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.
On September 21 2011 12:59 skyR wrote: Ivybridge is on LGA1155 and is expected to work on every board with a simple BIOS update...
There is currently no processor capable of achieving a constant sixty frames per second on ultra settings throughout the game fyi...
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you need a Z68 board to support ivy bridge cpu's. At least that's what I keep hearing. We dont know for sure if they will work with H61/67/p68 boards.
On September 21 2011 13:06 Horst wrote: also, in your post... very competitive, 4v4, and 200/200 aren't words one normally utters at the same time when talking about sc2
Either of those setups should be fine for ANY 1v1 situation, even 200/200 battles.
haha you're right. I can't call myself a competitive player if I play 4v4. But then again, having more fps during 4v4 match wouldn't hurt either.
On September 21 2011 12:59 skyR wrote: Ivybridge is on LGA1155 and is expected to work on every board with a simple BIOS update...
There is currently no processor capable of achieving a constant sixty frames per second on ultra settings throughout the game fyi...
So how much better is overclocked 2500K compared to 2400? Do you think it's worth the extra $124? This benchmark review says 2400 actually performs better than 2500K in 1920x1080 resolution: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/21/
How much better is subjective. Here's an article for you to decide: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect2 Think of the core i5 2400 as slightly worse than the core i5 2500k at 3.3GHz and than compare it to the overclocked values of 4.3GHz (which is easily achievable) and 4.7GHz (which might take some effort).
But I can tell you now that even an overclocked core i5 2500k won't be capable of achieving a constant sixty frames per second in 4v4 ultra, and not even on high either (I would know since I have one and play team games regularly).
Ivybridge is on LGA1155. Every H61, H67, P67 and Z68 board is LGA1155. Intel has confirmed that it'll solely depend on the BIOS of the board. Gigabyte has confirmed all their boards are Ivybridge ready. There's some garbage rumor going around that UEFI boards won't be capable of supporting Ivybridge, whether you want to believe this crap or not is up to you.
Yeah i have pretty much what you have, except instead of 8gb ram i have 4gb, and instead of the GTX560 i have GTX 280. I can run sc2 on Ultra and keep a consistent 60fps, only slowing down in 4v4 late game where there are 200/200 armies.
On September 21 2011 14:18 skyR wrote: But I can tell you now that even an overclocked core i5 2500k won't be capable of achieving a constant sixty frames per second in 4v4 ultra, and not even on high either (I would know since I have one and play team games regularly).
Ivybridge is on LGA1155. Every H61, H67, P67 and Z68 board is LGA1155. Intel has confirmed that it'll solely depend on the BIOS of the board. Gigabyte has confirmed all their boards are Ivybridge ready. There's some garbage rumor going around that UEFI boards won't be capable of supporting Ivybridge, whether you want to believe this crap or not is up to you.
Thanks, I'm only going to play competitive on 1v1 anyway so I might as well save myself $124. And if H61 will be able to support ivy then I'm not losing any upgradability.
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. - I'll be able to upgrade to ivy bridge when 2400 becomes obsolete. - It's only going to be played in 1920x1080 resolution on a single monitor.
So there's no reason for me to pay extra $124 to go for the 2500K setup since it would probably only last maximum of 1 year longer. But by then I could buy myself a cheaper and more powerful CPU for less money.
1. If I could, I would reuse my old Auriga case but it only has 1 x 90mm rear fan and 1 x optional fan on side panel and 1 x optional 90mm fan at the front fan but no option for top fans. If I was to buy a 90mm front fan for this case, I'd need to pay extra $10 - $20 so I might as well get Antec 300 since it's better looking and has better cooler.
2. I just realized I already have Seagate 250GB 7200rpm Baracuda 7200.10 so I can save myself $54 on HDD.
In my history of building computers I've never felt the need to upgrade CPUs. Especially true in this case since Ivy Bridge will only be marginally faster than Sandy Bridge.
