[Guideline] SC2 Computers

Feb 27, 2010: Added parts about RAM and SSD vs HDD
Feb 28, 2010: 5830 Review
Mar 19, 2010: Choosing your Platform!

Teamliquid Test!

Anybody who has a 5750, 5770, 4870, 4890, or GTX 260, I would appreciate if you could install Fraps on your computer and post an average FPS at all Ultra on whatever resolution (minimum 1680x1050) you use.

Teamliquid Test 2!

I'm getting a lot of people saying that their 9600GT and 9600M GTs can run at Ultra! I would like for some of those 9600GT and M GT users to download Fraps here and post some FPS results! Make sure you get some high stress environments with lots of units and textures involved!

CPU/Proc/Processor/Core = Central Processing Unit- It is what makes your computer work. It does most of the work. Probably the most important part of your computer. Produced by Intel and AMD.
Mobo/board/ = Motherboard- It is the backbone of your computer. Everything is attached to it, and it supports all of your components. Produced by the Taiwanese
OS = Operating System- It is the interface of your computer. Without it allows you to tell your hardware what to do. Many types, most common are Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
RAM/memory = Random Access Memory- It is what stores what your computer is currently running. Whenever you close an application (or more accurately end a process) the RAM that was allocated for that application is cleared. It is also cleared every single time you turn off your computer.
GPU/graphics card/card = Graphics Processing Unit- The secondary processing unit. It helps the CPU process the graphics and when you're playing a game, it is the GPU that is drawing those frames. It can be either integrated or dedicated. Integrated GPUs have no RAM for themselves and have to use System RAM while dedicated GPUs have their own banks of RAM that they access. As such, integrated GPUs are much weaker than dedicated GPUs.
HDD/HD = Hard Disk Drive- The permanent storage location. Unlike RAM, the information on the HDD is never cleared unless you clear it yourself. It uses disks called 'platters' to store information. The less platters there are, the faster the drive can access information because the HDD utilizes moving parts.
SSD/solid state = Solid State Drive- Newer form of memory storage. Like the HDD it is permanent storage, but unlike the HDD it doesn't use platters or moving parts. As such it is extremely fast when accessing data which allows you to open applications quickly.
PSU/power supply = Power Supply Unit- Device that supplies power to your computer. Comes with different rails of different voltages.
OCing = Overclocking- The act of pushing a part's performance past its designed usage. Most common to overclock CPU, GPU, and RAM to get higher speeds and better performance.
Xfire = ATi CrossFire- Using two ATi Graphics cards in tandem to gain extra performance. Two ATi graphics cards can be 'combined' to give the user better performance. There are limitations to CrossFire, and usually CrossFire works with two of the same cards for best performance. However it is possible to CrossFire different GPUs.
SLi = Nvidia SLi- Nvidia version of CrossFire. Same idea, except the GPUs must be the same.
FPS = Frames Per Second- Self explanatory name! It's how many frames your GPU can draw in a second at a given resolution. The higher the number, the smoother the 'motion' in the game will look. All games are actually just like slideshows with insane amounts of slides changed insanely quickly. The higher the resolution, the more your GPU has to draw, so that is why higher resolutions require better GPUs!

2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
1024x768 minimum display resolution

•
Athlon processors do not meet the system requirements. They're the old Thunderbird models and go up to 1.2 GHz.
• Athlon XP processors with a rating of 2200+ and above will meet it.
• Athlon 64 processors tend to meet it. The very low-end Athlon 64 may not. Check your clock speeds. Anything at or higher than 2.0GHz is a safe bet.
• For Sempron types, you'll want a higher clock speed to make up for it lacking in other areas. Sempron processors fall across their Socket 478-more current types so you may want to see what type you have using CPU-Z. http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
• First generation AMD Phenom processors (ending in 00) will work but you need to be aware of the TLB fix. It has a pretty substantial performance drop so you might see choppiness.
• Phenom processors ending in 50 do not have this problem. All but the slowest models will meet the system requirements
• Athlon II and Phenom II should all be faster than the minimum requirements.
• Pentium III processors do not meet the requirements
• Pentium IV/D processors at 2.2GHz and above meet it.
• Intel Core 2 around 1.8GHz is a rough area but should be able to play it. 2.0GHz is probably closer to what it wants.
• Intel Celeron processors fall under a lot of different families of chips. There are those based off of the Pentium 4 of different types and those based off of Core 2. You may want to check what type you have using CPU-Z http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
• Intel i3/i5/i7 exceed the minimum requirements.

Source: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23308410974&sid=5000

We require a GeForce 6600 or Radeon 9800 video card in terms of performance. Keep in mind that there are higher-numbered video cards that fall under what we need. Probably the best chart you can look at is available on Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-graphics-card,2544-7.html

The GeForce 6600 and Radeon 9800 are towards the lower half of the chart. If your video card is under it, that's not a good thing. If your video card is above it, that's good.

