| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Semtext
Germany287 Posts
On October 28 2010 17:58 Firkraag8 wrote: @ $800 this is what i came up with for you. This will get you a great gaming machine for your budget! ![[image loading]](http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/Firkraag8/800.jpg) (click for bigger image) And if you take away the fancy case and put in an AMD processor(and compatible motherboard), it will probably be around 700 $. | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
And for 700$ an AMD would be better yes, but since you're willing to spend 800 go for the i5-760 for sure! | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On October 28 2010 18:03 Semtext wrote: And if you take away the fancy case and put in an AMD processor(and compatible motherboard), it will probably be around 700 $. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152181&cm_re=samsung_F3-_-22-152-181-_-Product 55 instead of 60 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233&cm_re=cooler_master_HAF-_-11-119-233-_-Product 60 instead of 106 and has cable management built in the GTX 460 isn't a hot card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127534 used money save poor it into a 1gb GTX460 could always save 14 more and just buy a cheaper one and oc http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151091 this psu is better and works fine for a cheap price. if you want braided cables http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151096 and i'd take a 750 for a few bucks cheaper then a 760 | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
![[image loading]](http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/Firkraag8/801.jpg) Either way good luck with the build! I'm about to install my new one today as well.  | ||
|
Winters
Spain53 Posts
On October 28 2010 17:58 Firkraag8 wrote: @ $800 this is what i came up with for you. This will get you a great gaming machine for your budget! (click for bigger image) I would build one like that but with an Asus mobo instead of Gigabyte, tho its fine for me, I like that PC. | ||
|
rascal
Sweden11 Posts
I have tried different CPU:s for this game, ranging from AMD Athlon X2 250 (2core, 3ghz) and AMD Phenom X3 720 (3core, 2.8ghz, larger cache) among other processors like i5. I came to the conclusion that you need cache for this game. The Athlon X2 at 3.8GHz got me fewer FPS than the Phenom X3 at 2GHz. If you plan on buying a computer for SC2, aim for largest L3 cache and amount of cores for the price. a good hard drive also makes a difference. Buying an expensive graphics card won't make a difference in SC2. Last generation GTX260 SP216 with a good processor lets you achieve Ultra easily. | ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
On October 28 2010 19:13 rascal wrote: Starcraft 2 is surprisingly CPU-intensive unlike other games. Even if you plan on playing it at 1920x1200 with a good graphics card you won't get away with a cheap CPU (which usually works in most games as long as the CPU is 3GHz+) I have tried different CPU:s for this game, ranging from AMD Athlon X2 250 (2core, 3ghz) and AMD Phenom X3 720 (3core, 2.8ghz, larger cache) among other processors like i5. I came to the conclusion that you need cache for this game. The Athlon X2 at 3.8GHz got me fewer FPS than the Phenom X3 at 2GHz. If you plan on buying a computer for SC2, aim for largest L3 cache and amount of cores for the price. a good hard drive also makes a difference. Buying an expensive graphics card won't make a difference in SC2. Last generation GTX260 SP216 with a good processor lets you achieve Ultra easily. yeh my brothers computer has a garbage graphics hard but strong proc so it runs sc2 pretty smooth | ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
| ||
|
bNy
84 Posts
On October 28 2010 16:11 writer22816 wrote: most games are GPU-intensive, not CPU intensive. I would only get an i7 if i did a lot of video encoding and other CPU-intensive tasks. Not true. Some games rely more on CPU, others on GPU. If you got an awesome CPU but a less good GPU, you'd still be able to play almost all games on high/ultra. However, if you got a less good CPU and a mega good GPU, you will notice shit load of lag ingame. | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
On October 28 2010 18:54 Winters wrote: I would build one like that but with an Asus mobo instead of Gigabyte, tho its fine for me, I like that PC. I just built my PC a couple of weeks ago and it's pretty much the same exact build. GTX 460 768 mb I5-760 4 GB Ram Gigabyte P55AUD3 Corsair 650 Watt power supply Cooler Master HAF 922 (this thing is a beast, so make sure space isn't a problem) I haven't had SC lag once on me yet because there are too many units on screen or anything. The computer handles it just fine on Ultra settings. The only thing I would upgrade out of everything you chose is the power supply. 550W is kind of limiting if the OP ever wants to add in another GPU or upgrade his CPU. My computer is rated at using 500W using a power supply calculator. Leaving just 50W for upgrade room is kind of a waste of money if he ever wants to upgrade since he'll have to fork out another $80 for a new PSU. Here's the PSU I went with. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005 And also go for a 1 TB HDD. With how cheap they are, you might as well. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185 Newegg also has tons of combo deals going on all the time, so make sure you check those out. I saved about $40 by just using the combo deals. Microcenter also has the i5-760 for $169.99. Better than NewEgg's pricing of the 750 and a better processor . | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On October 29 2010 00:48 Joementum wrote:My computer is rated at using 500W using a power supply calculator. You need a better power supply calculator. That setup is really only around 380W. On an 80 Plus certified PSU you'd only need 475W to run it, 500W to run it comfortably, and 550W leaves plenty of room for upgrades. You'd have to upgrad to SLI, 2 disk RAID, and an i7 875 with an overclock to require ~520W i.e. 650W 80 Plus certified. There's upgrade room, the 650W corsair was complete overkill for your rig. The 6850 that just came out would lower the power requirements significantly relative to the 460 and would provide comperable performance at a lower price to boot. | ||
