|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On April 21 2011 04:38 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 02:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 20 2011 11:24 Myrmidon wrote:On April 20 2011 08:52 FabledIntegral wrote:After having a very positive experience building my own computer after visiting this thread, I am going to ask, is it feasible to build your own laptop? I only have a budget of ~$500, and I'd like to have something that could minimally game such as SC2 on low. I've run into this one on newegg I'm considering if I can't build my own http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157545&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL041911&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL041911-_-EMC-041911-Index-_-LaptopsNotebooks-_-34157545-L016Asupposedly people have said in reviews it can run SC2 on low with 200/200 armies (1v1) without any issue. Current laptop has a broken screen, not worth fixing it as it's a POS anyways. I think I can get Windows 7 64 bit for free. Could I somehow salvage the HD from my existing Toshiba Satellite C655 (or anything else, for that matter?). It's feasible but much more annoying, since parts are less available and tend to be less compatible. I think the savings are less as well. Some people do it, though I've never tried. Is your old laptop HDD PATA or SATA? A low-clocked AMD dual core with no L3 cache should struggle late game with big armies, though the integrated Radeon HD 4200 or HD 4250 on those is good enough for low at those lower resolutions. If think people are saying that it's playable under those circumstances. If you want to maintain decent fps, you'll probably need better hardware. If you can manage, there are some laptops around $550 with a Core i3-2310M (with Intel HD Graphics 3000). Maybe a deal will put one around $500. That would be a pretty big upgrade both in the CPU and the integrated GPU, so that should play 1v1 smoothly. Is that much better? The gfx card benchmarks show it playing SC2 at 100+ FPS on low, although only 27 FPS on medium. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866 A Pentium dual core is about the same as a one of the later AMD dual cores, though the mobility HD 5470 there should be a decent step up from the HD 4200/4250 (though still a little worse than Intel HD 3000 I think). It should be better than the other laptop you linked. You're just going to have to figure out if the difference between okay/good fps lategame on low (like i3-2310M) and playable fps lategame on low is worth ~$100. There don't seem to be definitive benchmarks on these CPUs and GPUs for SC2, so if you've done all the searching around and research, you probably know better than us (or at least me). Under $500, you're probably not going to do better,.
The only problem is that I never know the gfx of the laptops. When it's "Intel HD Graphics" it just says that it's integrated, I don't know if it's Intel HD 3000. What am I supposed to interpret when I smply see "Intel HD Graphics (Integrated)" ? I know nothing about non Intel processors, but I'm going to assume by how you wrote it that it's acceptable but low-end?
|
On April 21 2011 05:31 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 04:38 Myrmidon wrote:On April 21 2011 02:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 20 2011 11:24 Myrmidon wrote:On April 20 2011 08:52 FabledIntegral wrote:After having a very positive experience building my own computer after visiting this thread, I am going to ask, is it feasible to build your own laptop? I only have a budget of ~$500, and I'd like to have something that could minimally game such as SC2 on low. I've run into this one on newegg I'm considering if I can't build my own http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157545&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL041911&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL041911-_-EMC-041911-Index-_-LaptopsNotebooks-_-34157545-L016Asupposedly people have said in reviews it can run SC2 on low with 200/200 armies (1v1) without any issue. Current laptop has a broken screen, not worth fixing it as it's a POS anyways. I think I can get Windows 7 64 bit for free. Could I somehow salvage the HD from my existing Toshiba Satellite C655 (or anything else, for that matter?). It's feasible but much more annoying, since parts are less available and tend to be less compatible. I think the savings are less as well. Some people do it, though I've never tried. Is your old laptop HDD PATA or SATA? A low-clocked AMD dual core with no L3 cache should struggle late game with big armies, though the integrated Radeon HD 4200 or HD 4250 on those is good enough for low at those lower resolutions. If think people are saying that it's playable under those circumstances. If you want to maintain decent fps, you'll probably need better hardware. If you can manage, there are some laptops around $550 with a Core i3-2310M (with Intel HD Graphics 3000). Maybe a deal will put one around $500. That would be a pretty big upgrade both in the CPU and the integrated GPU, so that should play 1v1 smoothly. Is that much better? The gfx card benchmarks show it playing SC2 at 100+ FPS on low, although only 27 FPS on medium. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866 A Pentium dual core is about the same as a one of the later AMD dual cores, though the mobility HD 5470 there should be a decent step up from the HD 4200/4250 (though still a little worse than Intel HD 3000 I think). It should be better than the other laptop you linked. You're just going to have to figure out if the difference between okay/good fps lategame on low (like i3-2310M) and playable fps lategame on low is worth ~$100. There don't seem to be definitive benchmarks on these CPUs and GPUs for SC2, so if you've done all the searching around and research, you probably know better than us (or at least me). Under $500, you're probably not going to do better,. The only problem is that I never know the gfx of the laptops. When it's "Intel HD Graphics" it just says that it's integrated, I don't know if it's Intel HD 3000. What am I supposed to interpret when I smply see "Intel HD Graphics (Integrated)" ? I know nothing about non Intel processors, but I'm going to assume by how you wrote it that it's acceptable but low-end?
