|
|
|
If you really think enthusiasts could learn from you, you shouldn't start by lying about the capabilities of a cheap PC (max settings on any game, $400 machine? Nope), and you certainly shouldn't make personal attacks on people for the crime of not being broke.
Didn't make personal attack, I already went over this - if you don't like my proletarian humor, tough. But I do play on max settings.
This thread is good, but.. it keeps saying something like "will be able to play starcraft2 in max settings" , for you saying this does this mean in max settings for starcraft2 will I have good fps? doubt it. I would probably reword it and say play on medium or high with GOOD fps. basically any computer can play any game on max settings but w/ horrible fps.
I have an Athlon II x3 450 and GTX 460 (which I believe is bottlenecked by my CPU). I have over 60+ fps on max settings in 1v1 ladder all game long as my average, on stock settings. There is slight, albeit perceptible drops during custom games when insane things happen, but it's brief.
Over 30fps is considered 'good' in most SC2 benchmarks since this isn't a first person shooter, but I consider at least 50fps good.
You do realize you said yourself SC2 is optimized for dual core, in your OP? Isn't it logical to get the best dual-core CPU then? A dual-core cpu+mobo that costs less than $200 but outperforms a $300+ alternative system?
Good point. I'd say that going higher than dual core is better for the future, something that budget builders probably don't care about but it's always nice. SC2, as I said, gets a minor, albeit 'big' minor, benefit from a tri core. The improved architecture of the i3-2100 and L3 probably puts it on par with the Athlon II x3 3.2ghz, if not better for SC2 performance, but not enough to warrant the price premium at all. A quadcore Phenom 3.2ghz (which is roughly the exact same price) is probably a better buy, but again it's arguable. My point in general was that that specific processor wasn't worth the money anyways, although maybe being a step up.
Honestly it could go either way for which is better (i3 or phenom ii x4) but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
|
MC currently has an i3 2100 combo at $160.
http://images.c2m00b.com/MicroCenter_Images/Node_0/22166.jpg
As for comparing the i3 2100 to the Athlon II (Propus) or PhII, it's not even close; reference the Anandtech numbers from the link a176 posted. It's my belief that if Intel released a true Nehalem dual-core in 2009, as part of the Lynnfield launch, Intel would have captured the entire low-end market as well. Lucky for AMD they didn't, and Intel ends up releasing the Clarkdale garbage in early 2010.
(If this sounds familiar to you, it's b/c I said the same thing back in January, when the reviews first came out: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179654¤tpage=3#60
The next step up is only $220 total ($149 i5 2400 and $69 mobo). Is an additional $60 for a SB quad-core over a dual-core a worthy use of money? IMO a resounding yes - check the TR link a176 posted for i5 2400 numbers. But if you can't justify spending an additionl $30/year over a 2 year period, then the $160 i3 2100 combo is still on the table.
My point is that it's much easier to skimp slightly on the GPU (and then upgrade per your needs in 12 months) vs. replacing the CPU mid-cycle b/c you figure out you needed a quad-core later. Not everyone needs the P67 mobos, and when you consider that even at stock the Intel chips are so far ahead of the AMD offerings, and for low prices (starting at $160), it's getting tougher to argue against it.
|
Right, but a $140 processor isn't really budget anymore, and isn't really necessary for SC2
|
Belial88, despite the criticisms attacking the rhetorics of the guide, I admire the effort. Some people really need to understand that you're not getting paid (obviously) or creating a legitimate hardware article, and that you're doing some of us a huge favor by sharing a successful personal experience.
The main concern for building a budget computer is that there is a fine line between theory and practicality. In other words, there are a few risks involved to have sc2 run smoothly while trying to limit the costs - the optimal cost. As a frugal college student who has no use for computers other than sc2 and school work, this really reassures me when I get the chance to build a computer.
