|
First off i'm not sure if this should go under General or Starcraft 2, it's sort of in between.
Anyways i'm asking for help via my computer hardware. Let me list the specs:
Vista Home Premium 32-bit
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
3GB DDR3 @ 1067MHz RAM
Nvidia GTX 280 GPU @ 602MHz core 1296MHz shader 1107MHz memory
Nvidia 790i Ultra SLI mobo
Samsung HD320KJ 500GB and WDC 300GB hard drives
1KW Dell PSU
HT Omega 7.1 Striker sound card
I think my computer is decently good but I can't seem to run SC2 past 45 FPS @ 1920 x 1200 resolution with my settings at high (not ultra). I've seen a lot of people posting their comp specs and getting much higher fps with similar quality rigs and i'm not sure what's bottlenecking my system (probably RAM/CPU?). Anyways if you guys could help me out that would be fantastic!
I am thinking about upgrading to:
Intel Core i7 930 @ 2.8GHz http://tinyurl.com/2fchler
ASUS P6T mobo http://tinyurl.com/2b94oga
Corsair H50 Hydro CPU cooler http://tinyurl.com/2agnsn6
6GB Corsair Dominator DDR3 PC12800 @ 1600MHz http://tinyurl.com/2g7wr4k
I am also going to upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit (cracked)
This will cost me around $1000 including taxes.
Is this upgrade worth the cost? Any suggestions on better parts?
edit: I am also confident I can OC the i7 CPU to 4.0GHz w/o tampering with Vcore voltage
|
Whats the clock on your current Q6600? I havent checked affinity settings with SC2 and quad cores, but I'd wait until retail release to truely test the performance of your current PC. The fact is, i'm pretty sure the beta was terribly optimized for quad cores and theres a really good chance on retail your performance will dramatically increase. A little tampering with the affinity settings in the beta might do this too. IMO, NOT worth $1000. Maybe some more ram though, I remember my SC2 using almost 3gb of ram at times. That might be whats throttling your PC as it's really high end despite the 2.3ghz quad (Any measure of CPU OC makes it super super high end  ) Oh and why did you get a 1000W PSU? you probably only need a 550/600W to be REALLY safe, 1K is overkill unless you're planning on running some beefy OC with crossfire.
Now I notice you're using Windows 32bit, with 3gb of ram.Do you actually have 4gb of ram? And it's being limited to 3.25???GB because of the 32bit limitations. If this is the case, THAT is your problem right there. I remember having huge ram conflicts when having 4gb of dual channel ram with one stick not being used because I was using 32bit vista. I'm sure your PC should have NO problem running SC2 60+ frames, with a little skepticism regarding only 3gb of ram, and if its true you have one idle stick thats what you gotta fix asap. You really need the 64bit if this is the case.
|
Kinda overkill for just sc2 :/
I'm running everything maxxed on my faithfull geforce 9800 gtx-es :D
also ppl will be needing info on the state of your OS how old is it defragmentation stuff like that, if your pc is full of junk it won't run anything propperly
you might even have a virus :O
or update your drivers, but that would be weird cause you kinda get a popup for that from sc2 : P
|
My rig is
Q6600 (same as yours)
8gb PC2-6400 RAM (worse then yours, albeit more)
Radeno 5850 GPU (Similar to yours)
Win7 Ultimate x64
Settings - All ultra @ 1920x1200, i believe i have 2xaa or something like that.
The game is running smoothly on my computer so i can't really see how an upgrade will help for you. There aren't any obvious bottle necks which should cause such a low FPS.
Before you spend 1000$ (on something you don't need imo) you should try to re-install with a 64bit OS, prefereably Win 7 as it's a bit better then Vista. Or even just re-install the 32bit Vista you got.
What sort of FPS do you get on lower resolutions and different AA settings etc?
How big is the CPU load and Mem usage?