I go for CPUs that have massive overclocking overhead. That tides me over for at least two-three generations of CPUs. I went from core 2 duo E2160 @ 3ghz to i5-750 @ 4ghz. The transition wasn't that smooth because it was actually like 5 generations skipped in truth but only one game made me really suffer and that was supreme commander which still lags for me anyways lol.
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.
You might wanna see if you can grab an AMD HD6950 for cheaper than that. Not familiar with Australian pricing though. They perform roughly the same afaik. (not great timing though, that generation of GPUs is about to end. Two years ago you could have had this level of performance with the HD5850. I might suggest to keep an old gpu or buy a really cheap one to tide you over until the new stuff comes out.)
Funny thing that happened this morning. I left prime95 running overnight and forgot to turn it off when I logged on this morning. I was sorta stumped why my fps would drop to 40s during max 200/200 2v2 battles. Then I'm like OHHHHHH. -_-
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
why don't you tell us your native resolution you're running at, since that is as important as the graphic cards itself. you won't see the difference in performance between the two chips while running SC2....
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
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.
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
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.
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?
I'm running the i5 2400 and an AMD HD6950 and getting 115 fps at all times (forgot I left vertical sync off). But yeah, I can go into huge 4v4 battles on full settings and not lose frames. It's sweet.
I'm going to play is Sc2, DotA 2 and HoN majority of the time. I will also try out other games like Lol, Skyrim, Dragon Age II, GW 2, Tera, WoW and Diablo III.
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.
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...
@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
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
On September 25 2011 08:46 skyR wrote: For Starcraft II? No, it's still CPU limited even at 1080p. I don't see how this is strange since mine at high 1080p drops to ~30...
I wasn't talking about SC2, I said the majority. SC2 is one of the rare games that are CPU-capped, didn't I say that?...
(And yes that bench as well is with an overkill GPU)
EDIT: Though yeah if this is solely for SC2 you definitely want to OC the 2500k, the difference is going to be 10-20 frames depending on the settings, though you can just leave the advanced physics off. I guess it's about what you're willing to pay for it.
On September 25 2011 08:56 Shikyo wrote: By the way thank you for the discussion, always learn a lot, hope I wasn't too obnoxious~
EDIT: Hold the phone...
If the computer indeed is strictly for Starcraft 2, why are you getting a 560 Ti twinfrozr???
Get something like the 100$ GTX 460 from NCIX. You'll be CPU-limited anyway and you save 150$.
1.) Because 560 Ti seems to be the good value GPU at the moment just like HD 6950. Although not as important, I'm also going to try other games like Skyrim, Dragon Age II, GW 2, Tera, WoW and Diablo III.
2.) I have HD 5770 which is currently used by my work PC. I could give this GPU to my gaming PC but I don't think this GPU is powerful enough to run above games at 1920x1080 is it?
3.) Even if it is, I'd need to buy another weaker GPU for my work PC if I was to do that. I'd need to buy decent GPU that can handle dual-monitor and 3d modeling software.
On September 25 2011 08:19 Shikyo wrote: That ram = no just no. Also you probably should get 8gb instead.
1. 2-3 in most games 2. It tends to be GPU-limited so should be the same in most games, not SC2 though. 3. Depends on what you want to achieve. Paying 149$ 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.
1.) Yeah but I heard that Leopold has worse key caps and feels mushier to press compared to Filco so I'm going with Filco even if it's $40 more. To me it's worth the extra $40 since it looks better and has better quality.
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.
If you read my above post, you can see I estimated it: + Show Spoiler +
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.
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 +
As a personal experience: + Show Spoiler +
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.
1.) So how much is really the gain in FPS? is it more than 18FPS?
2.) So is the test showing that tight timing and 1600MHz will barely increase FPS? If so then should I save money and just get the cheapest 2x2GB RAM for $29 instead?