While I agree that this guide doesn't belong to anantech, I find your experience very insightful.
|
The merit in this guide is that it is personal experience. I share *GOOD* technical information, my information is solid, and since it's personal experience, it's proven. I don't know what people are ranting off about, because they are wrong - I run at max settings just fine, and I can tell my system is too powerful.
This is for BUDGET SC2 - so people reading this aren't doing anything more demanding than playing SC2, and no one is going to be playing at 1900x1080 resolution. Either one of those conditions means this guide isn't for you.
I'll edit it a bit later but been busy this week. Like I said, I didn't even mean to post it yet.
|
Y'know, if the OP said what you're qualifying it to have meant to begin with, Belial, maybe you wouldn't have gotten comments about it.
Check back: I never said you can't run SC2 at max settings, I said you can't run EVERY game at max settings, which you claimed a $400 PC can do on a 3 year upgrade cycle.
I never said this won't give you a budget SC2 PC, I said you exaggerate the other functions it's capable of.
You've tried to rebrand your hostility towards people with more money than you as humor now, and you know what? I'll let that one slide right now, mostly because I find your humor funny in how flat it fell due to the obvious root cause of bitterness.
|
So if I said I spent more on my Graphics card than you spent on your whole computer, would you be mad and call me a rich kid just because I can afford it ?
In all seriousness, I will support some points in his OP and thread.
4850s are the bomb, I was able to run Crysis at Max settings with two of these in crossfire with a Q6600. They are real workhorse cards but get very hot. [100C] under very heavy load. They can handle this but the cooling on them isn't the best, so you will find alot of that heat going into your PC. The OP really needs to mention this as it will heat up other parts of your system.
Solid State drives are also the bomb, but I reccomend Intel ones surprisingly. Ive had 3 drives, 2 very quick failures in warranty [OCZ and OCZ]. Had other SSDs fail on friends. Intel ones seem to be the most reliable. In terms of general hard drives. Buy smaller ones and RAID them together. 500+ GB hard drives are unreliable [ive got 4 and 2 still work now]. Where as I have an old 120GB drive thats so old I don't even know and it still works and it has had alot more use.
I will also back up the OP on RAM timings. Just because the mhz is higher, doesn t mean the timings are. Granted my RAM is 1800 mhz but I choose it over the 2000 mhz because of the lower timings.
With PSUs, do research also on what the wattage output is. The difference between Peak and Continous needs to be addressed in this thread aswell. Look for PSUs generally with Quad V12 rails. This will cost you extra but I see alot of people looking at the PSU as an area to save money when infact Id properly get the most quality possible in this area whatever PC your building. Also, the OP reccomends that 500W is overkill. I say not, I always get at least 100w over what I need, for future proofing. Having worked on fixing Cisco Power Supples as a job, running a 500W PSU at 500W all the time is not good practise. Its better to have some slack.
With regards to your comments about Caps, do you even know how they work? The build quality inside is what judges whether a cap will work for its lifetime or not. Those Solid caps if contructed incorrectly are just as likely to fail. Also, bigger caps don't tend to fail as often as smaller ones. Your picture of the expanded caps is very unlikely to happen in a computer and more likely to happen in a power supply.
|
^your the one who seems unable to see the obvious. Its a guide, in teamliquid, there's a thread linked in the first sentence of the post about a PC just to play only SC2. Your the one falling flat, the technical information is clearly very good and all you can do is keep posting in a thread where you don't need to.
|
On March 22 2011 00:41 Belial88 wrote:
^your the one who seems unable to see the obvious. Its a guide, in teamliquid, there's a thread linked in the first sentence of the post about a PC just to play only SC2. Your the one falling flat, the technical information is clearly very good and all you can do is keep posting in a thread where you don't need to.
You're advertising that it can run other games (Crysis 2) on max settings for less than $350, which is a lie >.< You need a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, and most importantly, an operating system (and don't assume everybody will use linux, because its support for many programs and games isn't optimal).