Are other games running smoothly?
elec
|
Yeah you shouldn't have any troubles with that setup even on Ultra @19200x1200. Try cleaning up your system and maybe even get win7-64bit + format
SC2 isn't the most intensive game going round.
|
To the OP, certainly good enough for high settings play. I'd say the weakest part is how much ram you have, but I imagine it'll still be perfectly fine (when I first built my computer with 2gb of RAM SC2 would definitely squeeze it to the limit on that front, but that extra gig would surely make a big difference). Having 6 gigs now makes a world of difference in smooth play and also in smooth transitions while rampantly alt-tabbing in and out of the game.
|
Also, why are you having your Q6600 running at 2.4 GHz?
You can easily get it up to 3 GHz with almost any sort of cooling. I'm sure that will help a lot.
|
i defragged a couple months back, my HDD's are getting a bit full atm. I don't think I have a virus but i'll scan again to check, using NOD32 Smart Security btw. Also this computer won't just be for SC2, it will be for pretty much any good PC game that comes out in the next few years. e.g. Crysis 2, Mafia 2, Arma 2, etc. much more cpu intensive games.
CPU usage is about 75% mid-game (more units, buildings, and shit) I also am playing vs. the AI so my usage also takes a hit from that too I guess.
Mem usage is about 3 gb as well mid-game.
New build:
intel i5 750 @ 2.66GHz
EVGA P55 FTW
Corsair XMS3 4GB PC10666 @ 1333MHz
new price: $786 including taxes
How much better are the i7's compared to the i5's and 6GB @ 1600MHz compared to 4GB @ 1333MHz?
On a side note I just realized canadian prices on tigerdirect are fucking bullshit. TD is selling 4 gigs of mushkin ram @ 1600mhz for only $130
|
You should be able to overclock your Q6600 easily over 3GHz. I've got mine running at 3,6GHz which gave me +40 fps.
|
if u planing to upgrade only for sc2 DONT DO IT !! ur pc is fine all u have to do is remove that shitty 32 vista (system is bad + it only uses 3gb ram) so get 64 7, then u could over clock ur cpu (u might need some better cooler) or u can buy some q9560 or q9550 and overclock it to 4gh (it will be little slower than i7 but way more cheaper). besides if ur game is smooth dont bother yourself with fps amount.
|
What level should I be able to play SC2 on?
Planning on getting an Alienware M17X with the following specs,
1GB ATI Radeon™ Mobility HD 5870
6GB Memory 1x 2GB, 1x 4GB DDR3
250GB 7,200RPM SATA-II HDD
and
Should I get:
Intel® Core™ i7 620M 2.66 GHz (3.33GHz Turbo Mode, 4MB Cache
or
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache
(same price)
|
You should be able to get a better performance from a PC of that spec. Try looking for internal solutions instead of upgrading, (sorry if you have been). I'm not great with troubleshooting but check temperatures, settings, wiring etc. Only components that I don't know well in there are mobo and graphics card, the rest are capable of running sc2 on superior settings than you have. Replacing them may solve the problem, but there IS a cheaper solution somewhere.
|
I agree with Phayze. It's not worth $1000 for such a marginal upgrade. Just get some more ram and a 64-bit OS.
At launch, SC2 won't benefit from quad core over dual core.
On June 30 2010 21:33 Zarhym wrote:
Q. After the beta has commenced, how many CPU cores will StarCraft II be optimized for upon final release?
A. For launch, StarCraft II will be optimized for dual-core only. In the future we will definitely be looking into other optimizations to support additional cores, but do not have specific dates yet.
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630604051&postId=246283079571&sid=3000#17
|
On June 30 2010 23:18 Commodore wrote:I agree with Phayze. It's not worth $1000 for such a marginal upgrade. Just get some more ram and a 64-bit OS. At launch, SC2 won't benefit from quad core over dual core. Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 21:33 Zarhym wrote:
Q. After the beta has commenced, how many CPU cores will StarCraft II be optimized for upon final release?
A. For launch, StarCraft II will be optimized for dual-core only. In the future we will definitely be looking into other optimizations to support additional cores, but do not have specific dates yet. http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630604051&postId=246283079571&sid=3000#17
Thanks, you answered my affinity questions haha. To the OP, since SC2 only uses two cores, it essentially turns your CPU to a 2.3Ghz Dual core. This, in combination with my suspicions on your ram problems are probably causing less than ideal results. A marginal overclock (To atleast 2.6/2.7 Ghz although you could get MUCH higher with your heatsink) would probably fix alot of your problems. And going to 64bit you make your ram ALOT faster.
