| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
mmx
41 Posts
i need to know for sc2 how much better then i3 i5 and i7 are compared to each other and im not so good with computers. also motherboard i dont know what ones best to get. the term "chip set" what chip set is best? i read the guide i just dont understand some of it | ||
|
nimbus99
Canada194 Posts
 BUMP | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
You can compare any CPU you wish, I would also look at the AMD Phenom II x4 955 | ||
|
xmShake
United States1100 Posts
| ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
You should be more concerned about video graphics and cooling. Heat is the major problem, since you will play a lot. | ||
|
obiwong
Canada126 Posts
On June 30 2010 21:33 Zarhym wrote: Q. After the beta has commenced, how many CPU cores will StarCraft II be optimized for upon final release? A. For launch, StarCraft II will be optimized for dual-core only. In the future we will definitely be looking into other optimizations to support additional cores, but do not have specific dates yet. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133320 the difference between i3, i5 and i7 The Core i3 500 series products are dual cores and they do have hyper-threading and support virtualization, but they do not have Turbo Boost. The performance of the Core i3 500 series products is roughly on par with the performance of the lower end Core 2 Quad products like the Q6600. The Core i5 600 series products are dual cores which have hyperthreading, Turbo Boost, virtualization, and the AES instruction set. The performance of the Core i5 600 series processors is roughly on par with mid-range Core 2 Quads and high-end Phenom II processors. The Core i5 700 series processors are quad core processors. They do not have hyperthreading but they do have Turbo Boost and they do support virtualization. Their performance is roughly on par or somewhat better than high end Core 2 Quad and Phenom II processors. http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articles/65861.aspx "hyperthreading" is like virtual cores so i3 has 2 physical cores and 0 virtual cores (2 cores total) i5 has 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores (4 cores total) i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores (8 cores total) more cores are not necessarily better, as currently not many games a designed to take advantage of multiple cores (applications like CAD and video encoding are) don't worry about what chipset is best generally it won't make any difference to you. just pick a motherboard that supports the CPU that you want chipset will just determine what RAM (DDR2, DDR3) or what socket CPU you'll have (LGA 775, LGA 1156, LGA 1366) although i've been out of the loop for a while i don't think much has changed in terms gaming and multiple cores, i've looked at benchmarks when the i7 stuff came out and 2 core vs 4 core makes almost no difference for the price you'd be paying money is best spent on a graphics card, that will make the most difference for gaming a couple of my friends have built AMD Phenom II systems for gaming, they're very good for gaming and cheap as well | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
P55 is the mainstream chipset which has socket 1156 and are meant for core i5 / 1156 core i7 processors. It'll run SLI and CrossfireX at x8 x8. It doesn't have integrated graphics. X58 is the high end chipset which has socket 1366 and are meant for 1366 core i7s (920, 950, etc). It'll run SLI and CrossfireX at full x16 bandwidth. | ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
On October 28 2010 07:07 thehitman wrote: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/143?vs=191 You can compare any CPU you wish, I would also look at the AMD Phenom II x4 955 is great if i knew what each thing meant what is better for gaming? so it seems the i5 is the best as it has hyperthreading and its a duel core no? i read that review on the intel processors and it seems that the i5 750 is pretty solid but does that mean its going to REALLY outperform say an i3 540 for sc2 and other games? the real question is it worth the $80 to upg to the i5 760 | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5501 Posts
| ||
|
lethal111
Canada460 Posts
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclock,2772.html | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On October 28 2010 07:29 mmx wrote: is great if i knew what each thing meant what is better for gaming? so it seems the i5 is the best as it has hyperthreading and its a duel core no? i read that review on the intel processors and it seems that the i5 750 is pretty solid but does that mean its going to REALLY outperform say an i3 540 for sc2 and other games? the real question is it worth the $80 to upg to the i5 760 - core i3 5 series are dual cores with hyperthreading but no turbo boost - core i5 6 series are dual cores with hyperthreading - core i5 7 series are quad cores with no hyperthreading Yes, a core i5 750 will outperform a core i3 540 because of its higher cache size and turbo boost. A core i5 760 is the exact same as a core i5 750 except that it has a higher multiplier. | ||