By the way, "max settings" often assumes native resolution. Nobody cares if you can run max settings on 16x9 pixel resolutions (an extreme example, but true)
|
On March 22 2011 00:41 Belial88 wrote:
^your the one who seems unable to see the obvious. Its a guide, in teamliquid, there's a thread linked in the first sentence of the post about a PC just to play only SC2. Your the one falling flat, the technical information is clearly very good and all you can do is keep posting in a thread where you don't need to.
Nobody here is disapproving of you putting up a guide. The issue is that you only have one month of experience (like, half of your post history is you asking TL for advice building your first computer) and suddenly you come here making a guide and claiming everything you say is 100% fact because you said it, as if you had some sort of automatic credibility just by making a thread.
In reality most of what you said is false or incomplete information and is outright misleading. I've sold custom built PCs for a living for the last 8 years, and I would never sell someone a $350 system for gaming. It's just not worth it when you could spend $100-200 more for something that will last you three years instead of one.
I really don't feel your thirty days of experience qualifies you to call everyone who disagrees with you wrong based on your "personal experience", which is pretty much what you've been doing all thread.
You can't come in here telling people that they'll be able to run SC2 or Crysis 2 or whatever else at "max settings" with a $350 computer, because that implies 1080p, AA/AF, and low framerates above 30FPS which simply is not going to happen.
Change your op to state "medium-high graphics" and I doubt you'd have a single complaint in this entire thread.
|
On March 22 2011 00:41 Belial88 wrote:
^your the one who seems unable to see the obvious. Its a guide, in teamliquid, there's a thread linked in the first sentence of the post about a PC just to play only SC2. Your the one falling flat, the technical information is clearly very good and all you can do is keep posting in a thread where you don't need to.
Quote me where *I* said a single word about your PC's ability to play SC2 reasonably well? Other people have questioned that.
It's a guide... yes. A guide is generally supposed to be objective. This is TL, where accuracy is favored over opinion, especially in cases where opinion is irrelevant. (Computers tend to be a pretty objective subject.)
The thread linked in the first post about a PC just to play SC2 has zero bearing on your other claims regarding what that same PC can do. You have yet to prove anything, you just repeatedly say that it works, and everyone else is wrong. That is neither objective, or really useful. If you had actually said in the OP what you've since qualified the outright lies to theoretically have meant, I would have no complaint about accuracy.
|
Just wanted to throw in my opinion.
I found the discussion here in this thread more helpful than the actual guide. I think the main problem with you, Belial88, is that you had a ridiculously long thread where you updated it with your indecisive questions asking people what you should do, then going against their opinion. Then you post a guide.
But other than that, cool guide. I wish I had found it a month ago before I build my budget computer. I think the i3 2100 is definitely the best choice though. I wish I had gone with that over my Phenom II X4.
Edit: Your guide is also pretty biased towards the choices you made, almost like you're justifying why you went with something compared to a different choice. Try and drop this if you want to be taken seriously.
|
settings are highly relative to resolution just because a 4850 maxes for you doesn't mean it's going to max for someone playing at 1080p
|
So if I said I spent more on my Graphics card than you spent on your whole computer, would you be mad and call me a rich kid just because I can afford it ?
No. I wouldn't really say anything to you about it. Obviously you bought it for reasons other than SC2, as it's much more power than needed for just SC2:WoL. However, if you were someone who didn't really know much or were building a PC, you could read my guide and realize that (since a simple google or benchmark search would show such a GPU > 460, my highest recommendation) your GPU will play SC2 just fine, and that maybe you need a bit more power on your PSU than what I recommended.
4850s are the bomb, I was able to run Crysis at Max settings with two of these in crossfire with a Q6600. They are real workhorse cards but get very hot. [100C] under very heavy load. They can handle this but the cooling on them isn't the best, so you will find alot of that heat going into your PC. The OP really needs to mention this as it will heat up other parts of your system.