Some of the more common ones that are under the system requirements:
NVIDIA GeForce 6150, 6200, 7150, 8300, 8400
ATI Radeon Xpress 200, 1150, 1250, X1050, 8500-9600, X300-600
All Intel GMA adapters minus the one in the i3/i5 chips. Those tend to run better but we don't know how much.
Source: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23308410974&sid=5000
+ Show Spoiler [Ultra Settings Bonus] +

SC2 is a RTS, which means there are going to be lots of logical processes along with large amounts of shapes to be created, which may create a high amount of work for your processor. As of now, SC2 is known to be only optimized for dual core processors, yet the frame rates from the only benchmarks available (LegionHardware) indicate that additional threads will help performance. The same benchmarks indicate that higher clock speed will help the game in general. This thread will be focused on CPUs for SC2, not any other game/purpose.

Due to the relative scarcity of RTS benchmarks at the moment (most benchmarkers use GPU heavy games like Crysis and recently Metro 2033/BFBC2 to benchmark the CPUs) the list will be conservative. As such, my major sources of information on this list are the LegionHardware benchmarks (including their recent 5870 Crossfire article, and this. However, take note that the game benchmarked in the 2nd link is more optimized for additional cores than SC2.

The list will comprise mostly of CPUs that are currently available for purchase, and CPUs which are extremely common like the Intel Core2Quad Q6600.

The 'X' means any number
+ Show Spoiler [Ultra] +
+ Show Spoiler [High] +
+ Show Spoiler [Medium] +
+ Show Spoiler [Low] +
Yeah, I made a lot of generalizations. There are definitely older CPUs which have much more power than I give them credit for, but CPU benching isn't exactly the most popular these days. I would imagine if your CPU could play a game like the newest Dawn of War or Supreme Commander 2 at High, it could run SC2 at least at high, and probably Ultra.

Most notably, I stole a lot of credit from the older Core 2 Duo line, but as it stands, I'm not sure how they stack up, and they aren't even for sale anymore. I would imagine the best budget choice to run SC2 at ultra would be the i3, Athlon II line. Maybe even that Pentium G6950. The Phenom II X2 and X3 also seem to be decent choices because there is the chance that you can unlock the extra cores. Unlocking those cores is much easier now that ASUS's new 890GX motherboard (at around $130ish, yeah expensive) has a simple core unlocker button.

2GB of RAM should be able to handle SC2 up to High. As for Ultra, I recommend 4GB, especially if you are going to be streaming, doing background processes. DDR2 vs DDR3 doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in most benchmarks, and neither does dual channel vs triple channel, so I don’t expect it to make much of a difference in SC2 either.

Alright, now you get to send me your DATA! Tell me how you’re running SC2 by PM in this format! Just replace what is already in there!

CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400 3.06ghz
GPU: ATi 5770 1GB GDDR5 (If you don’t know the 1GB GDDR5 part, shame on you, but it is optional)
Resolution: 1920x1200
RAM: 2GB DDR3
Setting: High (For setting, if you are running at different quality levels, just put them both with a slash in the middle!)

ALERT: Some of these ratings may be inaccurate depending on the user. Some people find 40 FPS to be perfectly playable while others need higher FPS. Remember that personal preference does come into this!

The user who submits their settings submits what they believe that they are running the game at an acceptable FPS!!

+ Show Spoiler [1920x1200] +
+ Show Spoiler [1920x1080] +
+ Show Spoiler [1680x1050] +
+ Show Spoiler [1600x1200] +
+ Show Spoiler [1600x900] +
+ Show Spoiler [1440x900] +
+ Show Spoiler [1366x768] +
+ Show Spoiler [1280x1024] +
+ Show Spoiler [1280x800] +
+ Show Spoiler [1024x768] +

This is OBSOLETE.
Note: Before you read this, if your primary goal of the graphics card you are buying is to run SC2, you should take the following with a grain of salt, and should definitely proceed to read the spoiler below about the 48xx series.

At this point I am an ATi fan. Most ATi cards provide better/equal performance to Nvidia cards at a lower price. The HD 4870 provides better/equal performance to the GTX 260 and is also 30-40 cheaper. The 4890 surpasses the GTX 275 in multiple marks, and is $40 cheaper.

If I were to recommend cards to play SC2, they would ALL be ATi cards at this point (based on pure price/performance). The 4850 at $110 offers brilliant performance in many games for its price. The 5770 and 4870 offer GTX 260 performance at 30 less than the price.

