|
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
United Kingdom20300 Posts
My grand idea is to get a second monitor that I can plug it into at home and run SC2 at 144hz 1440p. Is this realistic?
Sc2 engine is very unsmooth, for maximum benefit on a 144hz monitor you need FPS meter to read ~250+. Desktop CPU with an overclock and some faster RAM could also probably be like 1.5x faster than laptop, yet still drop to low FPS with lots of units around. Overall, there's not much of a dream left for a high framerate, responsive real time strategy game because the sc2 engine doesn't allow for it with any hardware. The main thing that it actually helps with is mouse cursor responsiveness, because several blizzard games/engines have an option to render the mouse cursor independantly from the game framerate
An ultrabook-style laptop would not have the graphics horsepower to keep up with the CPU for sc2 at those resolutions and FPS, even though it's a graphically light game. 1440p144 is almost ten times more demanding on the GPU than 720p60.
|
Thanks for the responses!
So SC2 will never be a responsive, high fps game because of the engine. The mouse cursor responsiveness doesn't seem like enough incentive for 144hz.
From what I've read online, Skylake gives +15% processing power, longer battery life, more options for peripherals (usb 3.0 type c), and wireless charging. Are there any other incentives for a laptop user to wait for launch later this year?
What cpu / gpu / ram equivalent is required to run SC2 on max settings at 60fps 1440p? 60fps 4k?
Does resolution improve visual quality in SC2 or is scaling irrelevant because of how the engine works?
|
In theory there will exist some sort of laptop with a i5-5350H that will be the solution to all of life's problems
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
From what I've read online, Skylake gives +15% processing power, longer battery life
You're reading bad source because we don't really have that information yet from anything aside from rumors. Every tech release has a year of wild speculation coming before it and 90% of it is pulled out of somebodies ass with literally zero evidence
Does resolution improve visual quality in SC2 or is scaling irrelevant because of how the engine works?
It adds more resolution as with every other game, i wouldn't say that's the same as increasing visual quality but there is nothing wrong there (as long as you're using a 16 monitor which sc2 requires to see the max viewing area)
What cpu / gpu / ram equivalent is required to run SC2 on max settings at 60fps 1440p? 60fps 4k?
As good CPU/RAM as possible (singlethreaded performance), any config will drop below whatever FPS amount with enough strain
GPU, hard to say. That's ~1.78 and ~4x 1080p, though
|
Looking for a partial upgrade.
Definitely upgrading (old -> new)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 550 -> AMD FX-6300 (Link)
GPU: Radeon HD 6870 -> R9 280X (Link)
HDD: 300 GB + 200 GB HDD -> 4 TB HDD (Link) + 240GB SSD (Link)
My goal with the storage in particular is longevity. I've been using my 300 GB HDD since 2004, and picked up my mom's old HDD that's been around since I think 2002 or so. I'm hoping for another potentially more expensive drive that will last me at least half as long.
Potentially upgrading
PSU: Corsair GS600: The OP says 450-550W should be fine for mid-to-high-end gaming right now, so I should be safe for the time being. Also, what warning signs can I expect to see if my PSU isn't able to power everything?
Motherboard: MSI 880GM-E43
Probably not upgrading
RAM: 10 GB, 2 + 8.
Case: Fucker's lasted me 15 years.
What is your monitor's native resolution?
Main monitor: 1920x1200. Second monitor: 1680x1050. Might get a 3rd 1920x1200 soon.
Why do you want to upgrade? What do you want to achieve with the upgrade?
My immediate goals are running Witcher 3 (I have the game but can't run it for more than 5 minutes), and faster performance (hence the long-delayed HDD upgrade). My long-term goals are getting a decently high-end build to last me a long time. My last major upgrade was in 2010, and with a bit of garage maintenance I managed to hold on to everything up till now. I don't need 5 years with this build, but I'd like at least three.
What is your budget?
Let's say $1000. But that's flexible.
What country will you be buying your parts in?
USA
If you have any brand or retailer preferences, please specify.
Currently running completely on AMD parts, but I can always switch out if needed.
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
You should probably grab a haswell/skylake i5 for cpu
I'm hoping for another potentially more expensive drive that will last me at least half as long.
HDD's are a bit random, a lot of them die in about 2-3 years with heavy usage
Probably not upgrading
RAM: 10 GB, 2 + 8.
That's an asymmetric setup where you have 4GB of RAM in dual channel and 6GB leftover in single channel
|
what is the go-to 250gb ssd these days? mx200 or evo 850 or another? main focus is stability, durability
|
On July 25 2015 05:49 Cyro wrote:
That's an asymmetric setup where you have 4GB of RAM in dual channel and 6GB leftover in single channel
I was under the impression that it's only a few percent slower at the most.
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
The 850 evo is a solid drive with a 5 year warranty (even 10yr on the pro) but Samsung had an issue with the 840, 840 evo relating to the type of flash that they used (it's different now on the newer drives so that exact issue shouldn't happen with 850, 850 evo, 850 pro) and they handled warranties on that very poorly i think - refusing to acknowledge the issue before providing acknowledgement and partial fixes (but not full fixes) for only one of the two drives affected. No refunds from them either.
Right now, i think crucial or intel would be better with warranties.
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
On July 25 2015 07:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 05:49 Cyro wrote:
That's an asymmetric setup where you have 4GB of RAM in dual channel and 6GB leftover in single channel I was under the impression that it's only a few percent slower at the most.