I mention how hot Fermi cards tend to get. I also mention how hot SLI/Crossfire can get (one of the reasons not to get them, which would compound cost issues for budget builders who would need to compensate with $/cooling). I also briefly mention some air cooling options that are good for budget builders and those interested in taking on overclocking on a budget. But, going with stock options and a well ventilated case like the NZXT Gamma or any case picked using my recommendations, heating shouldn't be an issue until you start overclocking (which is something other guides will cover and talk about).
But, of course, I can add a note.
Solid State drives are also the bomb,
There's no way SSDs could even be discussed seriously on a budget build. An extra $10 could go a long way in increasing CPU performance even, given how tight we are working here (although I went over the best budget buys and what's even necessary, spending an extra $10 on a CPU will still be appreciated).
With PSUs, do research also on what the wattage output is. The difference between Peak and Continous needs to be addressed in this thread aswell. Look for PSUs generally with Quad V12 rails. This will cost you extra but I see alot of people looking at the PSU as an area to save money when infact Id properly get the most quality possible in this area whatever PC your building. Also, the OP reccomends that 500W is overkill. I say not, I always get at least 100w over what I need, for future proofing. Having worked on fixing Cisco Power Supples as a job, running a 500W PSU at 500W all the time is not good practise. Its better to have some slack.
I'll mention that it's recommended, for performance, that your computer should run at 70-80% of your PSU's max wattage. This is why I recommend and describe how to identify a quality PSU - for example my 430D has about 380W on the 12v rails, and my PC uses around 270 or so roughly - essentially, I made sure that my PC ran on 70% of my total PSU wattage. But running at 70-80% of your PSU's total, you should still only need the wattage as I recommended. I know getting a bad PSU can really screw you over, but if you have enough consistent, quality power, then you have enough power. I describe how to calculate that so people can avoid problems. It would be misleading to say you are riding a fine line, it's more like you're either over or under and the PSU is either consistent and quality or not. But getting 100w more than you need is unnecessary - I tell people how to figure out exactly what they need in this guide. Why would a budget builder get more than they need? Now, there is a very real difference between being safe and having headroom (that 70-80% that you need) and just getting unnecessary power. Of course, if you plan to add fans or accessories than you want to account for that. But I definately should include that 70-80% thing, I don't think I mentioned that. I guess we agree here.
With regards to your comments about Caps, do you even know how they work? The build quality inside is what judges whether a cap will work for its lifetime or not. Those Solid caps if contructed incorrectly are just as likely to fail. Also, bigger caps don't tend to fail as often as smaller ones. Your picture of the expanded caps is very unlikely to happen in a computer and more likely to happen in a power supply.
If you want to add more information in regards to motherboard quality, just PM me what I should add. I feel like I added more than what most people know, and probably bordered on what most people would probably just ignore. There is ALOT more information on VRMs but this is a guide, and what I said should be more than enough to help people make the right buying decision. Yes, some solid capacitors are worse than others, but for a budget builder, having solid capacitors at all is probably good enough for any air cooling overclocking, if at all, on a quad core, if not dualcore, that they would be using. I get what you are saying, but a 4+1 electrolytic with taiwanese electrolytic capacitors would be just fine for a budget bulder who isn't overclocking anyways.
You're advertising that it can run other games (Crysis 2) on max settings for less than $350, which is a lie >.< You need a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, and most importantly, an operating system (and don't assume everybody will use linux, because its support for many programs and games isn't optimal).
By the way, "max settings" often assumes native resolution. Nobody cares if you can run max settings on 16x9 pixel resolutions (an extreme example, but true)
It will run fine on other games, max settings on SC2. I'll clear up the guide, like I said, when I have time, on a lot of things. As for peripherals, most budget builders should have that taken care of, but I'll mention that too. Budget builders also won't be playing at max resolutions either.
The issue is that you only have one month of experience (like, half of your post history is you asking TL for advice building your first computer) and suddenly you come here making a guide and claiming everything you say is 100% fact because you said it, as if you had some sort of automatic credibility just by making a thread.