And to the Alienware guy (sorry forgot name) Get the 2.7Ghz CPU, the 1.6Ghz is going to REALLY struggle with SC2, Even in performance mode the clock isnt that high. If you want to play on ULTRA settings, you're going to need that beefy i7.
|
yoyoyoyo guys,
i got the new macbook pro 13" 2010 Edition since a while, has anybody tested the performance of Starcraft 2 in OS and via boot camp? If yes XP or 7?
Im not sure which version to preorder right now and i dont want to install windows if not necessary.
So if anybody has some experience, would be much appreciated.
riemann out.
|
For launch, StarCraft II will be optimized for dual-core only.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure at the moment it's only using a single core. It definitely only uses one core on my machine.
So in fact, you've got a 2.4GHz single core.
On July 01 2010 00:09 cauchy.riemann wrote:
yoyoyoyo guys,
i got the new macbook pro 13" 2010 Edition since a while, has anybody tested the performance of Starcraft 2 in OS and via boot camp? If yes XP or 7?
Im not sure which version to preorder right now and i dont want to install windows if not necessary.
So if anybody has some experience, would be much appreciated.
riemann out.
Or you could just use the Mac client for StarCraft 2?
|
I got the rig you want to make and have 45fps (according to Fraps) at all Ultra settings.
|
Or you could just use the Mac client for StarCraft 2?
Well thats my main question...of course i can use the mac client, but i can also use the windows version via bootcamp. The question is if somebody already compared those two options, there are threads on other sites but its mainly a lot of speculations which ends in mac vs win. flamewars...
|
On July 01 2010 00:42 cauchy.riemann wrote:Well thats my main question...of course i can use the mac client, but i can also use the windows version via bootcamp. The question is if somebody already compared those two options, there are threads on other sites but its mainly a lot of speculations which ends in mac vs win. flamewars...
It shouldn't be comparable, the mac version is optimised for macs, the pc version isn't. On top of that with bootcamp you've got that extra abstraction layer that's going to hurt.
That said, I've had games that work better on linux w/wine than on the same computer with windows. But obviously a linux binary on linux would work better than both.
|
did anyone else have problems in the beta with the i7? i noticed some lag spikes and heard it was in relation with i7 cores ;o
|
I for one run a AMD II X4 955 3.8GZ with 4GB ram and a GeForce 295 GTX.I run most games exceptionally well,yet sc2 throttles on 30-50 most on the time,im not sure but i think i should have higher performance,i ran throw crisis yesterday with the new CPU and it was a surprising improvement with a technically more demanding title.
Im not sure but i think SC2 is not optimized for milti-GPU cards like mine,i cant imagine this setup can only mange SO much PFS even with the 1920X1080,moreso lowering gx setting also doesn't change anything,turning on GPU off ->still no change. 
Can anyone confirm or deny this,also how much performance detrimental is a virus,just out of curiosity,same with defragmentation?
|
On July 01 2010 01:01 Qlinic wrote:
did anyone else have problems in the beta with the i7? i noticed some lag spikes and heard it was in relation with i7 cores ;o
I have a i7 920 and I have had no problems what so ever. Which operative system are you running? if its windows 7 make sure that you unlock half of your cores as windows 7 parks every other core by default that is core 2 4 6 and 8
|
Operating System:Windows 7
CPU Type: AMD Turion(tm) X2 Ultra Dual-Core Mobile ZM-80
CPU Speed (GHz):2.12
System Memory (GB):3.217
Video Card Model:ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
I just installed windows 7 over vista, hopefully it will improve!
When i ran at vista i could do medium settings until i hit big battles, then it started to lag hardcore
Thinking of maybe buying a new desktop when the official release hits!
|
There has to be something else wrong with your PC.