|
zyglrox
United States1168 Posts
| ||
|
IPS.ZeRo
Germany1142 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On October 28 2010 08:51 zyglrox wrote: gaming still only maximizes dual cores right? correct me if i'm wrong, i've just been led to believe that for price value dual > quad for gaming. sorry for being slightly off topic just something i would like to be clear on. Most games being released today do utilize quad cores. If you can't spend $200 on a quad core than I wouldn't suggest buying or upgrading a new PC. | ||
|
_KiM_
Canada498 Posts
| ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
i do wish to buy the best comp i can for now and a bit into the future and budget is 800 | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
With a $800 budget, it's best to get an AMD Phenom II X4 955 as previously suggested. | ||
|
monx
Canada1400 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
with the i3 being better for sc2 and the amd being better for future games i may get being a physical quad core | ||
|
Prophecy3
Canada223 Posts
On October 28 2010 11:49 skyR wrote: A physical core is always better than hyperthreading. It's been proven in benchmarks that hyperthreading can actually decrease performance in games and increase core temp. With a $800 budget, it's best to get an AMD Phenom II X4 955 as previously suggested. I'm def going to keep that in mind when I upgrade in the spring. Quad core for sure! | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
SC2 utilitzes 2 cores, but I'm sure you don't use your desktop for just Starcraft 2 soley. Quad cores will work for future games and non gaming uses. | ||
|
Vz0
Canada378 Posts
(for 1v1, in 2v2 large scale wil bring u downt o 20 fps) | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
| ||
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On October 28 2010 14:39 TheBlueMeaner wrote: wait for intel sandy bridge coming out january 2011, according to benchmarks that are out on the web the mid range processor core i5 2xxx beats the crap out of a corei7 extreme processor, so you can make a much better purchase if you wait a bit... $800 can't even afford a p55 / core i5 750 build unless he finds some amazing deals. What makes you think a p67 / core i5 2400 will be doable with a $800 budget? | ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
this really is looking to be as low budget as possible pure sc2 comp that runs shit well for SC2 | ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On October 28 2010 12:08 Chairman Ray wrote: If you want to save money, get phenom x4 955. If you really want an intel, go for the i3. i5 will do nothing more than the i3 if you are using your computer for sc2. i7 is pretty much out of the question for gamers. I don't understand, are you saying the i7 is too powerful to be necessary to gamers? | ||
|
CortoMontez
Australia608 Posts
| ||
|
yourwhiteshadow
United States442 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On October 28 2010 15:15 Zerokaiser wrote: I don't understand, are you saying the i7 is too powerful to be necessary to gamers? 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. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On October 28 2010 14:45 skyR wrote: $800 can't even afford a p55 / core i5 750 build unless he finds some amazing deals. What makes you think a p67 / core i5 2400 will be doable with a $800 budget? the new range makes the old one outdated and therefore cheaper | ||
|
Winters
Spain53 Posts
On October 28 2010 07:15 obiwong wrote: Starcraft II is optimized for dual cores http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133320 the difference between i3, i5 and i7 http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articles/65861.aspx "hyperthreading" is like virtual cores so i3 has 2 physical cores and 0 virtual cores (2 cores total) i5 has 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores (4 cores total) i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores (8 cores total) more cores are not necessarily better, as currently not many games a designed to take advantage of multiple cores (applications like CAD and video encoding are) don't worry about what chipset is best generally it won't make any difference to you. just pick a motherboard that supports the CPU that you want chipset will just determine what RAM (DDR2, DDR3) or what socket CPU you'll have (LGA 775, LGA 1156, LGA 1366) although i've been out of the loop for a while i don't think much has changed in terms gaming and multiple cores, i've looked at benchmarks when the i7 stuff came out and 2 core vs 4 core makes almost no difference for the price you'd be paying money is best spent on a graphics card, that will make the most difference for gaming a couple of my friends have built AMD Phenom II systems for gaming, they're very good for gaming and cheap as well You are wrong. i7 has 4 core plus 4 virtual cores, either socket 1156 or 1366 i5 has 4 cores plus none virtual cores i3 has 2 cores plus 2 virtual cores new i9 will have 6 cores Just take a look on CPU-Z images.  ________________________________________ For SC2 with just a Quad Core Q94XX+ will be very fine with a decent graphic card like a Ati 6850 or nvidia 460gtx, well with much less will run satisfily. Go for this, i5 750/760, Asus motherboard round 100€, 460GTX or Ati 6850 and 4GB ram DDR3 | ||