|
icemanzdoinwork
447 Posts
I was going to build my own but couldn't get credit with newegg so I paid a little more for an alienware, but got a steal because of discounts through work. I recommend this. Amd x4 be 555 Asus mobo micro atx Radeon 5670, 5770 or gtx 460 Each card goes up in power, but the 5670 is a great card at a great price. 2x2 gb ddr3 1333 gskill ram. The red one on newegg is like 80$. Get a case that has good ventilation. Read the reviews on newegg! Get the combo deals! | ||
|
asdfTT123
United States989 Posts
Desktop: Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16 ghz, 4GB DDR2, HD 4870 1GB GDDR5 Laptop: Core i5 450M 2.4 ghz, 4GB DDR3, Mobility HD 5850 1GB GDDR5 From what I know i5 > i3 > Core 2 Duo for dual core processors. They run the game nearly identically...can't tell a freakin difference at 1680x1050. | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On October 29 2010 03:01 icemanzdoinwork wrote: If you don't do graphic editing/ video editing then the amd phenom x4 555 BE is absolutely the way to go. By x4 555 do you mean an x2 555 with the extra cores unlocked because AMD doesn't sell an x4 555 directly. Unlocking cores can be great if you can get it to work but, from what I've heard, it's very hit or miss with the 555 if both cores will unlock and work as they should. Even if you can starcraft 2 is a very CPU intensive game and you'd likely be better served with an i5 760 and spending less on the GPU to cover the difference. | ||
|
Benshin88
United States183 Posts
It has i7 740QM 1.6GHZ 6 gigabytes of DDR3ram 500 gb 7200 rpm HD and ATI Radeon 5730 video card. People say it can play it on Ultra with ease. This is a pretty good place to get basic Benchmarks. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ Check out the video section too. Compare this stuff with the FPS Frap tests on Youtube | ||
|
Benshin88
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
Ssoulle
United Kingdom149 Posts
Its reccomended to have at least an I5 to play at nice FPS. GPU you can for SC2 you can get away with something abit less, but everyone plays other games so | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
| ||
|
CreamCorn
33 Posts
On October 29 2010 00:32 bNy wrote: Not true. Some games rely more on CPU, others on GPU. If you got an awesome CPU but a less good GPU, you'd still be able to play almost all games on high/ultra. However, if you got a less good CPU and a mega good GPU, you will notice shit load of lag ingame. This goes against every single real world case benchmark. The difference between the $400 CPU and a $100 CPU manifests itself in 4-5 frames per second difference. A difference between a $100 video card and a $400 video card can double or triple your FPS. There have been specific benchmarks which are meant to expose the CPUs performance where a CPU impacts the FPS a lot but you will notice those are always at very low resolutions and lowest possible graphic settings in order to remove the GPU from the equation. But as far as normal conditions go even a $70 Athlon II will run any game perfectly fine provided you have a decent Video Card. SC2 is probably one of the rare games which really does stress the CPU but even SC2 is fine with any 2.8Ghz+ dual core CPU (which can be bought for as low as $60). GPU Scaling of SC2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-6.html CPU Scaling of SC2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-8.html Today's fastest CPU family is Core i7 for instance which will cost you $100-200 more than an AMD Quad Core setup for instance. (when comparing the setup make sure you also factor in the motherboard cost as core i7 motherboards tend to cost up to $100 more as well). So your $200 extra you spend on an i7 will yield you 5 more FPS. Bumping your Video card by $200 will give you far more performance. Or the money you save on the CPU you can use towards an SSD which makes SC2 loading screens 5-10 times faster. (My SC2 loads so much faster since I moved it to one of my SSDs). Where an i7 makes sense are things like video trans coding because the gains are bigger there. Or even a Phenom II x6 (6 core AMD CPU). | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On October 29 2010 10:58 CreamCorn wrote: But as far as normal conditions go even a $70 Athlon II will run any game perfectly fine provided you have a decent Video Card. SC2 is probably one of the rare games which really does stress the CPU but even SC2 is fine with any 2.8Ghz+ dual core CPU (which can be bought for as low as $60). ... So your $200 extra you spend on an i7 will yield you 5 more FPS. Bumping your Video card by $200 will give you far more performance. Did you even read the article you quoted as a source for your assertions? The benchmarks clearly show that going from a 5850 to a 5870 on an i7 920 yields nearly 0 gains in performance at most resolutions. If the game is CPU bottlenecked on an i7 with only a mid-range card then why get a better card instead of a better CPU? From the article: "A 2.5 GHz Phenom II X4 barely offers playable performance" That's their recommendation so you're suggesting that a crappier Athalon 2 will be fine as long as it's 2.8 GHz or up? The benchmarks you linked are more than clear, on a 5850 the difference between i7 and an Athalon II isn't 5 FPS it's 17 min FPS to 25 min FPS and 41.2 FPS max to 53.1 FPS max. Again, from the article you linked: "If you want to keep things playable during epic battles, we recommend at least a 3 GHz dual-core or a 2.8 GHz triple-core processor. We also suggest that you opt for a 3.4 GHz Phenom II or a Core i5-750 at the very least to ensure smooth gameplay at all times." A cheap Athalon II isn't going to cut it if you want to play on higher settings, period. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
OSC
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
sebesdes vs SpeCial
Harstem vs YoungYakov
GgMaChine vs uThermal
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