Okay I haven't actually ordered yet. But I'm certain that I'm getting the 2500K setup since:
1.) If it turns out I prefer 1 PC for both gaming and studying instead of having separate Gaming Rig and study PC, then I can just upgrade my study PC. Worst case scenario I'll only lose $59 on Antec three-hundered.
2.) Sc2 is a very CPU intensive game and 2500K is the best one for it right now. There is hardly any FPS difference between 2500K and 2600K in Sc2.
3.) Z68 Mobo will last a long time since DDR4 won't arrive until 2013 - 15
4.) If it turns out I want to use the components for my study PC then the Z68 Mobo will allow me to SLI to get triple monitor.
keep in mind most sc2 benchmarks are done in team games while hurling huge armies at each other. for 1v1 i highly doubt you'll be cpu limited with a 2400
You can get to 5.2 with a loop / 4.7 is more doable / and 4.5 on heatsinks/fans on both the i7-2600k and i5-2500k ( not all chips are made the same and some can't hit those numbers regardless of what you do )
also... take apart your entire case before adding anything to it ( if it's your first time building one as you'll see ) and rout the cables to the back if possible ( holes should all be made for most modern cases, at least some of the coolermaster ones do ? ) if not, just get a cutter/care should be taken and make some holes ( this would improve airflow and allows you to hide cables away until you need them to pop out at specific spots to connect to the motherboard )
also helps if the psu is modular ( modifiable/able to add/remove cable ) although not necessary
On September 26 2011 14:24 nalgene wrote: You can get to 5.2 with a loop / 4.7 is more doable / and 4.5 on heatsinks/fans on both the i7-2600k and i5-2500k ( not all chips are made the same and some can't hit those numbers regardless of what you do )
I heard that water coolers are no better than air cooling. In fact, air cooling will be cheaper to do especially in the long run because you don't have to replace the liquid.
Do you think it's worth spending money on better Case and better CPU cooler than CM Hyper 212+ to overclock the 2500K to 4.7GHz? Or leave it at 4.5GHz since there's no guarantee I'll get to 4.7GHz ?
I saw JingleHell's RAM test. So getting faster MHz is more important than lower timing right?
So I should probably go for CL9 1600MHz 2x2GB/2x4GB RAM then. I don't think I can get CL6 from PCCG anyway.
On September 26 2011 14:24 nalgene wrote: You can get to 5.2 with a loop / 4.7 is more doable / and 4.5 on heatsinks/fans on both the i7-2600k and i5-2500k ( not all chips are made the same and some can't hit those numbers regardless of what you do )
I heard that water coolers are no better than air cooling. In fact, air cooling will be cheaper to do especially in the long run because you don't have to replace the liquid.
Do you think it's worth spending money on better Case and better CPU cooler than CM Hyper 212+ to overclock the 2500K to 4.7GHz? Or leave it at 4.5GHz since there's no guarantee I'll get to 4.7GHz ?
I saw JingleHell's RAM test. So getting faster MHz is more important than lower timing right?
So I should probably go for CL9 1600MHz 2x2GB/2x4GB RAM then. I don't think I can get CL6 from PCCG anyway.
Uh.... it's not necessary, but those are already done for you...? You can still drill the holes for the antec 300... ( most modern ones come with the holes already made though, that's the only difference, but there's nothing stopping you from just drilling your own holes for cable management )
//unrelated water is always better than a heatsink/fan(s) if cost isn't added in ( but the latter is obviously cheaper )
No it isn't. Watercooling is only useful in extremely hot systems. We're talking about 3x GPU systems where you can connect everything with a loop and ditch the bulky heatsink shrouds. For a single GPU + single CPU system, aircooling with the largest heatsinks will be cheaper, quieter and hit the exact same overclocks if you really want to.
Watercooling is completely pointless these days unless its a hobby - CPU coolers like the Thermalright Archon, Silver Arrow, and Noctua D14 can reach 5Ghz overclocks if you really want to and they do it for cheaper while producing far less noise. Of course, spending so much on cooling is completely stupid since overclocking that extra .3 Ghz gets you so little performance benefit. If you want to think about overclocking in a pragmatic way, that 0.3ghz is not going to make a game that isn't unplayable, playable.