For ATi:
1. HD 4850: Still a brilliant contender at $100-120. Solid performance in every game, and quite cheap. Roughly equivalent to 9800GTX++ and GTS 250.
2. HD 4870: Old AMD flagship at around $160-170. It is at the same price as the HD 5770, but provides a bit more performance. Equivalent to the GTX 260.
3. HD 5770: Essentially a slightly weaker HD 4870 with DX11 support. Also priced around $160-170.
4. HD 4670: At $80, it is still a great contender, and offers decent performance for more budget minded gamers.
5. HD 4650: At $60, it is probably the cheapest card that can run SC2 decently at higher resolutions.
6. HD 5850: At $300, it is the most powerful and most expensive GPU on this list. Any higher on the ATi line and you get diminishing p/p. It's equivalent is supposedly the GTX 285, but it outperforms it on every single benchmark and is cheaper.
7. HD 4890: I struggled with myself about this card. It runs very hot, and sucks up power, but it performs very well, and is currently the only card that bridges the 57xx with the 58xx. I expect this to change when the 5830 is out, but for now, at the price of the GTX 260, it provides the performance of the GTX 275.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,4.html

In these benchmarks, many of the statements I made are rendered false. Mainly the part about the Nvidia GTX 260 which was able to soar through SC2 while the AMD 48xx series completely fell short of what was expected. Some upsets include the HD 5750 outperforming the HD 4870, the HD 5770 blowing out both the HD 4870 and HD 4890, and the stellar performance of the GTX 260.

Overall it makes little sense, but based on some FPS results of the 5770, it could be true. However, I emphasize that this is only the beta stage of the game, so there will be anomalies. Will the HD 5770 outperform the 4870 at release? Possibly. By that much? I don't think so. Consider the results of the benchmarks, but don't take them as complete law.

Different price points offer different ways of upgrading, but this part will use the socket of your motherboard as a base.
+ Show Spoiler [Intel LGA 775] +
+ Show Spoiler [Intel LGA 1156] +
+ Show Spoiler [Intel LGA 1366] +
+ Show Spoiler [AMD AM2] +
+ Show Spoiler [AMD AM2+] +
+ Show Spoiler [AMD AM3] +

If you want any specific builds for your own price point, I can put stuff together on Newegg.

RAM is one of the first things people consider when they look at a computer, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. RAM is of course, important to your computer! However, there is a limit to how much RAM you actually need. When it comes down to it, a person who is building a gaming machine does not need astronomical amounts of RAM. There are a few misconceptions going around about RAM that will be discussed here.

1. RAM is Cheap
WRONG. RAM is fucking expensive right now. If this was 2 years ago, then yeah, RAM is cheap, but now, the same 4GB of RAM you would have purchased for $30 is now $100. The price of RAM has inflated to the point where it is one of the most expensive components of the computer.

2. RAM is the cheapest way to improve performance
This has an ounce of truth in it. As shown above, RAM is not cheap, but it does improve performance. However, it does not improve performance in the way that most people think it does. Any application that is run by your computer takes up some space on the RAM. Once it has taken up that space, it will never need any more RAM (unless it has a memory leak, but then you shouldn't use that process anyways eh?). More RAM does not improve the performance of any single program if you have enough RAM for that program already. To explain further:

Computer A has 4GB of RAM and is running 2 processes that each need 1GB of RAM.
Computer B has 16GB of RAM and is running the same 2 processes Computer A is running.

Those two processes on the two computers will run at exactly the same speed. Increasing RAM does not increase the performance of a single process, it simply allows you to run more processes. If you have enough RAM for that process, you do not need any more. That extra RAM will do absolutely nothing.

3. RAM is universally compatible
As with the above statement, this holds some truth. RAM for the most part is universally compatible. However, the statement is sometimes taken to the extreme! At the moment there are 3 main types of RAM: DDR, DDR2, and DDR3. They are, for the most part not compatible with each other. A motherboard that supports DDR will not support DDR2, and a motherboard that supports DDR2 will not support DDR3.

Each motherboard has a type of RAM that it is designed for, and for the most part, the CPU/Socket is a large factor in what RAM it uses. I'll cut out all the tech shit about memory controllers, and just tell you what motherboard socket support what RAM.
AMD sockets:
AM3 supports DDR3
AM2+ supports DDR2
AM2 suppoorts DDR2

Intel sockets:
LGA 1366 supports DDR3
LGA 1156 supports DDR3
LGA 775 supports DDR2 and DDR3 (due to intel not wanting to abandon the LGA 775)

Another main factor in RAM is choosing the "channel". There is single channel, dual channel, and triple channel RAM. The more channels, the more bandwidth because the CPU can get information from the RAM through more paths. Currently, only the i7 9xx series (the i7 processors that use the LGA 1366 socket) supports triple channel RAM. Everybody else is going to have to stick with dual channel (not that triple channel makes much of a difference in the first place).

Part 2:
So, where would you see the biggest performance upgrade if you wanted to spend some money? The two most obvious areas where you would see the big jump in performance are the storage drives and the GPUs. An extra $50 spent on a GPU will have a huge affect on gaming performance, and upgrading to a SSD will also give you a very noticeable performance boost.