Your hardware is beyond sufficient to run SC2 on Ultra settings at that resolution. There has to be a software issue or something else going on.
I can't believe how many of you are saying his 3GB of RAM is slowing him down and 4 or 6GB would speed it up. That is just laughable, sorry...
|
OS: WIndows 7 32 bit
CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo Processor E6850
CPU Speed: 3.7Ghz
Ram: 2 GB
Video card: ATI 5850
From my own experience and other sites testing the biggest difference was made by higher clocks and more cache on the cpu. So oc as high as you can ><. The game is not optimized for quads, just need high clocks. Perhaps that will change down the line, but don't get your hopes up. I have found that 2 GB of ram is just enough for Ultra settings (I play 1680x1050). Windows 7 seems to utilize and allocate RAM really well when the game needs it. Having said that, If I am running some other ram intensive apps while I play it is not enough, so I have to make sure to close things like photoshop/browsers. 3 or more would probably be ideal (unless you like to leave all your apps running while you play for some reason then get more  ).
I had performed some tests near the beginning of beta (maybe optimizations have been made since then). This was a replay where max pop banelings go on a rampage, so an instance where the action is intensive. Here are some rest results.
1680x1050 Ultra Settings - min / max / avg
i7 920 (quad) @ 4.0ghz (ATI 5970) - 27 / 73 / 41
Q9550 E0 (quad) @ 4GHz (ATI 5850) - 17 / 41 / 24
e6850 (dual) @ 3.7ghz (ATI 5850) - 12 / 40 / 20
As I said this was around a 30 second test where the action was intense and lots of units on screen. So an extreme case. Still, you can see in this case even higher end rigs can crawl.
Having said all that, the only time I have really noticed slowdowns during beta has been in very large 3v3 battles. So I am happy.
|
On July 01 2010 01:54 Polska wrote:OS: WIndows 7 32 bit CPU: Intel® Core2 Duo Processor E6850 CPU Speed: 3.7Ghz Ram: 2 GB Video card: ATI 5850 From my own experience and other sites testing the biggest difference was made by higher clocks and more cache on the cpu. So oc as high as you can ><. The game is not optimized for quads, just need high clocks. Perhaps that will change down the line, but don't get your hopes up. I have found that 2 GB of ram is just enough for Ultra settings (I play 1680x1050). Windows 7 seems to utilize and allocate RAM really well when the game needs it. Having said that, If I am running some other ram intensive apps while I play it is not enough, so I have to make sure to close things like photoshop/browsers. 3 or more would probably be ideal (unless you like to leave all your apps running while you play for some reason then get more ). I had performed some tests near the beginning of beta (maybe optimizations have been made since then). This was a replay where max pop banelings go on a rampage, so an instance where the action is intensive. Here are some rest results. 1680x1050 Ultra Settings - min / max / avgi7 920 (quad) @ 4.0ghz (ATI 5970) - 27 / 73 / 41 Q9550 E0 (quad) @ 4GHz (ATI 5850) - 17 / 41 / 24 e6850 (dual) @ 3.7ghz (ATI 5850) - 12 / 40 / 20 As I said this was around a 30 second test where the action was intense and lots of units on screen. So an extreme case. Still, you can see in this case even higher end rigs can crawl. Having said all that, the only time I have really noticed slowdowns during beta has been in very large 3v3 battles. So I am happy.
Pretty much matches my own experience,idk seems like sloppy coding if 3v3 can cause slowdowns,i mean its starcraft,i game like this can NOT throttle on any hardware,thats not virtually obsolete,it seems blizzard has gone for a pretty game ,rather than a stable one.
To the op try lowering each graphic setting and tweaking the config folder of SC2,if lowering does enhance performance then youre obviously bottle-necked ,then just go and upgrade whatever s lacking,if not then its sc's fault.
