Yeah that is what i was thinking... Graphics card or cpu... But the cpu doesn't cost all that much, so an i7 or i5 hardly matters cost wise.
I bought my computer for close to nothing and then upgraded the graphics card. So I was hoping that a new cpu would do it as the high end graphics cards do cost a fair bit. Don want to spend so much money that the wife notices it hehe.

Zeke50100

United States2220 Posts

April 16 2011 14:27 GMT

#102

There's a $90 difference between i5-2500k and i7-2600k, and the only noticeable feature that comes with the i7 is hyperthreading o.0

If you bought a computer with those specs for next to nothing...I want your job :D

BTW, upgrading to an i7 would cost you a full $300, and even more if you don't have a P67 motherboard and you want to overclock. Upgrading GPU to Radeon 6950 would cost you ~$240

You most likely need a processor upgrade if you want to be doing constant 4v4s, though. i5-2400 is recommended for non-overclockers, and i5-2500k is considered the sweet-spot for overclocking without spending a ridiculous amount of money.

zokker13

Germany77 Posts

April 16 2011 14:30 GMT

#103

Well, I guess telling you what is better or not isn't the right way in this discussion.
Starcraft eats a lot ressources, at least in the Menu, when I tab out there, my whole PC lags, ingame I can tab out, switch music and stuff without any laggs.

Anyway.
If you dont want to spend too much money I'd take an AMD CPU, well, Intel's i7 2nd Generation is awesome, but you'd also need a new board and the CPU itself. Calculate with 400€ - 500€ with those two components.
Your memory is more interesting, of course, it depends which motherboard and CPU you've got but 4GB with a 1333 MHz clock is great.
Now we come to the maybe most interesting component for games; the graphiccard.
Well, I don't like nVidias prizes, they are totally overrated, I took an ATI card back in 2007.
So you may take one aswell, there are a lot graphiccards out there and when you've got no knowledge (as I hadn't) you will be frustrated.
So if you decide for a graphiccard, which producer doesnt matter, look out for 256bit memory interface. If you see 128bit, don't buy it, 128 bit is too less for gaming.
If you see 374bit, it's your turn, I wouldn't buy it since it is more for making animations and stuff, you don't need it for gaming.

I'll tell you my components, maybe u copy me, I guess not but w/e.
Motherboard: ASUS M488TV-Evo/USB3 ~90€
CPU: AMD Athlon x4 640, 3GHz (overclocked to 3,345GHz) 2MB L2 cache ~80€
RAM: 4x Kingston 1333MHz, 8GB together 100€
Graphic: ATI Radeon Sapphire HD 4850, 512MB RAM, 256bit, coreclock: 500MHz (OC to 690), memclock: 750MHz (OC to 1088). 130€

I play Starcraft 2 with full resolution on High settings (since I tab out often, it laggs less).

Btw. what is the difference of an Athlon to a Phenom?
I only see the Cache-difference, I can overclock my Athlon to Phenom-speed..

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 14:47 GMT

#104

Well you can restrict the max framerate achieved while in the menu. I have set mine to 30 so my comp doesn't use a nutty amount of power when only looking at a menu. I forgot where the setting was, bit i did edit a file to do it.
The whole idea was to only change one thing spending $3-400 and have SC2 run loke it should

I dont want to start changing mb and other stuff... Dont have all to much time betwen work, family and of course playing SC2.
It should be possible to get an i7 on the same socket as the i3 i have now. I havent checked this extensively yet as the time would be a waste if that wasn't the solution to my problem.

Thank you very much for your input so far!

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 14:58 GMT

#105

Ohh and the i5 6 mb cache performs as well as the 8 mb on the i7? I read somewhere in the post that it is the cache that makes the difference...

Zeke50100

United States2220 Posts

April 16 2011 14:59 GMT

#106

The problem with the motherboard is that unless you have a P67 motherboard, you'll have to stick with i5-2400/i5-2500 or i7-2600 without the K. Generally, i7s are pretty obsolete without overclocking, since that's the entire point

You have an i3, so I'm assuming you don't have a P67 motherboard (although you might).

The performance difference between the i5 and the i7 is a couple frames per second, especially considering that most games (including SC2) don't support hyperthreading. The extra cache isn't worth the price premium for most people that aren't doing serious work.