The only decent reason for spending more than $40 on a CPU heatsink is to decrease noise.
Anyway...get the cheapest RAM you can find because all RAM is basically the same in performance/quality. Reread JingleHell's RAM tests, the conclusion is that neither gives any real form of performance benefit. Sure, its likely not a perfectly done test but its enough to prove that 1600mhz vs 1333mhz gives you like 1% extra performance at best. Of course use some common sense here...if a 1600mhz kit is like $3 more than a 1333mhz kit, you might as well spend extra on the 1600mhz kit.
Also, ditch the Antec 300. For $60, its absolutely not worth the price. It has a bottom mounted power supply but it has no cable management features; it has a lot of airflow but has absolutely no dust filters (unless you stretch some pantyhose over the intakes); it does bareback hard drive mounting so its going to sound like shit if you have any mechanical hard drives in there. The only good thing it still has compared to the competition is 0.8mm steel construction.
@Heinstar: If you want to read up on my thoughts on all the expensive enthusiast type stuff, bearing in mind that I've used most of it, you can see it here.
Basically, the more effect a component has on gaming ability, the more important it is to put part of your budget into it. Meaning, if you aren't buying the best of everything, RAM is the last thing to spend extra on for performance gains.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233 this one says 59.99 and 49.99 after rebate ( but he's in australia ??? ) has all the features he'd most likely use ( holes are already made for routing cables to the back and then out to motherboard/other components )
the one in the OP is 58.0
//1200/5-5-5-15 can beat 1600/cas7 ( these aren't really noticeable either )
On September 27 2011 02:03 nalgene wrote: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233 this one says 59.99 and 49.99 after rebate ( but he's in australia ??? ) has all the features he'd most likely use ( holes are already made for routing cables to the back and then out to motherboard/other components )
the one in the OP is 58.0
//1200/5-5-5-15 can beat 1600/cas7 ( these aren't really noticeable either )
Uhm, timings and clock on RAM are pretty variable for different pieces of software, different CPUs, different clocks, and different IMC frequencies. You can't just generalize like that.
And seeing as my tests pretty much show that in SC2, timings make so little difference it can be chalked up to human error in testing, and clock makes a good bit more, at least with recent generation Intel, I'm just not going to believe you until you at least explain how you came to that conclusion.
So case is not important for overclocking. I guess I can go with the cheapest case I like then.
This is the feature that I'd like to have in a case: + Show Spoiler +
• nice exterior design(essential) e.g. minimal clean look • dust filter(highly preferable) • decent cable management(preferable) • ability to fit long video cards(preferable) • black interior(preferable)
• ability to SLI - since I always just upgrade single GPU whenever it gets old and I don't use dual-monitor. • water cooling - since air-cooling can be just as good, simple and cheaper in the long-run. • sound damping - since the Gaming Rig will be in the living room. • full tower case - since I heard that mid tower case is good enough for most people and it's more compact.
I've browsed through all the cases from PCCG and I loved the exterior design of these cases the most: + Show Spoiler +
1.) Antec Three Hundred Case $59.00 2.) BitFenix Shinobi Case $69.00 3.) CoolerMaster CM 690 II Advanced $114.00
These were alright as well: 4.) Fractal Design Core 3000 $113.00 5.) Corsair Carbide 400R Black Mid-Tower Case $136.00 6.) Fractal Design Arc Mid Tower $139.00 7.) Corsair Carbide 500R Case $159.00 8.) SilverStone Raven RV02-E with window $185.00 9.) Corsair Graphite 600T $209.00 10.) Corsair Obsidian 650D $216.00 11.) Silverstone Fortress FT02B with Window USB 3.0 $259.00
I know these cases are great for the price, but I didn't like their rugged looks: 11.) CoolerMaster Storm Enforcer $99.00 12.) CoolerMaster HAF 912 Advanced $115.00
I'm probably going with Antec Three Hundred because it's cheap and is my favorite looking case. Is this case good enough for overclocking and cooling all my components?
