|
On September 18 2010 02:35 snowbird wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 01:28 mav451 wrote:
A couple things -
1) They tested the i7 @ 3.06Ghz.
The better tech sites realized that CPU-bottlenecking is possible and OCed their i7's to more respectable 3.7Ghz or so. And even then, the CPU-bottlenecking remains a problem
2) They tested with 380 units. This is more relevant to custom/UMS gameplay, and less for ladder games. So again, as I've posted on other threads, judge each benchmark in its own context.
A good example is Guru3D's hilarious nVidia > ATi conclusions. Notice that they use the older 10.6 drivers (not 10.7) - but don't even bother emphasizing that in their conclusions. Please - and I can't emphasize this more, be diligent in recognizing that every website is benching the game differently and adjust your expectations accordingly. What you say is true but it doesn't change the point that it is disappointing that SC2 doesn't run smoothly at ALL TIMES with a decent system. I'm not asking for ladder games, for UMS maps, 1v1 or 4v4, early game or late game or something else. I'm asking for always.
It pains me aswell to see SC2 so badly optimized. HD 5850 really deals some serious blows to the GTX 470 me thinks. AA is something i will never enable cause its something that 3x/2x SLI/Crossfire systems can afford, without getting those ridiculous low frame rates. (+ i am not that cooky so that i would require AA)
|
On September 18 2010 02:35 snowbird wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 01:28 mav451 wrote:
A couple things -
1) They tested the i7 @ 3.06Ghz.
The better tech sites realized that CPU-bottlenecking is possible and OCed their i7's to more respectable 3.7Ghz or so. And even then, the CPU-bottlenecking remains a problem
2) They tested with 380 units. This is more relevant to custom/UMS gameplay, and less for ladder games. So again, as I've posted on other threads, judge each benchmark in its own context.
A good example is Guru3D's hilarious nVidia > ATi conclusions. Notice that they use the older 10.6 drivers (not 10.7) - but don't even bother emphasizing that in their conclusions. Please - and I can't emphasize this more, be diligent in recognizing that every website is benching the game differently and adjust your expectations accordingly. What you say is true but it doesn't change the point that it is disappointing that SC2 doesn't run smoothly at ALL TIMES with a decent system. I'm not asking for ladder games, for UMS maps, 1v1 or 4v4, early game or late game or something else. I'm asking for always.
Well the thing is it's a rts without a built in benchmark so people are doing it different ways, most built in benchamrks take a look at typical loads from light to heavy, this bench is of only the really heavy which leads to sc2 being cpu bottle necked. Where short of a I7 oced to 4Ghz the cap will be very in place. Even on stock medium settings which is light on the cpu the AI part of 380 units running though one thread is too much.
|
Not making SC2 threaded was a decision to allow single core and dual core systems to still be able to play. :/
|
On September 18 2010 05:12 FragKrag wrote:
Not making SC2 threaded was a decision to allow single core and dual core systems to still be able to play. :/
Whats the point if ~650 EUR PC configurations can't handle 1vs1 200/200 mayhem and havoc. Unless the Ultra setting is put there as a statement that BLIZZARD >>>> YOUR_PC.
|
i think most sites are testing large team games which is why they run into a cpu bottleneck. i have an e8400@ 3.6 and i never drop below 60fps in 1v1 games. i do however notice drops in campaign because some of the maps just have tons of units on them. so i'd say the 1v1 requirement is quite low.
if we organized a data collection thread on TL i think we'd get more relevant numbers. provide a replay, ask for specs, and and have people record min / avg fps. i think you can do that with fraps?
|
Guys, I need help here. I'm not computer savvy. I hope I'm posting in the right place. I can currently only play on lowest settings, and I always lag during big battles for any game with more than 4 ppl. My card is a 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO.
My specs and my question to you guys:
Dell Dimension E520
Windows XP 32-bit
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.66GHz
2.66 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM
I'm pretty sure that I really have 4GB but one of the GB can't be used because I'm using a 32-bit OS. I don't know how that affects video card choice (if at all). My monitor resolution is 1280x1024. I think, from reading, that power supply is important to know, but I have no idea what it is or how to find that out.
I first considered upgrading the entire computer for sc2, but I read that a quad will not improve performance, so I figured it is mostly about the graphics card. I know that ATI Radeon X1300PRO is probably really outdated.
I read in the many threads that many people recommend GTX 260, and then I read people recommending GTX 460, and some Geforce 8800 also I think. I'm willing to spend $150 to $250. I was going to just buy GTX 260, but then I don't know if it will even work on my computer. Will it?
The above is pretty much all I know. Please help me make a decision on a graphics card, so that I can play the game hopefully on Ultra (if it's possible for my computer).
Thanks...
|
GTX 460 will be your best bet of the listed cards, but I'm not sure your Power supply will work with it. How many W is your PSU and how many A on the 12V rail?
Definitely not Ultra capable, but I don't see why you can't get medium or something with a small upgrade like a GTS 250 or HD 4850
|
On September 23 2010 08:11 maxchgr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Guys, I need help here. I'm not computer savvy. I hope I'm posting in the right place. I can currently only play on lowest settings, and I always lag during big battles for any game with more than 4 ppl. My card is a 256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO.
My specs and my question to you guys:
Dell Dimension E520
Windows XP 32-bit
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.66GHz
2.66 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM
I'm pretty sure that I really have 4GB but one of the GB can't be used because I'm using a 32-bit OS. I don't know how that affects video card choice (if at all). My monitor resolution is 1280x1024. I think, from reading, that power supply is important to know, but I have no idea what it is or how to find that out.
I first considered upgrading the entire computer for sc2, but I read that a quad will not improve performance, so I figured it is mostly about the graphics card. I know that ATI Radeon X1300PRO is probably really outdated.
