|
On October 29 2010 23:59 tetracycloide wrote:
A cheap Athalon II isn't going to cut it if you want to play on higher settings, period.
Of course I read it I linked it. I think you missed the point of the article. They artificially under clocked the CPUs to prove that clock is important. Which is what I said in my post, any today's processor over 2.8Ghz will be fine for SC2.
In fact this 3.2 Ghz $67 Athlon II is going to be more than enough for SC2:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103873
Even better for less than $20 more you can get a 3.2 Ghz Tri-Core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103886&cm_re=Athlon_II_x3-_-19-103-886-_-Product
For the stuff that runs in the background while you game. I consider the CPUs I linked cheap, don't you?
Furthermore investing a lot of money in CPUs currently is not a wise idea because both AMD and Intel are introducing brand new architectures next year. Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer. I can't recommend dumping $400+ on an i7 and a more expensive motherboard right now, when you can get by with a $150 Athlon II + AM3 Motherboard. And it will run SC2 perfectly fine. The extra money can be invested in a faster GPU which will last you a long time because both of those architectures are brand new and GPU performance isn't expected to jump drastically next year.
So if your choice is to go for a i7 and a weak GPU like a 450 gt. You are far better going with a Athlon II 3.2 Ghz CPU I linked and a 6870 for the same price.
My advice makes even more sense if you play other games which favor GPU over CPU even more.
On October 29 2010 23:59 tetracycloide wrote:
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
Also I have to respond to this.
First of all there is a difference on most common resolution between those two cards but it's true that difference is small. This is because you are comparing two top cards in AMD's line up (until recently). Of course the difference will be small. That's like me comparing two different models of an i7 processor. Should we be surprised 5850 and 5870 perform similarly?
5850 is a $245 card, while $5870 is a $299 card.
The difference between an typical i7 and an Athlon II setup is almost $300. You compared two similarly priced cards.
A 3.2Ghz Athlon II with a 6870 will absolutely destroy a i7 running a 250 gt for instance in terms of FPS in SC2 (yet the Athlon II setup will still be cheaper). This difference will be even bigger if you run on higher resolution.
|
What is the minimal FPS at which the game is still playable in a smooth fashion?
|
On October 30 2010 02:44 leonardus wrote:
What is the minimal FPS at which the game is still playable in a smooth fashion?
Theoretically your eye can't see past 30 FPS. But for enjoyable experience 60 FPS is ideal.
FPS is not constant in certain cases you get FPS drops which are noticeable so the higher average FPS you can achieve also means you will probably get less noticable FPS drops.
Low FPS in a game like Starcraft also affects your user interface. Things like selecting units and camera panning. So really you always want to shoot for above 40 FPS.
Most pros play on low settings because they want to remove performance out of equation, also certain units and abilities are easier to tell apart on low settings.
|
tenchially your eye doesn't see color much past 30 fps but it can detect changes in movement well past 60 fps, does it matter? fuck no you're playing a view game if it looks smooth get over it.
Consistency is what makes smooth game play 30 fps without any drops or spikes would play quite nice.
|
On October 30 2010 01:13 CreamCorn wrote:Of course I read it I linked it. I think you missed the point of the article. They artificially under clocked the CPUs to prove that clock is important. Which is what I said in my post, any today's processor over 2.8Ghz will be fine for SC2.
In fact this 3.2 Ghz $67 Athlon II is going to be more than enough for SC2
How then would you characterize this quote from the article in question:
"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."
Why would they suggest a "3.4 GHz Phenom II ($150) or a Core i5-750 ($209) at the very least to ensure smooth gameplay at all times" if a mere "3.2 Ghz $67 Athlon II is going to be more than enough for SC2?"
It's possible what you mean by 'run' and what they mean by 'run' are different. The tests they're running are pretty large scale battles:
"The StarCraft II Map Editor allows us to create a large map with a lot of melee units and structures ready to fight. For this purpose, we use the majority of a large 256x256 map space, filling it with different terrain details, including water and fog, and placing 380 melee units, 42 static structures, 96 mineral piles, and six vespine geysers."
For single player and 1v1 your recommendations are likely more than enough.
It's good that you pointed out the new CPU architecture arriving early next year as well. I'd certainly recommend holding off on any upgrades that would require a motherboard replacement until then. If someone is already running an AM2+ board dropping $67 for a cheap Athlon II is going to make waiting a ton easier too so it's not a bad idea. I just wouldn't go through the trouble and expense of rebuilding a whole system and spend that little on a processor.
|
|
|
On October 30 2010 07:36 tetracycloide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2010 01:13 CreamCorn wrote:Of course I read it I linked it. I think you missed the point of the article. They artificially under clocked the CPUs to prove that clock is important. Which is what I said in my post, any today's processor over 2.8Ghz will be fine for SC2.