Depends on the task, since your RAM bandwidth is halved. Most of the time, when people benchmark or say that, they're relying on tasks where memory bandwidth barely if at all affects performance - but for some tasks, even some games it's relevant
Since you still have 4GB in dual channel it's probably not super important but you should avoid wildly asymetric setups
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 25 2015 07:38 Cyro wrote:
The 850 evo is a solid drive with a 5 year warranty (even 10yr on the pro) but Samsung had an issue with the 840, 840 evo relating to the type of flash that they used (it's different now on the newer drives so that exact issue shouldn't happen with 850, 850 evo, 850 pro) and they handled warranties on that very poorly i think - refusing to acknowledge the issue before providing acknowledgement and partial fixes (but not full fixes) for only one of the two drives affected. No refunds from them either.
Right now, i think crucial or intel would be better with warranties.
I think the new Samsung SSDs are all good, yeah. I've had good success with the Intel 530 series drive http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DTPYT78/
which I think is known for reliability and comes with a solid warranty
|
Intel ssd's are great by they are strangely expensive here.
Btw Thx Cryo. Learnin erry day.
|
On July 25 2015 07:41 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 07:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 25 2015 05:49 Cyro wrote:
That's an asymmetric setup where you have 4GB of RAM in dual channel and 6GB leftover in single channel I was under the impression that it's only a few percent slower at the most. Depends on the task, since your RAM bandwidth is halved. Most of the time, when people benchmark or say that, they're relying on tasks where memory bandwidth barely if at all affects performance - but for some tasks, even some games it's relevant Since you still have 4GB in dual channel it's probably not super important but you should avoid wildly asymetric setups
Well in that case my question is, would I see a performance increase if I removed the 2 GB stick? I'll upgrade to 2x8 someday but that won't be for a while.
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
On July 25 2015 08:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 07:41 Cyro wrote:On July 25 2015 07:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 25 2015 05:49 Cyro wrote:
That's an asymmetric setup where you have 4GB of RAM in dual channel and 6GB leftover in single channel I was under the impression that it's only a few percent slower at the most. Depends on the task, since your RAM bandwidth is halved. Most of the time, when people benchmark or say that, they're relying on tasks where memory bandwidth barely if at all affects performance - but for some tasks, even some games it's relevant Since you still have 4GB in dual channel it's probably not super important but you should avoid wildly asymetric setups Well in that case my question is, would I see a performance increase if I removed the 2 GB stick? I'll upgrade to 2x8 someday but that won't be for a while.
If the 2gb stick was drastically slower than the 8gb one, maybe. It's probably the case that the 2GB one is helping, but only for the first 4GB of RAM usage (2GB from that stick paired with 2GB from the 8GB stick, then the last 6GB has to work alone). Probably not a big issue and might not even affect you, you should just be aware of it
|
On July 25 2015 04:49 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Does resolution improve visual quality in SC2 or is scaling irrelevant because of how the engine works? It adds more resolution as with every other game, i wouldn't say that's the same as increasing visual quality but there is nothing wrong there (as long as you're using a 16 monitor which sc2 requires to see the max viewing area)
I think something to keep in mind when spec'ing a build for SC2 is that the "field of view" is pretty much locked to 1920x1080 or multiples thereof. I have a lovely ultrawidescreen monitor, but SC2 won't use its full resolution because the game is limited to 16, and you'll only see the same view as someone using a cheap monitor that barely qualifies as "HD".
There are programs, I'm told, that will force odd resolutions out of SC2 but I wouldn't want to try. Apparently it's a fairness of play decision because having a screen that presents more of the map to the player may grant an advantage. (IE, not having to scroll the screen to control more units or something like that.)
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
just to be clear, by "16" we mean 16 : 9 resolutions  stupid smily face
|
|
|
There is currently a GPU promo sale on NCIX
If you buy one of their GTX 9xx graphic or laptop (From select brand), you can get a free copy of Metal Gear Solid 5. It's pretty guaranteed that I will buy MGS5 when it comes out (unsure about which platform though). Knowing that MGS5 will likely cost over 60$ on release, should I grab one of the GPU to get it at the same time? The cheapest GTX 960 seems to be around 250$. The 970 seems to be around 400$. 980 is probably out of reach (and doesn't meet any actual need)
My current CPU is i5-2500k
8gb ram
My current GPU is AMD 7870 (or 7850, I don't remember) : I am not playing anything that is very demanding at the moment.
Thoughts?
|
On July 26 2015 00:58 XenOmega wrote:
There is currently a GPU promo sale on NCIX
If you buy one of their GTX 9xx graphic or laptop (From select brand), you can get a free copy of Metal Gear Solid 5. It's pretty guaranteed that I will buy MGS5 when it comes out (unsure about which platform though). Knowing that MGS5 will likely cost over 60$ on release, should I grab one of the GPU to get it at the same time? The cheapest GTX 960 seems to be around 250$. The 970 seems to be around 400$. 980 is probably out of reach (and doesn't meet any actual need)
My current CPU is i5-2500k
8gb ram
My current GPU is AMD 7870 (or 7850, I don't remember) : I am not playing anything that is very demanding at the moment.
Thoughts?
Honestly go for the GTX 970 if you're thinking about upgrading your GPU. The GTX 960 will only be very marginally faster than your Radeon 7870 (Radeon 270x).
If power draw isn't a concern for you, then a Radeon 290 (x) or 390 (x) will offer more value in pure frame rates per dollar than a GTX 970.
|
United Kingdom20300 Posts
usually 290 for performance/dollar over 290x/390/390x, the price differences are way too wild for what is essentially the same thing with either enough extra cores to run 3-4% faster at the same clock (290x) or that + some tweaks to power tune and memory used
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
