|
Thanks, that's a useful site.
Yeah, I've been looking around and I found this other computer with an i7-2630QM processor 2.00 GHz and a slightly worse graphics card (NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 525M) than the computer ak1knight suggested has. A better processor is more important than a better graphics card, right?
|
On June 01 2011 18:37 supersirotic wrote:Thanks, that's a useful site. Yeah, I've been looking around and I found this other computer with an i7-2630QM processor 2.00 GHz and a slightly worse graphics card (NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 525M) than the computer ak1knight suggested has. A better processor is more important than a better graphics card, right?
It depends on what you want to do aside from playing games. If all you're going to do is play SC2, browse the internet, and write papers then pretty much any modern processor will be fine, but if you want to stream or do other processor-intensive tasks like video/photo editing a better processor will help do those things faster.
|
On June 01 2011 06:36 Dhays9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2011 08:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:On May 31 2011 08:11 skyR wrote:On May 31 2011 08:05 PraetorialGamer wrote:
It will run Starcraft 2, but barely and with massive lag if you get a large number of units on screen. The minimum requirements for Starcraft 2 mandate a 2.6 Ghz processor, but you should be fine(there will be lag). You'll be playing on the lowest settings at a okay resolution, but it will lag significantly. The minimum requirements for Starcraft II is a 2.6GHz Intel Pentium 4 processor which is FAR worst than any current processor be it Intel core i3, i5, i7, or AMD Athlon II, Phenom II. It's not the processor that's the problem. It's the integrated graphics card. Actually, I've found that integrated graphics will, to a very, very, limited extent run Starcraft 2. It's not comfortable, it lags noticeably, but it runs. I just got a SC guest pass last week to see if my computer would run it. I have a Intel GMA 4500M Intergrated GPU (series 4 I believe) and it runs on low without lag. I have not tried medium or medium/low as it does not matter to me much (cuz I found out I can run it).
Unless you're running the game at an incredibly low resolution, I find it hard to believe that you're playing it without lag. Certainly, 15 FPS is playable, but it's in no way optimal for gaming. I have Intel GMA HD (which is at least twice as powerful, if not three times as much in certain games) and I can manage 35-45 FPS at the beginning of a non-Zerg game, and it drops down to 15 FPS in larger battles, and that's at a 1280x720 resolution.
|
I have been running SC2 on a similar system except 3 Ram and Pentium processor with integrated GPU. If you haven't bought it yet, don't. It is no fun just invest a teensy bit more and get something with a GPU and just better. This is what i'm about to buy
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115987
gl hf
|
On June 02 2011 05:35 Juddas wrote:I have been running SC2 on a similar system except 3 Ram and Pentium processor with integrated GPU. If you haven't bought it yet, don't. It is no fun just invest a teensy bit more and get something with a GPU and just better. This is what i'm about to buy http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115987gl hf
That is actually an exceptional deal. $700 for a high-end processor and a decent graphics card? I would take it. There's "only" 4GB RAM, but that's plenty for most people (just means you can't switch between multiple games while streaming as easily >.<). It's not a quad-core, meaning streaming wouldn't be pain-free while gaming, although that's not the goal XD
|
exactly my point and it is only 100 dollars more than what he is looking at
|
On June 02 2011 05:01 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 06:36 Dhays9 wrote:On May 31 2011 08:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:On May 31 2011 08:11 skyR wrote:On May 31 2011 08:05 PraetorialGamer wrote:
It will run Starcraft 2, but barely and with massive lag if you get a large number of units on screen. The minimum requirements for Starcraft 2 mandate a 2.6 Ghz processor, but you should be fine(there will be lag). You'll be playing on the lowest settings at a okay resolution, but it will lag significantly. The minimum requirements for Starcraft II is a 2.6GHz Intel Pentium 4 processor which is FAR worst than any current processor be it Intel core i3, i5, i7, or AMD Athlon II, Phenom II. It's not the processor that's the problem. It's the integrated graphics card. Actually, I've found that integrated graphics will, to a very, very, limited extent run Starcraft 2. It's not comfortable, it lags noticeably, but it runs. I just got a SC guest pass last week to see if my computer would run it. I have a Intel GMA 4500M Intergrated GPU (series 4 I believe) and it runs on low without lag. I have not tried medium or medium/low as it does not matter to me much (cuz I found out I can run it). Unless you're running the game at an incredibly low resolution, I find it hard to believe that you're playing it without lag. Certainly, 15 FPS is playable, but it's in no way optimal for gaming. I have Intel GMA HD (which is at least twice as powerful, if not three times as much in certain games) and I can manage 35-45 FPS at the beginning of a non-Zerg game, and it drops down to 15 FPS in larger battles, and that's at a 1280x720 resolution.
Nope I am running it at the same resolution I believe and I have played without any lag (except when I played on wireless internet in the cafe, then I lagged due to poor intertubing).
|
If it's in your budget, I'd definitely suggest going with the i5 Acer that Juddas is getting. Especially since you can apparently cash in on Microsoft's Xbox 360 offer with it. It's basically the same thing as the i3 I have but with the ability to turbo boost the processor.