I have a lot of information that many experienced builders won't know simply because there are new parts on the market all the time. Do you think the most advanced PC builders may know that the 460 is the best buy right now, or what exactly is the best worst card to play SC2 now? No, probably not - I'm taking my very specific experience, and explaining it to everyone. In short, the specifics of this guide pretty much boils down to this:
* My GTX 460 plays everything maxed. The 4850 is about half as good, which you could roughly translate to 30fps instead of 60fps, but it's the only card at that price level with that high of a performance. The 4830 is even cheaper, and again, the best at it's even lower price level. The GT430, a generally horrible card, can be found for extremely cheap right now, and plays at Medium. Now, many more knowledgeable people probably know how all the GPU's out there compare, but they may not know what all of today's budget cards cost, and how they perform SC2. This guide, is more up to date.
* My athon II x3 plays on everything maxed. I unlocked it, and understood the performance gain I got from it. I underclocked, and overclocked to see how it affected performance. I understand x2 is more than enough. I know the price on the x2, and the x3. I know an x4 isn't necessary.
Then, I simply add some basic information that is lacking on most guides. None of the information I posted is very technical, in depth, or exhaustive by any means. But it is something I haven't seen in any guide out there put together in the same way I did. It's more information than any other guide has given, and as someone who built a budget PC, it was a big pain in the ass for me trying to figure out why one accessory is better than another. It's not that my guide is awesome, it's that every single guide out there today is outdated or sucks. The biggest thing my guide has though, is basic information to determine how to buy parts, so it will never be outdated, in a sense, whereas other guides either are outdated or aren't in-depth enough.
In reality most of what you said is false or incomplete information and is outright misleading. I've sold custom built PCs for a living for the last 8 years, and I would never sell someone a $350 system for gaming. It's just not worth it when you could spend $100-200 more for something that will last you three years instead of one.
You really don't seem to understand. You are really thick. This is a Starcraft 2 Gaming System. This may blow your mind, but Starcraft 2 will run just as good on this system today as it will in 20 years! This is because games, once developed, don't magically change specs! This is a Starcraft 2 system. That's it! I must be some kind of huge asshole (since its not you obviously) for making a Starcraft 2 PC building guide in a Starcraft 2 forum. Maybe I should post this guide on the Crysis forums.
I really don't feel your thirty days of experience qualifies you to call everyone who disagrees with you wrong based on your "personal experience", which is pretty much what you've been doing all thread.
But all of the trolls on this thread are either calling me a liar or saying this system won't run Crysis 3 when it comes out. No one is debating the technical information. Sorry I haven't built PCs for 8 years and have nothing to show for it, but you don't need to be super smart to build a PC - that's the beauty of it. It's also may be a huge surprise to people, since many don't do it because they don't know it can be done for so cheap. So you really are kind of irritating, that somehow this guide should be taken down because it's somehow mean to rich people because they blew so much money when they didn't need to.
This guide will help people play Starcraft 2 when they couldn't otherwise - I can say this as a FACT as I can play perfectly fine, when 2 months ago I thought I'd have to quit the game, or buy a pos PC to play on Low. You can make a functioning, high quality PC that can play SC2 on good graphics for under $300. Maybe such a PC will only do Medium at a lower resolution, but the key note is that you can actually play SC2 on it. This should be great news to anyone who thought they wouldn't be able to play SC2. And even better, for $350 you can play everything at ultra.
So I never claimed to be smart or any sort of expert. I post where I get the source for the technical information and benchmarks/comparisons. When you get down to it, everything here is either anecdotal or plagiarism of other, very basic articles. Quit being so elitist.
Change your op to state "medium-high graphics" and I doubt you'd have a single complaint in this entire thread.
There is a note in GPU section noting that if you are playing at max resolution, you probably don't need this guide but you may need to bump things up. However, the GTX 460 plays max resolution at Ultra just fine, as Tomshardware article shows and my experience shows. Also, SC2 does not have in-game anti-aliasing (it's an nvidia setting that is force applied). I'm not taking it down because I already addressed it in the gudie, in the discussion, and my experience as well as an article already says you can play max settings/max resolution on the 460.