As for RAM, I'm going to choose from these ones: + Show Spoiler +
Total of 29 G.SKILL RAM is sold at PPCG. 5 of them are missing from the list here but that's because they are 4x4GB.
Since there's not much price difference between 2x2GB and 2x4GB RAM, I probably should go for 2x4GB RAM. And the best value 2x4GB RAM seems to be: + Show Spoiler +
Note: I know that higher clock speed makes difference in FPS much more than tighter timing. But RAMs with clock speed higher than 1600MHz doesn't include Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 in the Qualified Motherboards List so the highest clock speed I can choose is 1600MHz.
Do you agree with my choice or do you a recommend different RAM? If you agree, which one would you choose out of my list? Also, I prefer the ones with Heat Spreader because they look nice.
Okay so it sounds like there's no guarantee that I can overclock 2500K to higher than 4.5GHz even with a better CPU cooler. So I guess I'll just stick to 4.5GHz and Antec Three Hundred until Ivy bridge CPU comes out. Is this a good plan?
Antec Three Hundred does not have a black interior, it has terrible cable management, and it cannot fit long graphics cards...
Tighter timings actually makes more of a difference than a higher frequency... If you don't want to purchase the least expensive 1333MHz cas9 kit than you're welcome to waste money for negligible gains.
1) RAID is pointless for consumers for obvious reasons. 2) The Antec 900 hasn't got any form of hard drive dampening. So of course a 7200RPM drive is going to sound terrible inside it.
Of course you shouldn't buy Caviar Blacks anymore. They're $20 more than competing 7200RPM hard disks like the F3 Spinpoint and even the Caviar Blue.
I decided to go with CM 690 II adv. For $55 more than Antec 300, it's a much better value case.
I think the below RAM is the best one with price-to-value raio, which RAM should I go with for Sc2? 1.) G.Skill F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 9-9-9-24 1.5v) $55 2.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL9D-8GBXL (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $59 3.) G.Skill Ripjaws F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $65 4.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $65 5.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL7D-8GBXH (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 7-7-7-21 1.5v) $72 6.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL8D-8GBXM (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 8-8-8-24 1.5v) $79
Computer hardware is like this: if something hits the specs you are looking for, you buy the absolute cheapest one that has those specs. Desktops have mostly been about raw specs and nothing else, which is why not a single company can release a fundamentally perfect computer chassis and instead plays a game of checklisting features.
So in this case, the only non-comedy RAM option is option #4 - it also doesn't have shitty heatspreaders that only serve to block large heatsinks. The best value GTX560 Ti is the absolute cheapest GTX560 Ti (this would be the MSI card) unless you want EVGA's warranty service.
On September 30 2011 03:42 Womwomwom wrote: So in this case, the only non-comedy RAM option is option #4 - it also doesn't have shitty heatspreaders that only serve to block large heatsinks. The best value GTX560 Ti is the absolute cheapest GTX560 Ti (this would be the MSI card) unless you want EVGA's warranty service.
So I don't get it, is it the RAM bandwidth or lower timing that gives the bigger difference in frames per second? Didn't JingleHell's post say bandwidth? Either way I actually think option #3 or #4 is the best value RAM from PCCG, don't you think? For $10 more I get heat spreader and more bandwidth?
Also, since I won't be bottlenecked by Starcraft 2 because it's not a GPU intensive game, which GPU is better value overall for the type of games I'm going to play? HD 6950 or 560Ti?
I'm going to use a single monitor in 1920x1080 resolution. It's going to be used for playing Sc2, DotA 2 and HoN majority of the time. I will also try out other games like LoL, Skyrim, Dragon Age II, GW 2, Tera, WoW and Diablo III.
So should I get a HD 6950 or 560Ti?
