EPTIs i5 2400 enough for Sc2? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
| ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On September 21 2011 23:52 Achiraaz wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Regarding the question. Yes i5 2400 is more than enough. I dont think you would feel any difference running this one compared to say an i3. The most important piece of hardware for running SC2 is probably the graphics card and that looks like its well covered as well in both specs Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a huge difference in SC2 performance between an i3 and an i5 in SC2. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/129 And the GPU is NOT the most important piece of hardware for SC2. @Heinstar: As you can see in this link that skyR also posted, SC2 performance scales pretty linearly with clock speed (at least for these Sandy Bridge CPU's). This is an oversimplification, but if you do a little math, it scales almost linearly: + Show Spoiler + 3.3GHz - 51.4 FPS = ~64 MHz per Frame 4.3GHz - 64.15 FPS = ~67 MHz per Frame 4.7GHz - 69.43 FPS = ~67.7 MHz per Frame As a personal experience: + Show Spoiler + With a 2500k @4Ghz @ Ultra settings, the lowest FPS I get in 200v200 1v1 is 45. I tried it at approximately 3.6GHz (about what a 2400/2500 will hit with Turbo) and it was around 40. This is acceptable, but if you want to invest $100 more so you can OC to 4.5 GHz or so and ensure about 55+ minimum FPS, it's your choice. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
On September 21 2011 20:17 Heinstar wrote: It's a bit too under budget but: - this Gaming Rig is going to be sufficient for competitive Sc2 gaming. - my next upgrade will likely be GPU first then CPU. So I won't need to replace the Case, RAM, mobo or PSU for a while. If you are looking at upgrading your gpu during the life of that computer it would be wise to get a better psu now for 20 or 30 dollars more rather than having to get a new one when you upgrade again and save yourself some money the 560 doesnt use that much power but flagship cards like a 580 use significantly more power. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/25/nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/8 If by upgrade you mean getting a 660 or 760 whenever they come out in the next 2 years then you dont need to worry about it too much. |: | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On September 21 2011 12:53 Heinstar wrote: I'm currently building a Gaming Rig optimized just for Sc2. My budget is around $1000. It can go little higher if it's cost effective in the long run. Option 1 – Can be overclocked and upgraded to next-gen CPU(ivy): CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K $218 CPU HSF: Coolermaster Universal Hyper 212+ $32 Mobo: Asrock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 $138 RAM: G.Skill-NT 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1333 $44 HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB $54 GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II OC 1GB $255 Case: Antec 300 $58 PSU: Antec Neo Eco 520W $69 Total: $866 Option 2 – Can't be overclocked or upgraded to next-gen CPU(ivy): CPU: Intel Core i5 2400 $185 Mobo: ASRock H61 U3S3 $77 RAM: G.Skill-NT 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1333 $44 HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB $54 GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II OC 1GB $255 Case: Antec 300 $58 PSU: Antec Neo Eco 520W $69 Total: $742 So if I go with the i5 2500K setup, I'll need to pay at least extra $124. I want to make sure I don't get below 60 fps when playing Sc2 because I'm a very competitive player. So is 2400 powerful enough to keep doing 60 fps when playing Sc2 in intensive settings? e.g. ultra setting, 4 vs 4 and 200/200 supply. 6870 is enough to run on ultra in 1080p, 169$: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=17212 i5 2400 can probably run it but i5 2500k scales much better into the future so I'd rather get that. Save 14$ and get this PSU instead: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15318 | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On September 22 2011 00:19 T0fuuu wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you are looking at upgrading your gpu during the life of that computer it would be wise to get a better psu now for 20 or 30 dollars more rather than having to get a new one when you upgrade again and save yourself some money the 560 doesnt use that much power but flagship cards like a 580 use significantly more power. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/25/nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/8 If by upgrade you mean getting a 660 or 760 whenever they come out in the next 2 years then you dont need to worry about it too much. atm you have a 520w psu which @ 80percent effeciency is 416w so you have an idea of how much power you have left when you look at those graphs. This is wrong in so many ways... /summon Myrmidon A (honestly rated & good quality) 520W PSU can actually supply 520W. You do not understand efficiency. It is the ratio between the amount of power it draws from the wall to the amount of power it provides to the PC. So to give 300W at 80% efficiency it will draw 300/0.8 = 375W from the wall; to give 520W, it will draw 520/0.8 = 650W from the wall. The 560ti is a very strong card and should comfortably play games on very high or high settings for a good few years. When upgrading, new cards will offer much more performance for a roughly equivalent or less power consumption. It's how the technology advances in this field. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 21 2011 23:52 Achiraaz wrote: Regarding the question. Yes i5 2400 is more than enough. I dont think you would feel any difference running this one compared to say an i3. The most important piece of hardware for running SC2 is probably the graphics card and that looks like its well covered as well in both specs I know it's already mentioned and doesn't seem like an issue for the OP anyways, but this is completely wrong. There's a definite difference between the two, and the most important piece of hardware is definitely the processor, not the graphics card. Generally, the graphics card is the most important piece, but it is not the case with SC2. Btw to the OP, why'd you switch out for more expensive RAM? You know that h61 board can only support up to DDR3 1333 anyways? Save the money! On September 22 2011 00:26 Shikyo wrote: 6870 is enough to run on ultra in 1080p, 169$: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=17212 i5 2400 can probably run it but i5 2500k scales much better into the future so I'd rather get that. Save 14$ and get this PSU instead: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15318 Depends on what he wants out of the GPU, getting a better GPU and sticking with an i5 2400 over i5 2500k isn't a bad idea depending on what games he wants to play. He might want a better GPU for other games coming out, but you're right just about SC2. It depends on what he wants out of his processor, $124 is a significant portion of the budget and the i5 2400 is still a very good choice, it's what I'm personally going with atm in my build with an H61 board. It's all personal choice. Just to note that PSU you linked only has one PCI-E connector, where his GPU will need two. | ||
|
d0n
Germany143 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 22 2011 00:40 d0n wrote: Im running it on i3 very nicely. No one would say an i3 couldn't run it, but it's rather that there is a noticeable difference, unlike the jump between an i5 2500 to an i7 2600 where they're basically identical in terms of gaming performance for games like SC2. | ||
|
Fyodor
Canada971 Posts
On September 22 2011 00:26 Shikyo wrote: 6870 is enough to run on ultra in 1080p, 169$: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=17212 i5 2400 can probably run it but i5 2500k scales much better into the future so I'd rather get that. Save 14$ and get this PSU instead: http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15318 That PSU doesn't meet the recommended amperage for the 6870 dude. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On September 22 2011 03:10 Fyodor wrote: That PSU doesn't meet the recommended amperage for the 6870 dude. The Basiq provides 29a on the 12v rail while a 6870 uses roughly 11a under load and a 2400 uses less than 5a under load... | ||
|
bellaisa
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On September 22 2011 03:10 Fyodor wrote: That PSU doesn't meet the recommended amperage for the 6870 dude. Maybe you should read up on component power usage and power supplies. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On September 22 2011 03:10 Fyodor wrote: That PSU doesn't meet the recommended amperage for the 6870 dude. It's been tested and reviewed reviewed and it can actually supply 640W before auto-shutdown http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Antec-Basiq-BP500U-Power-Supply-Review/792/8 And as you can see the max amperages on the 12V totals 40(36 at labeled 100% load), 6870 requires something in the low teens, what are you talking about? | ||
|
hugitout
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
| ||
|
Heinstar
Australia61 Posts
I'm getting 560Ti because I heard that Blizzard games works much better on it. I keep hearing that i5 2400 is enough for competitive 1v1 match in Sc2. But will OC 2500K give an advantage? It would be nice to have consistent 60+ fps during the whole match but does it help you play better? I opted out on 120hz monitor since I heard that 60 fps is enough for Sc2. How much fps is too low/unacceptable to be playing competitively? On September 22 2011 00:28 FabledIntegral wrote: Btw to the OP, why'd you switch out for more expensive RAM? You know that h61 board can only support up to DDR3 1333 anyways? Save the money! I see, I didn't realize that. I switched the RAM because I couldn't get that one from PCCG. And the G.Skill Ripjaws F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 $65 was the best value from that site. I have to buy the RAM from PCCG since I'm buying all my components from there. On September 22 2011 00:28 FabledIntegral wrote: Just to note that PSU you linked only has one PCI-E connector, where his GPU will need two. So I'll stick with the same PSU then. On September 21 2011 23:56 Fyodor wrote: But yeah, the likelihood of your motherboard still being able to house your next CPU is pretty low. That said the CPU and mobo you chose are very good in the first place. Yep and since my Gaming Rig will likely last 2 years, by then there will probably be better Mobo for less money anyway. On September 21 2011 23:28 Horst wrote: is 250 GB enough space for a computer for you? I've got 4.5 TB worth of space for movies and junk (little over half full).. with storage as cheap as it is, make sure you don't need more. My Gaming Rig will only be used for gaming, so 250GB is enough for me. But I decided to still get the Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB $54 since my Seagate 250GB 7200rpm Baracuda 7200.10 is an old model so it's probably much slower. I'm trying to get everything from this site: www.pccasegear.com so that my shipping fee will stay roughly the same. | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On