EDIT: speaking of which, what is your budget and what sites would you be able to purchase from (amazon, newegg, tigerdirect)?
|
Everything is fine except you need a better graphics card, my 500$ laptop can play sc2 on low easy you just need to find the right one.
|
On June 02 2011 09:12 Dhays9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:01 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 01 2011 06:36 Dhays9 wrote:On May 31 2011 08:15 PraetorialGamer wrote:On May 31 2011 08:11 skyR wrote:On May 31 2011 08:05 PraetorialGamer wrote:
It will run Starcraft 2, but barely and with massive lag if you get a large number of units on screen. The minimum requirements for Starcraft 2 mandate a 2.6 Ghz processor, but you should be fine(there will be lag). You'll be playing on the lowest settings at a okay resolution, but it will lag significantly. The minimum requirements for Starcraft II is a 2.6GHz Intel Pentium 4 processor which is FAR worst than any current processor be it Intel core i3, i5, i7, or AMD Athlon II, Phenom II. It's not the processor that's the problem. It's the integrated graphics card. Actually, I've found that integrated graphics will, to a very, very, limited extent run Starcraft 2. It's not comfortable, it lags noticeably, but it runs. I just got a SC guest pass last week to see if my computer would run it. I have a Intel GMA 4500M Intergrated GPU (series 4 I believe) and it runs on low without lag. I have not tried medium or medium/low as it does not matter to me much (cuz I found out I can run it). Unless you're running the game at an incredibly low resolution, I find it hard to believe that you're playing it without lag. Certainly, 15 FPS is playable, but it's in no way optimal for gaming. I have Intel GMA HD (which is at least twice as powerful, if not three times as much in certain games) and I can manage 35-45 FPS at the beginning of a non-Zerg game, and it drops down to 15 FPS in larger battles, and that's at a 1280x720 resolution. Nope I am running it at the same resolution I believe and I have played without any lag (except when I played on wireless internet in the cafe, then I lagged due to poor intertubing).
Well, I guess "lag" is the wrong term here. I really meant smooth/stutter-less gameplay, which I can guarantee no ordinary GMA 4500M can accomplish. Running the game at 10 FPS max is not smooth :/
|
|
|
|
|
LOL thats why Im going with Acer, even though Acer does not have a great build. I currently have a Toshiba and I hate it. I just thought he should know there are other options
|
|
|
Best thing is, that happened to my laptop when my wife tried to update the BIOS to the latest version, so their description of the problem isn't even accurate. Left us with a brick right before we went out of town for a long weekend.
|
I have searched for it long and hard. I felt that somewhere I read that you could be 16-19 or have a .edu.
Unfortunately, I am only going to be a sophomore in high school but I really want this promotion.
|
From my research, there isn't going to be much of a difference between a $1100~ and $1600 laptop in terms of performance. There are a host of laptops in the $1100 that will have decent graphics cards. There are even some in the $700-800. You just have to find them because they're usually the ones on sale. I will never spend $1600 on a laptop because the extra performance you get out of it is negligible, when you can spend $1100, and just get a new one in a few years.
Don't buy into the free Xbox 360 bullcrap. The only qualifying retailers right now is HP, Dell, Best Buy, and the Microsoft store. The computer prices are inflated in a way that it subsidizes the cost of the Xbox 360. I don't know if Microsoft intended it this way, or if the retailers themselves are just taking advantage of something Microsoft intended to be something good. Either way, most of the PCs are inflated $100~200 more than they're worth when compared to something reasonable. I walked into a Best Buy the other day and they even loaded up the bundle even more with Printers, external hard-drives, laptop case, etc. Sure, those extras were optional, but they advertised in a way that implied that was the package. So you come into the store thinking you're going to spend $700, get a free Xbox 360, when really you just bought about $1000 worth of stuff, and none of it was free. Typical of Best Buy though.
On another note, I have an HP dv6-3160us for sale on Amazon. It has an AMD quad core N950, ATI Mobility 5650, 640 GB HDD, 4GB RAM, etc. I'm selling it for basically $694 including shipping and insurance, originally bought for around $900. I just bought it about 2 months ago, barely used it, and I still have the box and packaging.
Of course, if you want, there are some new ones listed there also. It really is a great laptop, and my favorite thing about it was that you could turn off the 5650 and turn on a 4200 to save battery whenever you weren't playing video games. I just bought a new Lenovo Y510 because there was such a great sale on it over Memorial Day, but it's over now. Otherwise, I would've suggested that to you.
Juddas: Toshiba is ok price-point wise. They're typically a bit cheaper than the competition, for what they offer. But the trade-off is in cheaper parts. I've had to fix ALOT of Toshibas both when I worked as Tech at Circuit City, and for friends/family. The biggest problem is the electrical socket in the back bending/breaking/warping due to heat/etc. They also have alot of HDD failures. At least in my experience. I'd only buy a Toshiba if it was 25% cheaper than something its equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