Quote me where *I* said a single word about your PC's ability to play SC2 reasonably well? Other people have questioned that.
I mentioned I wasn't really reading the thread in depth (posting via phone and busy). But I'm pretty sure you were hating, but whatever.
The thread linked in the first post about a PC just to play SC2 has zero bearing on your other claims regarding what that same PC can do. You have yet to prove anything, you just repeatedly say that it works, and everyone else is wrong. That is neither objective, or really useful. If you had actually said in the OP what you've since qualified the outright lies to theoretically have meant, I would have no complaint about accuracy.
Most people are willing to take my word or the many benchmark articles I posted backing up what I said, but if you want my fraps score or screenshots/videos with FPS, I'd probably tell you millions of such videos exist of people showing off their hardware on youtube of SC2, but if you begged, I'd tell you that you were a troll, but if you asked nicely a third tiem, i'd do it. So far, no one has asked me to do so because either they aren't a troll and read my guide thoroughly or just believed me because maybe someone who is willing to write such a guide rather than flame it wouldn't be a total jerk.
If you had actually said in the OP what you've since qualified the outright lies to theoretically have meant, I would have no complaint about accuracy.
What lies? The TH article shows the 460 playing at everything Ultra just fine (and mind you that's in a benchmark, not standard gameplay). They also state a 3.0ghz dualcore will play everything great with no problems, and better is just simply that, better. They show what gets 60fps, and what gets more.
I think the main problem with you, Belial88, is that you had a ridiculously long thread where you updated it with your indecisive questions asking people what you should do, then going against their opinion. Then you post a guide
I went with their opinion. There were about 3 or 4 people saying ridiculous, slightly more expensive recommendation, but a few solid people like Myrmidon, i pretty much followed to a T. I actually changed almost every key component from the initial post to something else based on recommendations - most of the time, to something more expensive.
I think the i3 2100 is definitely the best choice though. I wish I had gone with that over my Phenom II X4.
For SC2, actually, I'm starting to think that may be true. I may discuss that actually, when I edit the guide. Everyone knows that Intel is just so much better than AMD.
Your guide is also pretty biased towards the choices you made, almost like you're justifying why you went with something compared to a different choice. Try and drop this if you want to be taken seriously.
Noted, but I did want to make clear that what I have works, and if I did everything again i probably would've went with a weaker GPU, maybe a better motherboard (found a better one that was cheaper actually), and didn't need a 430 psu. I also wanted to make the article a bit more interesting as opposed to being really dry.
i'll clear things up later though, been kind of busy this week.
|
In consecutive sentences, you admit to not reading what you were responding to, and say the things you didn't provide a satisfactory answer to were just hating. That's hysterical.
As far as me saying you outright lied, if you actually think that your wording doesn't claim that this budget PC for SC2 can play every game currently out, and coming out in the next 3 years, on maxed settings, I assure you, it does.
-Side Note
By the way, true maxed settings is every setting defined in game maxed, including AA/AF and max DX version components, any official high-res texture packs like DA2's, and native resolution, generally with a bare minimum of pseudo-HD at 720p.-End side note.
I assure you, even if it wasn't your intention to make that statement, it IS the implication created by your wording.
Several times you post opinions about things, and while they may only be your opinion about them from the context of budget, you say it in such a way as to give the appearance that those things are always a bad decision and never useful.
So, if that's actually the case, I'll happily help you edit your grammar so that your guide doesn't appear to be ripping on things you aren't trying to rip on, if you'd like.
|
I didn't say I didn't read. What I meant to make clear was that I may mix up who I'm responding to or may not format what I say perfectly. It's still obvious there be trollers.