September 22 2011 16:58 Heinstar wrote: I keep hearing that i5 2400 is enough for competitive 1v1 match in Sc2. But will OC 2500K give an advantage? It would be nice to have consistent 60+ fps during the whole match but does it help you play better? I opted out on 120hz monitor since I heard that 60 fps is enough for Sc2. How much fps is too low/unacceptable to be playing competitively? I already answered this question, quoting myself from above... On September 22 2011 00:12 Wabbit wrote: + Show Spoiler + @Heinstar: As you can see in this link that skyR also posted, SC2 performance scales pretty linearly with clock speed (at least for these Sandy Bridge CPU's). This is an oversimplification, but if you do a little math, it scales almost linearly: + Show Spoiler + 3.3GHz - 51.4 FPS = ~64 MHz per Frame 4.3GHz - 64.15 FPS = ~67 MHz per Frame 4.7GHz - 69.43 FPS = ~67.7 MHz per Frame As a personal experience: + Show Spoiler + With a 2500k @4Ghz @ Ultra settings, the lowest FPS I get in 200v200 1v1 is 45. I tried it at approximately 3.6GHz (about what a 2400/2500 will hit with Turbo) and it was around 40. This is acceptable, but if you want to invest $100 more so you can OC to 4.5 GHz or so and ensure about 55+ minimum FPS, it's your choice. Generally speaking, 30 FPS is a widely accepted "minimum" for which most games are playable. I've experienced 20ish on my old laptop in big battles and didn't like it. Aside from making the gameplay feel choppy, lower FPS introduces additional delays. 60 FPS = 1 frame every 16.6ms, 30 FPS = 1 frame every 33.2 (assuming linear frame times, an unlikely oversimplification but sufficient for understanding). While it's not likely you can notice an extra 10-20ms delay on top of all the other delays (especially from having to play via BNet, I think it's like 200+ ms no matter what; there was a thread recently, somebody analyzed this), I personally don't mind making improvements wherever possible, small as they may be. | ||
|
Heinstar
Australia61 Posts
On September 22 2011 23:54 Wabbit wrote: Generally speaking, 30 FPS is a widely accepted "minimum" for which most games are playable. I've experienced 20ish on my old laptop in big battles and didn't like it. Aside from making the gameplay feel choppy, lower FPS introduces additional delays. 60 FPS = 1 frame every 16.6ms, 30 FPS = 1 frame every 33.2 (assuming linear frame times, an unlikely oversimplification but sufficient for understanding). While it's not likely you can notice an extra 10-20ms delay on top of all the other delays (especially from having to play via BNet, I think it's like 200+ ms no matter what; there was a thread recently, somebody analyzed this), I personally don't mind making improvements wherever possible, small as they may be. This site shows visual difference between 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps: http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html It looks like 30fps is acceptable but 60fps is still slightly better and you would never want to go 15fps. As for whether 2500K is worth it or not, when I look at this benchmark for Sc2: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect0 1. It shows that 2500K at stock speed(3.3GHz) can get 51.4fps in 1680x1050 resolution. 2. It gets additional 18fps when it's OC to maximum of 4.7GHz in 1680x1050 resolution. 3. 2400(3.1Ghz) will be slightly worse than 2500K at stock speed(3.3GHz) so it would get like 50.7fps in 1680x1050 resolution. So by paying extra $117 for OC 2500K, I'll probably get additional 20fps in Sc2. On September 22 2011 00:12 Wabbit wrote: @Heinstar: As you can see in this link that skyR also posted, SC2 performance scales pretty linearly with clock speed (at least for these Sandy Bridge CPU's). This is an oversimplification, but if you do a little math, it scales almost linearly: + Show Spoiler + 3.3GHz - 51.4 FPS = ~64 MHz per Frame 4.3GHz - 64.15 FPS = ~67 MHz per Frame 4.7GHz - 69.43 FPS = ~67.7 MHz per Frame As a personal experience: + Show Spoiler + With a 2500k @4Ghz @ Ultra settings, the lowest FPS I get in 200v200 1v1 is 45. I tried it at approximately 3.6GHz (about what a 2400/2500 will hit with Turbo) and it was around 40. This is acceptable, but if you want to invest $100 more so you can OC to 4.5 GHz or so and ensure about 55+ minimum FPS, it's your choice. And If you're getting 40fps in 200v200 1v1 at 3.6GHz then 2400(3.1GHz) will probably get ~35fps in 200v200 1v1. Which is still visually acceptable. So if I get a 2400, in the worst case scenario I'll still get a acceptable game play in 1v1 200/200 at 30~35fps. But if I get OC 2500K, even in the worst case scenario I'll always get the smoothest game play in 1v1 200/200 at +55fps. Is it worth it? I'm still not sure. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
People scream about how terrible 30FPS is, but it's all placebo effect, because marketing has trained people to believe they need more. I mean, people are actually convinced that they can tell the difference between 60 and 90 FPS on a 60hz display... | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On September 23 2011 02:02 JingleHell wrote: People scream about how terrible 30FPS is, but it's all placebo effect, because marketing has trained people to believe they need more. I mean, people are actually convinced that they can tell the difference between 60 and 90 FPS on a 60hz display... I fully agree with you about the 2nd part (I even have Frameratecap = 60 in my variables), but I'm not sure why you keep insisting that 30 vs 60 fps on a 60Hz display is placebo. I can easily tell a difference, and I bet most people can too. It looks much smoother. | ||
| ||