|
IKenshinI
United States132 Posts
i5 for budget, i7 for doing streaming/compressing videos etc. (for sc2 of course ) | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
So I would probably just get a dual core and be done with it and upgrade to something decent later. Don't spend your money on things that you think you might need later. Buy according to what you need NOW and spend as much as your budget allows. Do it this way and you will be so much happier. | ||
|
Zootre
Denmark180 Posts
The Core i3 500 series products are dual cores and they do have hyper-threading and support virtualization, but they do not have Turbo Boost. The performance of the Core i3 500 series products is roughly on par with the performance of the lower end Core 2 Quad products like the Q6600. I have q6600 and i can play lag free at maxed settings 1080p with a 5770 gfx card.. so you should only need that i3 it seems. maybe at 200/200 battles it will lag i dont know :p | ||
|
Semtext
Germany287 Posts
I have to note that I didnt put this system together myself, i bought it at some Target-like huge department store cause i was lazy and i wanted my computer right there and then. So you could get something like that cheaper on the net for sure. But as I said, I was lazy. nI didnt wanna wait for shipping. The game does not recognize the graphics card, though, but everything works fine on ultra settings in 1v1 and 2v2, als long as there are no 200 zerglings + 200 marines on the map, it holds at approx. 25-50 FPS, and drops below 25 only if aforementioned unit-spammage is in order. To not get distracted too much, I recommend putting it on the second highest settings with texture details on the highest setting. That does it for me. | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
![[image loading]](http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/Firkraag8/800.jpg) (click for bigger image) | ||
|
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! (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. | ||
|
CreamCorn
33 Posts
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. | ||
|
leonardus
59 Posts
| ||
|
CreamCorn
33 Posts
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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Consistency is what makes smooth game play 30 fps without any drops or spikes would play quite nice. | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
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. | ||
|
lethal111
Canada460 Posts
http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=54941&vpn=i5 760 + MSI P55A-G55&manufacture=Bundle Deals&promoid=1101 | ||
|
CreamCorn
33 Posts
On October 30 2010 07:36 tetracycloide wrote: 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 $150. It will run fine SC2 fine. If that's not enough you can overclock the Athlon II, they achieve 3.6Ghz on air without issues. | ||
|
icemanzdoinwork
447 Posts
On October 29 2010 04:38 tetracycloide wrote: By x4 555 do you mean an x2 555 with the extra cores unlocked because AMD doesn't sell an x4 555 directly. Unlocking cores can be great if you can get it to work but, from what I've heard, it's very hit or miss with the 555 if both cores will unlock and work as they should. Even if you can starcraft 2 is a very CPU intensive game and you'd likely be better served with an i5 760 and spending less on the GPU to cover the difference. My bad i meant the 955 quad core http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103808&cm_re=penom_x4-_-19-103-808-_-Product 135$ and if all you're basically doing is gaming. It is absolutely the best bang for your buck. 99$ for the 5670 and it supports direct x11.. I hear it can run ultra on sc2, but I don't have it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150467&cm_re=radeon_5670-_-14-150-467-_-Product | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
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). | ||
|
leonardus
59 Posts
| ||
|
omgbbq2
Canada169 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
i5 quad does indeed run this game without any problems, so recommended from my side. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
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. | ||
|
Levistus
1134 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ruud