As far as me saying you outright lied, if you actually think that your wording doesn't claim that this budget PC for SC2 can play every game currently out, and coming out in the next 3 years, on maxed settings, I assure you, it does.
-Side Note
By the way, true maxed settings is every setting defined in game maxed, including AA/AF and max DX version components, any official high-res texture packs like DA2's, and native resolution, generally with a bare minimum of pseudo-HD at 720p.-End side note.
Crysis 2 isn't even out. The system I have, or of the max parts I recommend, play the Crysis 2 demo on max settings just fine. Obviously some games are harder than others, or may be impossible to max on, on any system. This is a budget PC building guide, it plays most games on max, if not handles all at least fine, and definately handles starcraft 2. If you're seriously going to go and and cry so much about a Starcraft 2 guide because there may be a few games out there that will only play on High, not ultra, on a $300 system, that's pretty annoying. I already said I'll edit some of that stuff anyways.
Several times you post opinions about things, and while they may only be your opinion about them from the context of budget, you say it in such a way as to give the appearance that those things are always a bad decision and never useful.
Such as? I state how resolution impacts the 4830/4850, and the GTX 460 will handle SC2 on any resolution, any setting (th benchmark shows the gtx 460 playable but slightly impacted by highest resolution ultra with AA, and only in a ridiculous benchmark setting, not a situation you would ever face in multiplayer game). My statements are in regards to SC2. I dont even know where you are talking about. I dont ever say you can play all games out today with max settings, I simply say that the gtx 460 may be overkill on all games out today - note I dont say max settings, I say 'may', and that this is an SC2 guide not an "all games" guide. Also, I was only talking about the 460 in that instance, not the 4850 or 4830. heres multiple places I make clear where there may be issues
Radeon 4850 - at around $80, this is probably the best card to get for a budget build. You will be able to play on almost all settings maxed, provided you aren't playing at max resolution on a huge plasma TV. In which case you don't need to be here.
Also, resolutions can impact framerate more than settings. If you are playing at 1900 pixel width, you may need the GTX 460 for max or just get high on the 4850. Generally, most monitors have much lower than 1900 pixel width, and if you do happen to play on a Plasma TV, you probably don't need to be reading this article (on the other hand, theres no reason this article isn't for rich people - going anything above this guide's maximum recommendations is overkill for not only SC2, but all of the games out today, including Crysis 2). Also note that you need to play on your monitor/TV's native resolution. Screens/resolutions/monitors are beyond the scope of this thread, as you probably have one anyways, but besides the fact resolution is about the 3rd or 4th most important thing (read: not most important) on a screen, playing above the number of pixels your monitor actually has may look nice by making things look small, but is really just reducing picture quality.
so i dont see what you get your panties in a bunch from. i got a lot of help here and decided not to be a leech like everyone else who creates an account and posts a bunch of questions of "where do I plug in my mouse" and "how to build a computer?", and give back. Clearly you seem to have a problem with that since I'm posting extremely basic information that apparently only smart people like yourself are qualified to talk about and and that I recommend budget parts to play SC2 when such poor scrubs should just play tag. Yea, I'm a little aggravated you are totally derailing this when you could have simply PM'd me this, I would've gladly edited everything for you with no problem, and you aren't even discussing the technical information, offering ways to improve the guide besides your obvious problem with my humor or semantics, or talking about other computer equipment out there that may do the job or places to buy such stuff for cheap.
|
settings are highly relative to resolution just because a 4850 maxes for you doesn't mean it's going to max for someone playing at 1080p
Right. I address this.
|
If you think I never stated specific problems, it proves you didn't read anything before you cried troll and went on the defensive. Try again.
|
As an unprejudiced individual reading this particular thread, I ask some of you to please discuss irrelevant matters via pm ><
Not a whole lot of people have the slightest care in learning how to write a professional guide. That's a job solely between a writer and his editor. Unfortunately, this thread is transitioning from a technical computer standpoint to a lesson in rhetorics.
"Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice."
Proverbs 13:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
