically identical to that of the core i3 2100 without the hyperthreading. Since Starcraft II majorly uses two cores and most other games do as well, you're get practically the same performance out of a Pentium G850 as you do with the core i3 2100 for less money. If you really needed a quad, you would be going with a core i5 2300 at bare minimum.
The CPU (Central Processing Unit) is only one component that makes up a desktop (the box). Other components which make up the desktop include the graphics card, memory, motherboard, power supply, harddrive, case, and optical drive.
All components (except those labeled as OEM) will come with specific instructions. The motherboard manual will have instructions for every single piece of component. There is also google and youtube. Every component (except the front panel headers) only fit in one way so its like building lego, real simple.
You're basically looking at around $300-400 for a complete package capable of playing Starcraft II on low. A $500 configuration like Rollin showed you can do the game on high-ultra at 1080p.
NO. I am making sure he is not burned buy your advice. So many people claim oh my 8800GT and duo core 2.4 ghz is smooth on ULTRA!!! Better safe than sorry.
Your wrong i5 2500k does get more performance than the i3 2100. Check source:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20You want the highest FPS possible don't go cheap on CPU even if its only 20 frames less. In a big battle to keep it running smooth you do not want your FPS dipping into the 50 fps range or u start feeling the chug.
Not to mention if you start streaming you want the i52500 K or i7 minimum. The OP does talk about FRAPS so I assume he wants to stream at some point. For $80 more you can get the i5 2500k and future proof yourself or go cheap now and need to upgrade sooner...just the fact your K series CPU's can overclock keeps in current for longer.
i3's don't overclock half as well as K series and starcraft 2 responds really well to overclocking, Source:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/3Its up to the original poster, but I just trying to save you from poor advice I have gotten from guys on here before. Call me what you want "oh its over kill" "this guy doesn't know anything"
What I do know is.. I use to have FPS issues in game on old rig. I now own this setup and I am extremely particular. I have NO issues at all...playing on 1920x1080. You want that resolution if your competitive because if you don't your seeing less of the map and you are then disadvantaged. The thing I learned about computing as I got older was its always better to overkill because what hardware "theoretically" should do never actually works out.
You want your PC to CRUSH sc2 not play it.. GL
EPT