Honestly thou ive seem youtube videos 4v4 that were miraculously smooth,so call me jealous. And still other people with fantastic machines,yet sc2 runs between 15-30.Honestly i doubt a virus or anything windows related is at fault.
|
btw as a side note, VIsta and Win7 automatically defrag in the background.
|
i always get +10 fps when I set the portrait options to 2D instead of 3D...and to OP, before you upgrade or anything, wait for at least beta phase 2...blizzard already said that they would make software and hardware optimizations after beta 1 went down...or better yet just wait for the release and see if your PC's performance improves in SC2...
|
Fyi.
The i7 is basically an i5 with some extra tools for video editing/rendering. So there wont be much (if any) improvement. Might aswell get the i5 if it's only for games.
|
You guys surely have the tendency to grossly underestimate things. Just because there are X-cores and X-Gigs of GPU doesn't mean they're NECESSARY.
For example I have been running the game perfectly with:
- P4 Alderwood 3.4Gz
- 2 Gb ddr2 ram
- Gforce 6800 256mb ddr 2.
... And I still load up faster than most of you "mah computah need moar cores for SC2" people. Getting an entirely new build just for a game is completely idiotic as most even 'not-so-recent' specs can run the game just fine.
At best it points out the utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by an alarming mass of people. At least it's a good thing for video game companies who think visuals outweight playability or entertainment value.
|
On July 01 2010 01:34 Baksteen wrote:I just installed windows 7 over vista, hopefully it will improve! When i ran at vista i could do medium settings until i hit big battles, then it started to lag hardcore Thinking of maybe buying a new desktop when the official release hits!
- Use a less memory blackhole of an OS. There is no reason to run WIN7 when XP can run the same way by consuming half the memory.
- Avoid vista.
- Getting massive lag when rendering lots of units generally means your GPU struggles. If the framerate only drops when they're 'on screen' but not when you're looking somewhere else, save yourself from buying a new computer and just upgrade your GPU.
|
I have Q6600 @ 3.15 GHz with GTX 260 C216 and 4GB DDR2 1000
Runs on Ultra at over 20 fps in huge 2v2 battles. Usually runs over 40 fps.
|
You guys surely have the tendency to grossly underestimate things. Just because there are X-cores and X-Gigs of GPU doesn't mean they're NECESSARY.
For example I have been running the game perfectly with:
- P4 Alderwood 3.4Gz
- 2 Gb ddr2 ram
- Gforce 6800 256mb ddr 2.
... And I still load up faster than most of you "mah computah need moar cores for SC2" people. Getting an entirely new build just for a game is completely idiotic as most even 'not-so-recent' specs can run the game just fine.
At best it points out the utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by an alarming mass of people. At least it's a good thing for video game companies who think visuals outweight playability or entertainment value.
At best this post points out the cancer of TL. people that don't read beyond the first post, and people that post in threads just to troll and not provide any useful information pertaining to the topic. if you want to flame the "utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by people" make your own thread.
As i've already stated this upgrade is not only for SC2 but for many upcoming games. obviously upgrading parts for a single game would be stupid. the point of the thread is also asking for help on why a decent system is having troubles getting higher fps.
|
I don't know if this is something to recommend, but you can use the performance check through vista to see what kind of bottle necks it considers you to have.
|
I have recently decided I would like to upgrade my laptop to make it an "on the go" Starcraft 2 laptop. (take to friends houses, easy mobility, etc.). I have a Dell Studio 1537 Laptop, My specs are:
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Processor: 2.00 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo
64 kilobyte primary memory cache
2048 kilobyte secondary memory cache
64-bit ready
Multi-core (2 total)
Display: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series
Multimedia: High Definition Audio Device
IDT High Definition Audio CODEC
Main Circuit Board: Board: Dell Inc. 0P132H A06
Bus Clock: 533 megahertz
BIOS: Dell Inc. A06
No clue what to upgrade first. I dont really want to run SC2 on Ultra or anything, just medium or so. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
|
Hello, I am truly ignorant on the ways of computers and hardware. I know from playing the beta that my computer can handle Starcraft 2 on medium settings, but I wanted to know if there was any specific component I could upgrade that would allow me to handle ultra settings. My computer is several years old and I haven't done anything to it at all since I received it - I am that unknowledgable about these things ._."