If it's 560Ti, could someone suggest me the best value 560Ti from here? If it's HD 6950, could someone suggest me the best value HD 6950 from here?
Yes but its still not worth pursuing. If JingleHell showed that faster memory decreased the size and frequency of FPS drops, then I'd be recommending faster memory but no one has proven this yet. He did show that the minimum FPS was a little bit higher but honestly the difference between 28 FPS and 31 FPS is still "terrible" and "terrible".
Anyway, it seems you changed the order of the RAM you listed, after I posted, since I vaguely remember recommending the G.Skill F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT. Anyway, memory like this is the type of stuff you want. Heatspreaders, outside looking cool and blocking large heatsinks, don't do anything since RAM doesn't really consume a whole lot of power...so there isn't any energy to kick out as heat. Its fine if you want to buy it for aesthetic reasons but just know that it doesn't do anything, performance-wise.
The best GPU in that pack are the GTX560 Tis. Why? Because they all come with nice aftermarket cooling, factory overclocks, and generally end up cheaper than the HD6950s in stock. Skryim is probably the most graphically intensive game you want to play and I doubt it'll be especially hard on the GPU since this is Bethesda we're talking about (instead it'll be all round buggy and crash half the time).
I personally think the best options are the: MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II for $249.00 EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (if you want EVGA warranty)
Yes, I showed that frequency tops timings in the specific case of SC2, on a Bloomfield CPU. While that should carry over to newer Intel CPU's as well, if anything, with less memory bandwidth from dual channel vs my triple channel, the difference will be even smaller on Sandy Bridge.
I then concluded that it doesn't really matter because paying more for faster memory is retarded if you can pay more for better CPU performance, which the majority of people can. $10 extra on faster memory could instead go to a higher binned CPU. While the difference between an i5 2400 and 2500 is tiny, it's still better than the difference between CL9 1333 and CL9 1600, and usually for a similar price.
While I'm glad people read my numbers, I do wish they'd read the analysis that went with it to keep the impressive sounding so many percent performance gains in perspective.
Hell, given that I don't benchmark for a living, and in hindsight I can think of a couple of things I definitely did wrong for top precision, if the results didn't line up with conventional wisdom, I would have thrown the whole thing out because the numbers are definitely close enough for margin of human error.
In pretty much everything else, timings tend to be slightly better, although the ideal is generally tight timings on 1600mhz anyway.
Okay thanks. I changed my mind and decided to buy the option #1 RAM since: 1.) I'm never intending to buy windowed Case(no point buying pretty RAM if I'm not going to look at it). 2.) It will be easier to find matching RAM that's without heat spreader than with heat spreader in the future. 3.) It won't block large heatsinks.
I also changed my mind and getting Antec 300 since: 1.) My setup doesn't need good air-cooling. 2.) Exterior looks better than CM 690 II adv. 3.) It's cheaper. 4.) I'm not going to SLI in the future.
Thanks guys. I think I'm finally done now(hopefully).
I was wondering if any of you would be able to tell me if the computer specs below would be sufficient to run SC2 on ultra settings in 2v2 200/200 units per person on screen, while mainining +60 fps.
I had a terrible experience buying a gaming rig a couple years back and never got the performance I needed to play the games I want . If anything, I'd rather overspend. Thank you for any feedback.
Looking at the Alienware X51... I'm not considering building a pc or buying from a vendor like ibuypower or cyberpower. I really just want the thing to work flawlessly right out of the box.
3rd Generation Intel® Core™ i5-3330 (6M Cache, up to 3.0 GHz) 8GB (2 X 4GB) Dual Channel DDR3 NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 660 1.5GB GDDR5
I was wondering if any of you would be able to tell me if the computer specs below would be sufficient to run SC2 on ultra settings in 2v2 200/200 units per person on screen, while mainining +60 fps.
