EPT[Guideline] SC2 Computers - Page 3
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:40 YPang wrote: btw: What would you suggest for a graphics card for a guy that has a budget from 100-130$ ? hd 4850 but judging by these benches 5750 is much better for sc2. | ||
|
grobo
Japan6199 Posts
What is the AMD equivalent to that? | ||
|
Xaroya
16 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:40 YPang wrote: btw: What would you suggest for a graphics card for a guy that has a budget from 100-130$ ? don't know about foreign markets prices but I'd say a 9800GT or GTX260 should (somewhat) fit in | ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:40 YPang wrote: btw: What would you suggest for a graphics card for a guy that has a budget from 100-130$ ? Are you meaing 100-130 USD or some other currency? The difference between USD and NZ, for example, can be signifcant. The sweet spot for value seems to be around this mark for SC2. Go with a 4850/gts 250/5770 | ||
|
PGHammer
United States132 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:36 YPang wrote: Is there "HUGE" difference between running an ATi 4650 DDR2 to a DDR3? cuz the pricing gap seems pretty big to me. From reviews elsewhere, I haven't seen a performance gap that justifies the pricing gap between DDR2 and DDR3 (with either HD4650 or HD4670, which also sees either sort of RAM). HD4850 (at least in the US) is getting squeezed by falling prices for the HD5750 (in my case, I replaced the HD4850 on my shortlist with the HD5750; both, in case you wondered, are XFX). Also, I suggest (if you plan on spending serious time on BNet) reading the article "Graphics vs. Gameplay" in the SC2 section here. In addition, read all the comments. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
 . faseman the difference is abysmal when you consider how the 4870 normally tops the 5770 in just about every benchmark :p YPang: Go for a 5750 if you look at that benchmark, or go for a 4850. The difference between DDR2 and DDR3 is not nearly as large as the difference between DDR2 and GDDR3. I don't think it's worth it. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:47 faseman wrote: Are you meaing 100-130 USD or some other currency? The difference between USD and NZ, for example, can be signifcant. The sweet spot for value seems to be around this mark for SC2. Go with a 4850/gts 250/5770 I mean USD | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
 AMD equivalent to Pentium IV is probably Athlon 64. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
CPU: P9700 Core 2 Duo @ 2.8 Ghz RAM: 4 GB DDR2 GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 260M Resolution: 1680 x 1050 I can run Starcraft 2 at full resolution on "Ultra" settings with small amounts of lag here and there. Making a few graphical tweaks here and there smooths it out. I suggest anyone having lag issues try and turn off some filters or lower texture resolutions rather than simply lowering the overall resolution. Some graphic options are more costly than others. The key is finding that right combination that maximizes settings without lagging. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
N3rV[Green]
United States1935 Posts
OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.6.0.6001 (SP 1) CPU TYPE:INTEL(R) CORE(TM)2 DUO CPU T9400 @ 2.53GHZ CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.554 SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):3.998 GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:NVIDIA GEFORCE 9650M GT GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:NVD3DUM.DLLDESKTOP RESOLUTION:1440X900HARD DISK SIZE (GB):149.045 HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB)  6.162Thanks guys. | ||
|
grobo
Japan6199 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:48 FragKrag wrote: GTX 260 will not fit between 100-130 anytime soon AMD equivalent to Pentium IV is probably Athlon 64. Ok thanks, my old ass computer right now is Athlon 64 +3700, 2gb ram, 8800GTS. My biggest concern is the processor, do you think it would be possible to run on this? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
Thanks LunarC, but do you have the exact things you turned to high? That would be helpful your proc will be fine for running SC. | ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:42 mahnini wrote: looks like maxing sc2 requires more than people thought EH? admittedly fps should probably improve by release but it shouldn't be that huge of a jump. Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:50 N3rV[Green] wrote: I'm not too good at this computer part stuff yet....but would my laptop run sc2 decently? OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.6.0.6001 (SP 1) CPU TYPE:INTEL(R) CORE(TM)2 DUO CPU T9400 @ 2.53GHZ CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.554 SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):3.998 GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:NVIDIA GEFORCE 9650M GT GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:NVD3DUM.DLLDESKTOP RESOLUTION:1440X900HARD DISK SIZE (GB):149.045 HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB) 6.162Thanks guys. Yes you should be fine at mid-high settings. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
GPU: ATi Radeon r4890 Resolution: 1680x1050 RAM: 4GB DDR3 Setting: Ultra | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
| ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:52 faseman wrote: Are you looking at the same benchmarks I am? Even low-mid range cards can get 40+ fps at 1920x1200, on ultra settings. The most impressive part is the minimums IMO. But that could be more of a CPU thing. I'll wait for more benchmarks to confirm. do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. | ||
| ||