The Intel HD 3000 is only available on Sandybridge processors (Second Generation Intel Core Series), ex: Core i5 2520M, Core i5 2540M, Core i7 2620M, Core i7 2720QM, etc. Everything else will be HD 2000 or lower.
|
On April 21 2011 05:13 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 04:53 Myrmidon wrote:
I'm not always sure if I trust results on notebookcheck, since they don't list how and under which circumstances the fps is logged. (or do they?) http://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-test-criteria.15394.0.htmlThey don't go much into detail, just "demo or full game if available." Notebook configurations are listed for each of the FPS values though.
Well, it's always possible to to find more sources ^_^
Anandtech shows HD Graphics 2000/3000 running SC2 perfectly fine at around the framerates notebookcheck says (higher when just scrolling, a third as much when there are 6 armies (as opposed to the normal 2 when in 1v1s). I reckon native resolution is easily doable, albeit at lowest settings.
Note: Notebooks do NOT have HD Graphics 2000. All Sandy Bridge processors for laptops contain HD Graphics 3000 (i.e. i5-2540M, i7-2620QM, etc.). Non-Sandy Bridge processors have weaker graphics cards. For the "i" series (i.e. i5-430, i5-460, i7-620, etc), they are the Arrandale models, and come with the same graphics that Clarkdale processors have, IIRC. It's also called Intel GMA HD.
In short: Anything that is iX-2XXX(Q)M will have HD Graphics 3000, while anything that is iX-XXXM will have Intel GMA HD. Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme for notebooks have GMA 4500M, which is a fair deal weaker.
|
On April 21 2011 04:38 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 02:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 20 2011 11:24 Myrmidon wrote:On April 20 2011 08:52 FabledIntegral wrote:After having a very positive experience building my own computer after visiting this thread, I am going to ask, is it feasible to build your own laptop? I only have a budget of ~$500, and I'd like to have something that could minimally game such as SC2 on low. I've run into this one on newegg I'm considering if I can't build my own http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157545&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL041911&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL041911-_-EMC-041911-Index-_-LaptopsNotebooks-_-34157545-L016Asupposedly people have said in reviews it can run SC2 on low with 200/200 armies (1v1) without any issue. Current laptop has a broken screen, not worth fixing it as it's a POS anyways. I think I can get Windows 7 64 bit for free. Could I somehow salvage the HD from my existing Toshiba Satellite C655 (or anything else, for that matter?). It's feasible but much more annoying, since parts are less available and tend to be less compatible. I think the savings are less as well. Some people do it, though I've never tried. Is your old laptop HDD PATA or SATA? A low-clocked AMD dual core with no L3 cache should struggle late game with big armies, though the integrated Radeon HD 4200 or HD 4250 on those is good enough for low at those lower resolutions. If think people are saying that it's playable under those circumstances. If you want to maintain decent fps, you'll probably need better hardware. If you can manage, there are some laptops around $550 with a Core i3-2310M (with Intel HD Graphics 3000). Maybe a deal will put one around $500. That would be a pretty big upgrade both in the CPU and the integrated GPU, so that should play 1v1 smoothly. Is that much better? The gfx card benchmarks show it playing SC2 at 100+ FPS on low, although only 27 FPS on medium. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866 A Pentium dual core is about the same as a one of the later AMD dual cores, though the mobility HD 5470 there should be a decent step up from the HD 4200/4250 (though still a little worse than Intel HD 3000 I think). It should be better than the other laptop you linked. You're just going to have to figure out if the difference between okay/good fps lategame on low (like i3-2310M) and playable fps lategame on low is worth ~$100. There don't seem to be definitive benchmarks on these CPUs and GPUs for SC2, so if you've done all the searching around and research, you probably know better than us (or at least me). Under $500, you're probably not going to do better,.