21 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph3987/33255.png) ![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph3987/33253.png) | ||
|
Moody
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
449
United States53 Posts
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. | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
| ||
|
Shaoling
Sweden344 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On November 04 2010 05:54 449 wrote: Is it stable? What kind of temps are you getting? I'm surprised your house hasn't burned down. 6 Days uptime atm, only restarted because of Windows Update. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/s9FgX.png) Temps range from 50-70 depending on load. | ||
|
TNZ Softmouth
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17249 Posts
On November 04 2010 00:29 ZeaL. wrote: Also, get the 6850 over the gtx460 1gb, the 6850 >>> the gtx460 in sc2 at a lower price. Except for the times when you really wished you could turn on PhysX (in the games that support it, the difference is simply ridiculous). Example: Note: Not talking about SC2 here, but in case you might want to play some other games, you might take it under consideration... | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
449
United States53 Posts
On November 04 2010 11:45 Manit0u wrote: Except for the times when you really wished you could turn on PhysX (in the games that support it, the difference is simply ridiculous). Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY Note: Not talking about SC2 here, but in case you might want to play some other games, you might take it under consideration... Only 16 games use physx. IMHO, most of the games are pretty bad. You don't need physx. | ||
|
bball2
Canada49 Posts
3.2GHz Intel Core i3 ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 512MB I get about 25-30 fps playing on windows 7 (dual boot) with ultra textures, and high everything else at 1920x1080. (Comes to about 8-10fps with the same settings on the OSX side) I can get it up to about 40-45 fps if I go go high textures, and med / high everything else. | ||
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
I have the Athlon II X3 3.1 GHz. Radeon 5770. Just buy something that is a little better and you can run anything SC2 can throw at you. I dont see the need to buy the expensive Intel systems. They might give good performance but you do not need that much to play SC2. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
values here assume they all have the same number of cores/cache sizes/frequency/clock Sandybridge( should release relatively soon ) is ~20-30% faster than Nehalem ( i7 ) on average + 100% if SC2 uses advanced vectors Nehalem( i7 ) is 30-40% faster than Penryn on average Penryn(Core2 revision+SSE4 up to 75% faster than Core2 in certain apps ) is 10% faster than Core2 | ||
|
Winters
Spain53 Posts
On November 05 2010 05:33 Neivler wrote: If you just want a comp that plays SC2 decently buy a AMD one. They are much cheaper and runs SC2 at ultra. I have the Athlon II X3 3.1 GHz. Radeon 5770. Just buy something that is a little better and you can run anything SC2 can throw at you. I dont see the need to buy the expensive Intel systems. They might give good performance but you do not need that much to play SC2. AMD makes such nice processors, I like the Phenom X6 a lot or the Quadcores for people who dont care about OCing, but if you are interested in making OC (free performance yipiii \o/), then Intel is your choice. Just look at the i5 750 OC power, or even the i5 760, they OC like hell and are cheap. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
shredzy
Australia119 Posts
On November 05 2010 11:49 nalgene wrote: If you're upgrading from a core2 to i7, you'd get like 1.1x1.3 to 1.1x1.4x or like 1.43 - 1.54x faster than what you have now... values here assume they all have the same number of cores/cache sizes/frequency/clock Sandybridge( should release relatively soon ) is ~20-30% faster than Nehalem ( i7 ) on average + 100% if SC2 uses advanced vectors Nehalem( i7 ) is 30-40% faster than Penryn on average Penryn(Core2 revision+SSE4 up to 75% faster than Core2 in certain apps ) is 10% faster than Core2 >_> Where are you pumping these numbers from? Sandybridge isn't going to be 30-40% faster then Nahelem/Bloomfield....Sandybridge is only a refinement of nahelem/bloomfield with certain improvements like a new generation intel turbo boost, higher bandwidth on the cache and a on-die video solution BUT will go back to dual channel architecture (also new socket 1155 and chipset X68) Sandybridge is only a opening for Ivy Bridge which is Intel's next enthusiast high-end milestone. Honestly OP an i5 will do you fine for SC2, but it also depends on other things you do on your PC. i7 (1366) architecture is different compared to i5 (1156), 1366 includes triple channel architecture, HT, on-die memory controller (QPI), 2 PCI-E 16x lanes which will help performance with multi-GPU setups etc. Highly recommend you overclock also. Get a decent HSF like the megahalem w/ 2 decent cfm fans and MX-3 then clock your i5 760 or i7 930 to 4GHz (which is very easy). You'll be a happy man. My 2 cents, if you got the money, get a i7 system, you won't regret it....will only cost you around $1300-1400~ with a GTX470. Also half of the stuff mentioned in this thread makes me laugh. | ||