Well if you get a 3570k and take a few weeks crash course on extreme overclocking you might make 30fps minimums. You'd have to build it yourself and get lucky on the silicon lottery though =P
You're looking at 10-25fps minimums in real world 2v2 800 supply with any stock CPU with physics and effects up, depending on the types of units etc (max zergling will murder cpu more than max thors) and you can increase that by about 50-80% by disabling physics and lowering effects to low/medium but holding FPS >60 is flat out impossible on current hardware. Dont pay thousands for a 6-core intel cpu, It doesn't help.
You wont get a good deal on an Alienware desktop either, they charge $150 for 8gb of 1600mhz RAM, rofl
$950 for a gtx660, i5 3330 (3ghz) shitty motherboard, shitty psu (330w - no specs listed) no overclockability etc, just not any kind of good value for sc2. I mean you can shave $300 off, get an overclockable build (i5 3570k, good z77 board), quality parts, and run the game at 1.5x+ the minimum framerates cause you don't need a 660 and everything else is price gouged
Buying an alienware doesn't guarantee it's going to be more likely to "work straight out of the box" compared to boutiques like cyper and ibuy. It just means you pay through the ass for an even more retarded looking case.
Paying more money for identical items doesn't make them somehow better.
For the record my 2500k at 4.4gHz doesn't even do 60fps constantly 1v1's, of course you're not going to be able to maintain 60fps in 2v2s on something with ~65-70% of the performance...
The computer with the specs that I listed in my post above will run me right at ~$1,000. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, no?
I guess what I'm looking for is to be able to play the game on high/ultra setting while maintaining a smooth fps. I typically play 2v2 and occasionally 1v1.
Do you think these specs will accomplish that for me?
This is an example build that was posted in the computer build resource thread a little while ago, it's ~$1100. The CPU will easily run 50% faster than yours, the GPU 20-30%+, it includes a 250gb SSD, a 2tb hard drive, good RAM, board, PSU etc. You know what you are buying. It's more of an all-round powerhouse build, flagship cpu, flagship GPU etc.
For an sc2 system in particular, you can go with a 3570k build, overclock to 4.4-4.8ghz and make do with a GPU like the 7770 - you can have 1.5x the performance of the $1k build you listed at only $650-750 or so. Dont want to overclock? Then it's significantly cheaper than even that but the performance advantage is not big.
The alienware specs will be fine, but you're getting ripped off on quality and on price
I really am a novice when it comes to building computers or even discussing the the individual components... so getting the components individually and assembling myself really would be out of the question.
Sorry for being so tech incompetent.
Can you point me to a computer that can be bought at the performance and price benchmarks you stated above?
Like a $750 range and also a $1000 range PC? Do those price points with the corresponding performance only hold out if you build your own PC?
On April 03 2013 02:58 BRockStar wrote: I really am a novice when it comes to building computers or even discussing the the individual components... so getting the components individually and assembling myself really would be out of the question.
Sorry for being so tech incompetent.
Can you point me to a computer that can be bought at the performance and price benchmarks you stated above?
Like a $750 range and also a $1000 range PC? Do those price points with the corresponding performance only hold out if you build your own PC?
Thanks again
find a site/shop that assembles parts of your choice. costs abit extra but you get best of both worlds and usually you still get way more performance&quality for your money.
/edit for the parts just look around in the other threads or just ask the gurus to give you a list.
This thread reminds me of a guy I met on ladder about a year ago. He claimed to have a top of the line computer capable of running sc2 at a constant 190fps. I told him that's completely impossible.... Unless he meant on the menu screen.
I told him he's full of shit and asked him what kinda hardware he's got.
Turns out someone ripped him off... It was funny when he started listing his hardware and had the exact same hardware I have that I put together for like 750. My game hovers around 60fps for most of the game and begins to dip as the armies get larger (this is with all ultra settings).
Morale of the story.... Scarcraft is extremely cpu intensive. Anybody claiming constant 60+ fps in 800/800 battles is just lying.
EPT
. If anything, I'd rather overspend. Thank you for any feedback.