In fact this 3.2 Ghz $67 Athlon II is going to be more than enough for SC2 How then would you characterize this quote from the article in question: "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." Why would they suggest a "3.4 GHz Phenom II ($150) or a Core i5-750 ($209) at the very least to ensure smooth gameplay at all times" if a mere "3.2 Ghz $67 Athlon II is going to be more than enough for SC2?"
Because their testing showed the worst case scenario. I've built a computer for my nephew using a 3.1Ghz Athlon II tri-core. It has no issues playing 4v4s with multiple 200 food armies at high settings. The FPS is always above 40FPS. And because just a few more FPS is not worth $300 more.
And like I said, now it's a bad time to dump a lot of cash on expensive CPUs with new architectures being around the corner. You can get an Atlhon II x3 @ 3.2 Ghz including a motherboard for less than $150. It will run fine SC2 fine.
If that's not enough you can overclock the Athlon II, they achieve 3.6Ghz on air without issues.
|
|
|
I still wouldn't feel comfortable trusting SC2 to anything less than a phenom x4 BE. $140 is cheap enough and there less risk of the FPS dropping out to 15 or less during a big battle.
On October 30 2010 08:04 CreamCorn wrote:And like I said, now it's a bad time to dump a lot of cash on expensive CPUs with new architectures being around the corner.
That we can agree on. Honestly if someone already has a system that runs SC2 and they just want it to run better I'd recommend picking up a video card upgrade today or sometime this week and holding off on other upgrades until later (I have a friend in this exact situation actually).
|
Somebody with i3 550 can tell me how the game is running on his machine?
|
im using i5 and im loving it
|
Got my i5-760 last week, overclocked to 3.36ghz(could go much higher, but don't need too). And the only time I've gotten anything resembling slowdown(not max fps) is when a mothership comes out and stands over 10 carriers and even then I'm pretty sure that might be my older graphics card(GTX 260).
i5 quad does indeed run this game without any problems, so recommended from my side.
|
On November 03 2010 22:44 Firkraag8 wrote:
Got my i5-760 last week, overclocked to 3.36ghz(could go much higher, but don't need too). And the only time I've gotten anything resembling slowdown(not max fps) is when a mothership comes out and stands over 10 carriers and even then I'm pretty sure that might be my older graphics card(GTX 260).
i5 quad does indeed run this game without any problems, so recommended from my side.
Yeah I just got an i5-760 overclocked to 4ghz using the stock cooler... This CPU is seriously an overclocking powerhouse.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fcvIO.png)
Video card is a 5870, no slowdowns in SC2 except custom games with an obscene amount of units and even then it only drops to around 40 fps minimum (while other people have slowed the game to a crawl  )
Extremely happy with my i5, highly recommended for anyone looking to upgrade. They are really really cheap at the moment too.
|
I have a Phenom II X4 955. If you want ultra settings with 60fps get a better video card than an ATI HD4770 which is what I have. I max at high though I think. But I still suggest getting a good video card.
Oh btw if you ever get the phenom and you encounter it running hotter than 62 degrees its probably overvolted which is what I experienced. Fix this asap.
|
Core i5 all the way! with the rest you save (from not buying an i7) invest in a good GPU
|
Really, an i3 should be enough to handle sc2. I'm running a core 2 e6750 + 5870 on ultra at 1680x1050 and its smooth even in 4v4. Generally speaking, it makes more sense to get a nice video card and a mediocre cpu for straight up gaming right now. For 800 though you could definitely squeeze in an i5 with a pretty decent video card if you shop well, never hurts to have more cpu power. Also, get the 6850 over the gtx460 1gb, the 6850 >>> the gtx460 in sc2 at a lower price.
|
mmx What is your budget? I've got a few free moments today, tell me what you're willing to spend on the tower and I'll put you together a list of parts within your budget.
|
On November 03 2010 22:51 vek wrote:
Yeah I just got an i5-760 overclocked to 4ghz using the stock cooler... This CPU is seriously an overclocking powerhouse.
Is it stable?
What kind of temps are you getting? I'm surprised your house hasn't burned down.
|
Please, wait for 1155 (Sandy Bridge), it's not far away...
|
I have i5, works beatifully, no lag. Dont get an amd processor. Ever again, theyre dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph3987/33255.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph3987/33253.png)