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
On November 05 2010 20:55 Winters wrote: AMD makes such nice processors, I like the Phenom X6 a lot or the Quadcores for people who dont care about OCing, but if you are interested in making OC (free performance yipiii \o/), then Intel is your choice. Just look at the i5 750 OC power, or even the i5 760, they OC like hell and are cheap. But the thing is that you do not need that much power to play SC2. A decent/cheap processor is more than enough to play SC2 at ultra. And the Intel ones are a bit more expensive than you really need to pay to play SC2. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
SB is a new architecture...ivybridge=die shrink.. Nehalem is an architecture...westmere=die shrink... Core2 is an architecture... penryn=die shrink you should sand down/lap the cpu to a flat surface ( use razor test ) lap the cooler too, especially the tr-120-ex's get some san ace fans ( high static pressure ) put a dot of x23-7783 paste on the center disable the power saving features in bios ( won't downclock at times ) | ||
|
doktorFunken
United States41 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:06 shredzy wrote: Sandybridge is only a refinement of nahelem/bloomfield with certain improvements like a new generation intel turbo boost, higher bandwidth on the cache and a on-die video solution BUT will go back to dual channel architecture (also new socket 1155 and chipset X68) Not according to David Kanter, who I put on par with Jon Stokes from Ars Technica and above Anand in terms of understanding CPU microarchitecture. Sure this is all from IDF, but it's still worth reading. http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT091810191937 There's been a *ton* of work put on Sandy Bridge. In Intel's little tick-tock world, this represents a new architecture at the same process (32nm), not a refinement of Nehalem. I'm of the opinion that Sandy Bridge is going to be *fast*. But in the real world where I have bills to pay and a kid to feed, I play on a pretty "low end" system. Athlon II X2 250 (which I've OC'd to 3.6GHz) with 4GB of memory and a Radeon 4850 1GB on Win7 Pro (which I got super-cheap through work). It's quite sufficient to choose "ultra" textures and the "high" preset for detail and 1920x1080. It lags a tiny bit in SUPER DUPER 4v4 action but otherwise it's incredibly solid. And you can build a similar machine for peanuts (Get a Radeon 5770 rather than a 4850, which is old at this point). Alot of what's been written here is flat-out wrong. Lots of H55 motherboards have been certified for SLI and nearly all of those with 2x PEG slots (the physical 16x ones) will run Crossfire no problem. I submit, however, that unless you have a 3 megapixel display (2560x1440, for example) Crossfire and SLI are a waste of money. Get a GTX460 or Radeon 6850 and enjoy. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:06 shredzy wrote: >_> Where are you pumping these numbers from? Sandybridge isn't going to be 30-40% faster then Nahelem/Bloomfield....Sandybridge is only a refinement of nahelem/bloomfield with certain improvements like a new generation intel turbo boost, higher bandwidth on the cache and a on-die video solution BUT will go back to dual channel architecture (also new socket 1155 and chipset X68) Sandybridge is only a opening for Ivy Bridge which is Intel's next enthusiast high-end milestone. Honestly OP an i5 will do you fine for SC2, but it also depends on other things you do on your PC. i7 (1366) architecture is different compared to i5 (1156), 1366 includes triple channel architecture, HT, on-die memory controller (QPI), 2 PCI-E 16x lanes which will help performance with multi-GPU setups etc. Highly recommend you overclock also. Get a decent HSF like the megahalem w/ 2 decent cfm fans and MX-3 then clock your i5 760 or i7 930 to 4GHz (which is very easy). You'll be a happy man. My 2 cents, if you got the money, get a i7 system, you won't regret it....will only cost you around $1300-1400~ with a GTX470. Also half of the stuff mentioned in this thread makes me laugh. Your comments make me laugh since Westmere is the refinement of Nehalem. Sandybridge is new architecture on 32nm. Ivybridge will be the refinement of it on 22nm. Socket 1155 is meant to replace 1156. P67 and H67 take the place of the P55 chipset. Socket 1366 is being replaced by socket 2011. X68 will take the place of X58 chipset. It is rumored to have quad channel memory and double QPI. On November 05 2010 22:49 doktorFunken wrote: Alot of what's been written here is flat-out wrong. Lots of H55 motherboards have been certified for SLI and nearly all of those with 2x PEG slots (the physical 16x ones) will run Crossfire no problem. I submit, however, that unless you have a 3 megapixel display (2560x1440, for example) Crossfire and SLI are a waste of money. Get a GTX460 or Radeon 6850 and enjoy. He was talking about bandwidth. P55 and H55 do not have full x16 bandwidth when running SLI. They'll run at x8 x8 whereas the X58 chipset will run at x16 x16. But other than that, the majority of his post is indeed false. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On November 04 2010 11:45 Manit0u wrote: Except for the times when you really wished you could turn on PhysX (in the games that support it, the difference is simply ridiculous). Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY Note: Not talking about SC2 here, but in case you might want to play some other games, you might take it under consideration... Seriously, no. I played Mirror's Edge on an 8800gts, yeah the cloth moving around is kinda cool but it doesn't really do much, especially when its one of like 2 games that uses physx in a way that makes things look better. PhysX and CUDA are things that very few people need and Nvidia likes to market as OMG NEED CUS OTHER COMPANY DOESNT HAVE, just like Eyefinity. Don't base your purchase on such insignificant things unless you REALLY need them. Edit: Also, who cares about x8/x8 vs x16 x16. The performance increase you get is ridiculously small, like 5% in best case scenario. I guess people who SLI/Xfire care, but those people either have a lot of money or have a high money::brains ratio. Why are you guys even talking about this, the OP is obviously not going to do anything with dual cards when he's more focused on an i3. People suggesting i7 are pretty ridiculous. | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
[H]'s review on the x8/x8 vs x16/x16. http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/23/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x8x8/1 For normal, one monitor scenarios, there is no difference. I'm talking not even 1%. The only time the additional b/w of x16/x16 comes into play is at the triple screen resolutions (i.e Eyefinity/NV Surround scenarios). I think really the only people concerned with PCIe lanes should be people using the C300 and other SATA3.0 (6Gb/s) drives: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2973/6gbps-sata-performance-amd-890gx-vs-intel-x58-p55/8 And uh - if you're buying a C300 or equivalent drive...well you got money to burn. | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
Is this one any good. Would I notice improvements in games over my E8400 @ 4.0GHz | ||
|
Falkirk
Denmark10 Posts
So my question is, will upgrading the cpu to an i7 purge the problem? | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On April 16 2011 22:43 Falkirk wrote: I currently own an i3 with 8 gb ram and a 460gtx. I play on ultra settings @ 1920x1080. It's all good 90% of the time. However on 4v4 maps in mid to late game i experience some lag and low frames. So my question is, will upgrading the cpu to an i7 purge the problem? Sure, but upgrading to an i5 will work just fine, too. i7 is pretty much useless unless you're doing heavy video editing/encoding or photo editing. It might also be your graphics card, since I'm not sure how well the 460 can handle 4v4 maxed battles at max resolution XD Actually, not many things can. | ||
|
Falkirk
Denmark10 Posts
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
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
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
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
| ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
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
| ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
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
Really dont want new mb, Then I have to re install everything bah! | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Falkirk
Denmark10 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
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
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
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
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/2q1rt39.gif) 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
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] + ![[image loading]](http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/305/bench/CPU.png) 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
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. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv5977 FrodaN2557 shahzam1776 summit1g1356 C9.Mang0204 RotterdaM134 ViBE124 Skadoodle102 Sick54 Trikslyr53 Livibee51 PPMD38 Liquid`Ken1 |
|
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