Are you sure that the 5470 is worse than the Intel HD 3000 in terms of performance? Because notebookcheck is showing the opposite. Well, it shows that they flipflop in performance depending on the game, although 5470 is better for SC2, only marginally. Really have no idea, although I'm guessing that the processor from the i3-2310M would be superior to Pentium Dual Core by a fair amount? Ahhh wish I knew more.
PS. I'm comparing
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834131126
with
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866
at the moment, $50 isn't a huge deal to me but I'm still a little short on cash.
Compare link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006740&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&CompareItemList=32|34-131-126^34-131-126-TS,34-220-866^34-220-866-TS
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a reason to go lower on the power but still paying the same amount?
|
You should not be looking at the wattage but instead at the amperage provided by the 12v. The Antec Earthwatts 430w provides 34a, Antec Neo 400w provides 30a, while your selected Antec VP450 provides 30a.
|
@Zooper
don't get k-series if u don't plan on overclocking. if you are going to OC, get a p61 mobo
and get 2x2gb ram, no need for 8gb
payin 100 for os is a rip imo, cheaper ways of getting it
|
United States1655 Posts
|
Yes that would be a good choice.
|
On April 21 2011 06:27 HCmystic wrote:
@Zooper
don't get k-series if u don't plan on overclocking. if you are going to OC, get a p61 mobo
and get 2x2gb ram, no need for 8gb
payin 100 for os is a rip imo, cheaper ways of getting it
K-series? And I don't plan on OC.
|
Typo on your part (no such thing as a core i5 2400k) and misinformation on his part. Nothing to be concerned about.
|
On April 21 2011 08:55 skyR wrote:
Typo on your part (no such thing as a core i5 2400k) and misinformation on his part. Nothing to be concerned about.
lol k
|
So my parents want a new, very simple computer for cheap. All this computer would be used for is typing documents, using Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, Excel, etc. as well as a main computer to hook up our router. I found the website Elitepcbuilding.com and I have just used information from there. This link on different computer builds: http://elitepcbuilding.com/how-to-build-a-computer/computer-parts And I'm going to use the Economical/Basic Performance Gaming PC. Before I make any commitments, I just want any input of someone more knowledgeable to look over it quickly and let me know it has everything I would need. Thanks in advance
|
|
|
On April 21 2011 06:27 HCmystic wrote:
@Zooper
don't get k-series if u don't plan on overclocking. if you are going to OC, get a p61 mobo
and get 2x2gb ram, no need for 8gb
payin 100 for os is a rip imo, cheaper ways of getting it
How else would you legitimately get a copy of Windows 7 (unless you were talking about another OS)? I'm curious b/c I already used my M$ student discount deal.
--
Also, a question for anyone: How would an SSD affect SC2 performance-wise? I guess the game itself and maps would load faster, but would anything change in-game? Lastly, is an SSD still worth it if my mobo only supports SATA 3 Gb/s?
|
The launch of Starcraft 2 will be nearly instant and it decreases loading time but keep in mind that you still have to wait for others to load. There won't be any FPS improvement.
You can get a 3Gb/s SSD such as the OCZ Vertex 2, Intel X25M, Corsair Force, etc. SATA 6Gb/s is only necessary if you are looking to purchase the latest generation of SSDs which uses SATA 6Gb/s such as the OCZ Vertex 3, Corsair Performance 3, Intel 510, Intel 320, etc.
|
In general, you should see if anybody has a .edu email address that they wouldn't mind letting you use (only people you know personally, of course). If you can't, then the OEM version is the only option left (well, you could also purchase a Family Pack for $50 more than the OEM version; technically, they are upgrades just like the student edition, but using them as full versions is all but completely supported >_____<). That's the only other way of getting a cheaper (in the long run) version of Windows 7.