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 15:15 GMT

#107

Mb is h57

Zeke50100

United States2220 Posts

April 16 2011 15:23 GMT

#108

Ah. If you have an H57, you can't use 2nd generation Sandy Bridge core i processors, unfortunately. At the moment, there isn't much of a point in upgrading to a non-Sandy Bridge, since you'll get much more mileage out of the Sandy Bridge.

If you want, you can get an H67 motherboard with an i5-2400, which should cost you around $300. It's pretty good combo. You can also just go with an i3-2100 dual core, but I'm not sure how much that would improve your performance (although Sandy Bridge is pretty awesome compared to older CPUs. Meh).

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 15:40 GMT

#109

Well the "best" i5 i can find is the i5-760 which is actually a slower clock speed than ny i3-530 but larger cache hmm!
Really dont want new mb, Then I have to re install everything bah!

skyR

Canada13817 Posts

April 16 2011 17:07 GMT

#110

The core i5 760 has turbo boost while your core i3 530 does not so it is actually faster than your core i3 530 in every situation... The difference between the two when it comes to FPS is a maximum of 10 at best. Upgrading from a First Generation Intel Core processor to a Second Generation Intel Core processor is more of a side-grade than an upgrade.

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 18:15 GMT

#111

Well the general increase in FPS is not the goal, an increase in the 4v4 games mid to late game is.

Myrmidon

United States9452 Posts

April 16 2011 18:21 GMT

#112

And upgrading an i3-530 to a i5-760 is really not worth it unless you're going to be using the extra cores (which you're not in SC2).

If you want to increase FPS in CPU-limited situations, like in 4v4 games mid-late, the most sensible upgrade would be to grab an aftermarket CPU heatsink/fan and overclock the i3-530. Hopefully your cheap computer didn't come with some limited OEM motherboard?

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 16 2011 18:30 GMT

#113

Yes it did. But I'm fiddling with unlocking the features in the BIOS.

Myrmidon

United States9452 Posts

April 16 2011 19:03 GMT

#114

Are the quad cores listed as supported CPUs or valid upgrades on that motherboard? I'm not sure which motherboards couldn't actually take the 95W TDP CPUs, but it's better to check.

Often times, overclocking features are not present because the hardware simply isn't up to the task. But if you have a dual core, you could probably overclock it a decent amount and remain around a i7-860's power consumption, which should be mostly safe if the motherboard was designed to take a stock i7-860.

That said, good luck finding voltage and frequency tweaking options. Maybe you should look at software options as well.

Aduromors

United States279 Posts

April 16 2011 19:35 GMT

#115

Especially if you're interested in playing a lot of 4v4s and 3v3s the i5-2500k will be noticeably better than the i3-2100

mav451

United States1596 Posts

April 16 2011 23:37 GMT

#116

I think this is really the key question:
What are the OCing capabilities of Falkirk's current H57 mobo?

I think dismissing a move from an i3 Clarkdale to an i5 Lynnfield, as a "side-grade" is not the most accurate statement, but it has some truth if Falkirk cannot OC the Lynnfield and leaves it at stock.

TBH, I've always considered Clarkdale as more of a glorified Wolfdale w/ HT, when it comes to gaming performance. And the Wolfdale is not a bad CPU, but its prime was 2008 - and 3 years is a long time. It's just not really something I'd be lumping in with the Nehalems (Bloomfield/Lynnfield).
+ Show Spoiler [Clarkdales vs. Lynnfield] +

You should note that Techspot is one of the few places that used a 4v4 replay for their SC2 benches, so that graph should be of specific interest for the current topic at hand.

Falkirk

Denmark10 Posts

April 17 2011 00:01 GMT

#117

I've read through the techspot test and am now sure it's the cpu that's causing the bottleneck. I did however try to replay a game from last night, The game was a 4v4 and had plenty of action all over. At no time did the cpu load go above 60% and it didn't lag at all as it did while it was being played. I think testing on replays might not be accurate.

Good news is I've found a tool to edit the settings of my BIOS file (backup) so hopefully I'll be able to crank the speed up a bit once I get it flashed.