I read in the many threads that many people recommend GTX 260, and then I read people recommending GTX 460, and some Geforce 8800 also I think. I'm willing to spend $150 to $250. I was going to just buy GTX 260, but then I don't know if it will even work on my computer. Will it?
The above is pretty much all I know. Please help me make a decision on a graphics card, so that I can play the game hopefully on Ultra (if it's possible for my computer).
Thanks...
Your CPU is also pretty bad. A single core at 2.66GHz will have trouble with SC2, especially at higher graphics levels. Putting a GTX260 into your computer would be a waste because it would nearly always then be CPU limited. I think your initial idea to upgrade the entire computer is the right way to go.
EDIT: beaten to it by someone who's better informed anyway 
|
I assumed GTX 400s are newer than GTX 200s.
I thought that I have a dual core, Chrisboy (?). So, I don't quite understand because when I look at new computers, they are not based on pentium version and Ghz but rather things like "i3" and my friend recently bought a computer that was 2.6ghz quad core, and I figured my computer is not so bad even though it's a bit old, because I have a 2.6ghz dual core, and SC2 can't utilize more than 2 threads. Also, I read that more than 4GB ram is not useful, so I thought I was OK. Which part of my computer is bad exactly?
Also, if I decide not to upgrade the computer, and just go with a small upgrade, what is the reason that I can't hit ultra? Which part of my computer is lacking to support that?
Also, FragKrag, to answer:
How many W is your PSU and how many A on the 12V rail?
Where do I look to find that out? I don't really know what a PSU is, and what a rail is?
Thank you again
|
For info about the power supply unit (PSU), try finding information about the Dell model you have. This listing indicates a 305W PSU. Unfortunately, a total power rating like that doesn't give a complete picture of its capabilities. e.g. how much of that 305W can be pulled from the +12V output? is that 305W continuous or peak load? at what temperature is the wattage quoted? It's maybe possible that there is more information on the box the computer came with or a sticker inside, etc.
However, it's safe to say that the PSU will not handle those GPUs you mentioned like the GTX 260 or GTX 460. If you were to get something like that, you'd need to buy a new PSU too.
A decent GPU that you could run on the current PSU is the relatively-low-power HD 5670, which should be good, especially at the low resolution you're running. That would be well over what you need for medium already.
Your Pentium D is a dual core, but it's a very outdated one. An i3-530 at 2.933 GHz does not have a much higher clock speed, but the architecture is much more advanced so it executes more instructions per unit time (and per clock tick) than the Pentium D.
|
I really need some help here. I don't really know much about tech stuff like this so if someone could tell me if this computer would be able to play Starcraft 2 on even low graphics I would really appreciate it.
+ Show Spoiler +
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD Athlon(TM) X4 635 quad-core processor [2.9GHz, 2MB L2, up to 4000MHz bus]
FREE UPGRADE! 6GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [3 DIMMs] from 4GB
FREE UPGRADE! 750GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 500GB
512MB NVIDIA GeForce 315 [DVI, HDMI, VGA adapter]
|
GeForce 315? This is the first time i encounter this graphics card.
The CPU and the RAM are fine even for mid/high. I'll let someone who dealt with GeForce 315 to inform you about it's performance. It should run SC2 at low flawlessly.
|
GeForce 315 is a downclocked GT 220 with DDR2 RAM. As a guess, it should be great on low, maybe with some medium settings thrown in, especially at lower screen resolutions. Don't expect more than low though, I think.
|
Thank you so much for your replies. Just one more thing. Would a 1GB ATI Radeon HD 5450 be better than a GeForce 315?
|
|
|
I think they're roughly equivalent, though the HD 5450 is newer and supports DirectX 11 (but that's not useful). Both are relatively modern bottom-end discrete graphics cards, so that's a tier above the best integrated graphics on the market now but nothing to write home about.
You can find more reviews on the HD 5450 and see the performance for yourself, so it might be a safer option rather than relying on me guessing about the GeForce 315. You can also maybe find a few benchmarks of the GT 220 and assume the GeForce 315 is significantly worse but maybe in the same league. I wouldn't pay more to get the HD 5450 though.
|
i would love some help i am thinking about buying this for around 400 is it worth it i dont know nothing about pc and i have been playing sc2 of my laptop i had enough  .
Many thanks for your call earlier today. Further to our phone conversation, I am pleased to offer the following quote based on your requirements:
EZ Cool MA661 Case
1 x 120mm Case Fan
Standard 650W PSU
Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 CPU
Standard Intel CPU Heatsink and fan
Asus P5KPL-AM motherboard
4 GB PC6400 (800Mhz) DDR2 RAM
250GB SATA hard drive
20x Dual Layer DVD +/- Rewriter
Overclocked NVIDIA GT 240 1GB PCI Express Graphics card
Onboard 5.1 channel sound card
2 Front USB 2.0 ports
4 Back USB 2.0 ports
Onboard Ethernet LAN Network Card
One Year Return to Base Warranty (parts and labour)
|
That would cost about 400 USD to put together in the US (without OS). In terms of SC2 performance, it would play on medium fine. If the price is 400£, I think you're getting ripped off though.
It's all budget-oriented parts from the previous generation. If you were to put together a budget gaming build, these parts would arguably make sense, but I think someone could do better.
|
man really want sc2 on high with £510 budget which is like 800USD.
|
Ok so sc2 lags for me when I get into the mid/late game with high unit count. It gets to the point where I can't micro at all and I just A move, really takes the fun out of the game.
I play on lowest settings possible but it still doesn't help.
Looking at my specs, what is it that I have to change to possibly fix this? (does my computer suck?)
Microsoft Windows XP (MediaCenterEdition) Version 2002, Service Pack 3
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
3.39 GHz
2,00 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE
1280x1024
32-bit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
