On September 23 2011 02:02 JingleHell wrote: If your APM that actually does something worth a damn isn't ~700 by real time or ~1k by faster in game time, 30FPS won't cause you to have difficulties keeping up with your hands.
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 think you mean the other way around, .7k on faster, 1k real-time, but yeah haha. it's late to add onto advice for the OP but i personally use an old i3, and to me it's just enough.
in counterstrike days, i did play in a cal-i clan and at home it would be 20fps, give or take 5. this meant that i was tolerating the lag i was frequently getting, yeti felt as though i played better at home than at lan events where better computers were provided.
so since that whole experience, years upon years (even stretching to playing sc:bw on a low-level laptop), i do respect people who tend to be modest about their setups and how they play, because these players tend to concentrate more on their play than on anything else. i now understand entirely though, that it's not the same experience as most other players get. so if there were *anyone* thinking about getting a computer build for playing a game that you'll look to improve within, i would really recommend something that will exceed requirement---or rather, i'd ask them not to be entirely cheap about it.
going from a computer that hardly runs starcraft, to something that can only run it on medium or low setting is hardly a change at all, and i know people who still insist on such an experience when in this day and age, great computer parts are fairly cheap. we will all grow up, earn salaries.... and eventually find other ways to make the cost more bearable if only to enjoy the starcraft pass-time a little bit more. look to the future : )
Yeah I meant the other way around. The points still the same. And there's nothing wrong with having a PC that can max every game on the planet. Just understand what you actually need, and what's reasonable, and what's possible.
And bear in mind, with a current generation Intel CPU, there is no way to guarantee no circumstance drops your FPS below 60 in SC2. It's just too abusive. By the same token, any reasonable circumstance shouldn't cause any significant trouble.
I tested Sc2 on my E6600 CPU at 1680x1050. I couldn't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps without looking at the fps score while gaming. But I could tell the difference when it was <25fps, it felt choppy. So I think anything below 30fps could affect your micro.
Since I'm under budget, I decided to go for 2500K setup since I'd rather be safe than sorry.
I saw this 2500K(3.3GHz) test for Sc2 and it went all the way down to 13fps in some battles(the video says it was recorded in FRAPS and that in reality it's 10 - 15% higher).
It maybe overkill for most games but you can never have enough CPU for Sc2.
I'm hoping to OC the 2500K to at least 4.7GHz. Do I need a better case to achieve that?
A) I never reccommend spending more money than you need to just because you made a budget that was higher than you need. In my eyes, 200 dollars under budget = 150beers to drink
B) 4.5ghz you can get super easy, if you want 4.7ghz you'll need to adjust your vcore a bit. Whether or not you can hit 4.7 with your case depends on your ambient temps alot, and how well you manage your cables
On September 23 2011 14:34 CharlieBrownsc wrote: A) I never reccommend spending more money than you need to just because you made a budget that was higher than you need. In my eyes, 200 dollars under budget = 150beers to drink
On September 23 2011 11:46 Heinstar wrote: I tested Sc2 on my E6600 CPU at 1680x1050. I couldn't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps without looking at the fps score while gaming. But I could tell the difference when it was <25fps, it felt choppy. So I think anything below 30fps could affect your micro.
Generally to me, 30 fps is good enough to play most games but for some reason I prefer 60 fps for playing fps and the difference seems very significant in them. I wonder why that is?
I'm hoping to OC the 2500K to at least 4.7GHz. Do I need a better case to achieve that?
A) I never reccommend spending more money than you need to just because you made a budget that was higher than you need. In my eyes, 200 dollars under budget = 150beers to drink
Then it's an even better idea to spend the 200 extra dollars on the computer as you are also using them to improve your health.
On September 23 2011 14:10 Heinstar wrote: I'm hoping to OC the 2500K to at least 4.7GHz. Do I need a better case to achieve that?
Even if your temps are low and you keep trying to rase VCore to keep it stable, some chips just can't go that high and be stable. It's a physical limitation of their quality/ability/whatever (I don't claim to understand this).
TLDR (from that link): 1. Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz 2. Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz 3. Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)
On September 24 2011 01:36 Wabbit wrote: Even if your temps are low and you keep trying to rase VCore to keep it stable, some chips just can't go that high and be stable. It's a physical limitation of their quality/ability/whatever (I don't claim to understand this).
The chip manufacturing process is fundamentally imperfect. One major factor is where a particular CPU die was on the silicon wafer - it's impossible to get an absolutely even layer thickness or mask focus across the whole wafer. In the end, you're left with a bunch of CPU dies with very different voltage/frequency properties. Manufacturers will then test these and "bin" them, so 2500Ks will end up with relatively similar properties, but still not identical.
Processes tend to continually improve over the production life of a series of CPUs, so a later top-end chip is usually better than an older one.
"Additionally it is recommended to keep 「C1E」and「EIST」option enabled for the best overclock scaling. This is different than previous Intel overclocking expectations where the best scaling was with disabled power states or power management options."
On September 24 2011 02:56 dUTtrOACh wrote: If my shitbox computer can run SC2... Yes. Yours is better than mine. It should work.
What an excellent contribution to the discussion. I can see your point. Thanks for all the detailed information that backs it up. This should help the OP immensely.
Note: - Option 1 has everything overclockable(RAM, GPU and CPU). - I chose the expensive RAM since I heard that RAM can increase 1 - 5 FPS. - I got 4GB for both setup since you don't need more than 4GB for gaming.
1.) How much FPS gain should I expect from Option 1 compared to Option 2? 2.) Is the FPS difference between 2400(3.1GHz) and 2500K(4.5Ghz) really only about 18FPS higher? 3.) For someone who's going to buy $149 keyboard(Filco majestouch 2 tenkeyless brown), ~$50 mouse(Zowie MiCO) and and ~$20 mouse mat(Steel Series Mini Qck) is 2500K still an unworthy upgrade? 4.) Is 30FPS the absolute lowest it gets in 1v1 200/200? And is it really that bad when playing Sc2 competitively?
That ram = no just no. Also you probably should get 8gb instead.
1. 2-3 in most games 2. It tends to be GPU-limited so should be the same in most games, not SC2 though. 3. Depends on what you want to achieve. Paying 149$ for a filco when AU has leopolds for 109 is pretty silly imo. 4. It shouldn't go that low with either setup but you really don't even need advanced physics or whatever CPU-intensive settings there are.
This depends on how far you overclock your 2500k to. It is definitely not a 2-3 fps difference as Shikyo said. And I have no clue where you pulled the number 18 from.
On September 25 2011 08:22 skyR wrote: This depends on how far you overclock your 2500k to. It is definitely not a 2-3 fps difference as Shikyo said. And I have no clue where you pulled the number 18 from.
Well as I said most games are GPU-capped, if you play metro 2033 in 1080p with max everything they'll be roughly same FPS because both the CPUs can handle it and it's the GPU that limits it.
In SC2 the difference can be significantly higher depending on the settings.
For instance this bench is only for 1024x768 and still gets low FPS, indicating its CPU-limited, which it is.
When we go up to 1080p it takes much more from the GPU but the CPU requirements stay about the same. That's why for instance in Metro 2033 in 1440p it's almost completely GPU-limited until you get to a tri-SLi 580 setup or something like that.
Notice also that those aren't with max settings, furthering the CPU-limitedness. They have to make the settings CPU-related so that they can compare the CPUs.
Now would you happen to have CPU-benches for say, 1080p Crysis with Enthusiast settings? I'll bet it's completely GPU-capped.
EPT