I'll try and provide as many numbers and stuff that I can:
Resolution: 1440x900
Windows Vista Home Premium
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU 2.40GHz (4 CPUs)
2030 MB ram
32-bit, I think...
Display: NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT (1000 MB)
I hope that is enough information. Thanks in advance!
|
Okay so right now with my computer i can only play starcraft on low with my 1400x900 reso at 30+ fps. I was wondering what i would need to upgrade on my current computer to be able to play starcraft on high settings or even ultra if possible with 40+ fps.
------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 7/27/2010, 15:04:43
Machine name: AWTSOMEMACHINE
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Gateway
System Model: DX4300
BIOS: Default System BIOS
Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 810 Processor (4 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 7936MB RAM
Page File: 2205MB used, 13663MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 32bit Unicode
------------
DxDiag Notes
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: ATI Radeon HD 3200 Graphics
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x9610)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_9610&SUBSYS_01551025&REV_00
Display Memory: 3065 MB
Dedicated Memory: 253 MB
Shared Memory: 2811 MB
Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: HP w1907
Monitor Id: HWP26A2
Native Mode: 1440 x 900(p) (59.887Hz)
Output Type: HD15
Driver Name: atiumd64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atiumdag,atidxx32,atiumdva,atiumd6a.cap,atitmm64.dll
Driver File Version: 8.14.0010.0678 (English)
Driver Version: 8.632.0.0
|
On July 01 2010 18:24 jisaeltl wrote:Show nested quote +You guys surely have the tendency to grossly underestimate things. Just because there are X-cores and X-Gigs of GPU doesn't mean they're NECESSARY.
For example I have been running the game perfectly with:
- P4 Alderwood 3.4Gz
- 2 Gb ddr2 ram
- Gforce 6800 256mb ddr 2.
... And I still load up faster than most of you "mah computah need moar cores for SC2" people. Getting an entirely new build just for a game is completely idiotic as most even 'not-so-recent' specs can run the game just fine.
At best it points out the utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by an alarming mass of people. At least it's a good thing for video game companies who think visuals outweight playability or entertainment value. At best this post points out the cancer of TL. people that don't read beyond the first post, and people that post in threads just to troll and not provide any useful information pertaining to the topic. if you want to flame the "utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by people" make your own thread. As i've already stated this upgrade is not only for SC2 but for many upcoming games. obviously upgrading parts for a single game would be stupid. the point of the thread is also asking for help on why a decent system is having troubles getting higher fps.
Meh ignore the trolls. Someone talking about optimization while running a Netburst in 2010 is all you need to know regarding his credibility. It speaks for itself :D
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 01 2010 18:24 jisaeltl wrote:Show nested quote +You guys surely have the tendency to grossly underestimate things. Just because there are X-cores and X-Gigs of GPU doesn't mean they're NECESSARY.
For example I have been running the game perfectly with:
- P4 Alderwood 3.4Gz
- 2 Gb ddr2 ram
- Gforce 6800 256mb ddr 2.
... And I still load up faster than most of you "mah computah need moar cores for SC2" people. Getting an entirely new build just for a game is completely idiotic as most even 'not-so-recent' specs can run the game just fine.
At best it points out the utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by an alarming mass of people. At least it's a good thing for video game companies who think visuals outweight playability or entertainment value. At best this post points out the cancer of TL. people that don't read beyond the first post, and people that post in threads just to troll and not provide any useful information pertaining to the topic. if you want to flame the "utter lack of knowledge & optimization capabilities of computers by people" make your own thread. As i've already stated this upgrade is not only for SC2 but for many upcoming games. obviously upgrading parts for a single game would be stupid. the point of the thread is also asking for help on why a decent system is having troubles getting higher fps.
I am sorry, but you cannot talk about "the cancer of TL" when you're making a SC2 Computer Build thread. :/
Search is there. Please use it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=113094
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