SSDs are incredibly useful if you'll be using a few key programs a ton. Load times will decrease (including map loading, although that's only applicable if you currently load slowly/everybody else also has an equally fast load time), and the Windows 7 boot time will be cut significantly. Nothing in-game would change, unless you're going to be playing those special maps that have you switching maps often/draw files from the hard drive often.
|
On April 21 2011 05:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 04:38 Myrmidon wrote:On April 21 2011 02:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 20 2011 11:24 Myrmidon wrote:On April 20 2011 08:52 FabledIntegral wrote:After having a very positive experience building my own computer after visiting this thread, I am going to ask, is it feasible to build your own laptop? I only have a budget of ~$500, and I'd like to have something that could minimally game such as SC2 on low. I've run into this one on newegg I'm considering if I can't build my own http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157545&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL041911&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL041911-_-EMC-041911-Index-_-LaptopsNotebooks-_-34157545-L016Asupposedly people have said in reviews it can run SC2 on low with 200/200 armies (1v1) without any issue. Current laptop has a broken screen, not worth fixing it as it's a POS anyways. I think I can get Windows 7 64 bit for free. Could I somehow salvage the HD from my existing Toshiba Satellite C655 (or anything else, for that matter?). It's feasible but much more annoying, since parts are less available and tend to be less compatible. I think the savings are less as well. Some people do it, though I've never tried. Is your old laptop HDD PATA or SATA? A low-clocked AMD dual core with no L3 cache should struggle late game with big armies, though the integrated Radeon HD 4200 or HD 4250 on those is good enough for low at those lower resolutions. If think people are saying that it's playable under those circumstances. If you want to maintain decent fps, you'll probably need better hardware. If you can manage, there are some laptops around $550 with a Core i3-2310M (with Intel HD Graphics 3000). Maybe a deal will put one around $500. That would be a pretty big upgrade both in the CPU and the integrated GPU, so that should play 1v1 smoothly. Is that much better? The gfx card benchmarks show it playing SC2 at 100+ FPS on low, although only 27 FPS on medium. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866 A Pentium dual core is about the same as a one of the later AMD dual cores, though the mobility HD 5470 there should be a decent step up from the HD 4200/4250 (though still a little worse than Intel HD 3000 I think). It should be better than the other laptop you linked. You're just going to have to figure out if the difference between okay/good fps lategame on low (like i3-2310M) and playable fps lategame on low is worth ~$100. There don't seem to be definitive benchmarks on these CPUs and GPUs for SC2, so if you've done all the searching around and research, you probably know better than us (or at least me). Under $500, you're probably not going to do better,. Are you sure that the 5470 is worse than the Intel HD 3000 in terms of performance? Because notebookcheck is showing the opposite. Well, it shows that they flipflop in performance depending on the game, although 5470 is better for SC2, only marginally. Really have no idea, although I'm guessing that the processor from the i3-2310M would be superior to Pentium Dual Core by a fair amount? Ahhh wish I knew more. PS. I'm comparing http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834131126with http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220866at the moment, $50 isn't a huge deal to me but I'm still a little short on cash. Compare link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006740&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&CompareItemList=32|34-131-126^34-131-126-TS,34-220-866^34-220-866-TS
First-gen Core i3-xxxM has inferior integrated graphics. You don't want that for sure.
Anyway, the Intel HD 3000 (12 execution units, between 650-1300 MHz) should be about the same or very slightly better than the HD 5470M, at least in terms of maximum graphics performance. The issue is that the Intel HD 3000 is on the same chip as the Intel CPU, and there's a total power and temperature constraint on the whole thing. If the CPU portion is under heavy load, then the HD 3000 is presumably not going to be able to run at the full 1300 MHz, so it may be slower than the HD 5470M. If the CPU is mostly idle, then the HD 3000 portion can run up to 1300 MHz.
On April 21 2011 06:05 Zooper31 wrote:Is there a reason to go lower on the power but still paying the same amount?
It's not just wattage like skyR says, but the quality of components and design is higher on the Earthwatts Green (we think--not much is known about the VP450). The VP is the new Basiq line, which is Antec's lowest-end offering. Earthwatts Green are known to be pretty decent for budget units.
So you're paying the same for higher quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