Ever since the announcement of the Solid State Drive there has been a clash between SSD fans and SSD haters. Here's a part to explain why those damn SSDs are so expensive!

The SSD has literally nothing in common with the HDD. I would say it has more in common with RAM than with the HDDs. The only thing that the SSD has in common with the HDD is the purpose, and the SSD approaches that purpose with a far different path.

The HDD is the older and more recognizable of the two. What the HDD actually does is store information on 'platters'. It uses moving parts to access information on the platters. Not unlike a CD drive accessing information on a CD. In order for the HDD to change accessing one location to another location, it has to move its magnetic arm from on part of the platter to the other part. Of course it does this very quickly, but the act of moving is always slow. The SSD on the other hand, does not use any moving parts at all. When you want to change the location that you want to access on a SSD, the SSD simply accesses a different location almost instantly.

The SSD has the advantage in random access time, in startup, in failure rate, and in power usage. Because the SSD does not have to wait for a mechanical part to get to a certain location, it is able to access different areas of memory almost instantaneously. What that means is that you will be able to open programs faster, and also alt tab more smoothly. SSDs also have no need to wait for a platter to spin up, so your computer will start more quickly when you have a SSD. Since the SSD does not use moving parts, there is less chance of shock/heat destroying your drive! They also use less power... yay!

The SSD also has its disadvantages. The SSD has a limited lifespan, is extremely expensive, currently stores very little data, and have lower write rates. Because it uses Flash memory, the SSD cannot overwrite and write data infinitely. This is mitigated by some SSDs, but the lifespan of a SSD is limited, unlike the HDD which theoretically has an unlimited life span. SSDs are insanely expensive. On average, you are paying $2.5-4 per GB on a SSD, and you are paying probably $.01 per GB on a HDD. They are also small. A $120 SSD will get you probably 40GB of storage space while a $100 HDD will get you 1000GB. Write rates are also lower because of their architecture, and because it is possible to RAID two cheaper HDDs to achieve a much higher write rate.

EDIT: R1CH brought up some benchmarks that proved just about all of the disadvantages of the SSD wrong! Apparently some awesome SSDs popped up in the last year or so that I wasn't aware of! Probably the only real disadvantage is the price per GB at the moment.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=20

Take a look at THAT!

However, that said, if you already have 4GB of RAM and a decent video card, and you want to upgrade your RAM, think again and buy a SSD. It will give you a more notable boost in performance doing everyday tasks because of the lower random access time! You will wait less time for your programs to start, and wait less time for Windows to start!

note: Newegg prices are used in USD!

As many of you may know, the HD 5830 was launched 3 days ago on Feb 25, 2010 at a price of $240. The purpose of the 5830 is to bridge the colossal price gap between the amazing HD 5850, and the HD 5770. Before the 5830 was released, the 5850 was around $310, and the HD 5770 was around $160. The 5830 comes in right between the two cards and fills the hole that the HD 4890 at $200 was holding up until that point!

The card performs as it should. It performs above the 5770/4870, around the 4890, and below the 5850. It is really not surprising to me at all that the 5830 turned out this way after I take the time to think about it. More on that later~

I assume that many of you have checked out the benchmarks, and the 5830 probably isn't looking too impressive at the moment. It generally performs at the level of the 4890 or below. Sometimes it edges above the 4890, but not by much. Apparently it is also able to overclock quite well, but because not many people OC their GPUs anyways, I'm not going to spend the time discussing it. It produces very little heat (at least the Sapphire model), but it uses about as much power as the 5850 while performing a bit under it. However, it also uses much less power than its competitors the HD 4890 and the Nvidia GTX 275. It debuts at $40 higher than its ATi 'equivalent', the 4890.

After taking some time to look at the card, I can't say I like it, but I also do not hate it. The card itself makes sense.

Before taking a look at the 5830's release, take a look at the 5770's release. The HD 5770 was just as bad, if not a worse buy at its time of release. If you take a look at the benches, it was being outperformed by the HD 4870 by fairly large margins or even huge margins at every point. It also launched at $160-170, while its 'equivalent', the 4870 was at $140 around the time. The only area where the 5770 could excel was its power consumption, which was admittedly, much better than the 4870.

5770: For $20-30 extra, what you got was much lower performance, better power consumption, and 5xxx series benefits.
5830: For $40 extra, you get barely lower performance or equal performance, much better temps, marginally better power consumption, and 5xxx series benefits.

What happens is that people are comparing the 5830 to the wrong card entirely. Its index is not the 5850, its index is the 4890 and the GTX 275.

Again, I'm not sure about the card. I know I didn't like the 5770 at release, and I think I lean towards dislike at the 5830's release, but my disappoint with the 5830 is less than my disappoint with the 5770. It is not fair to the 5830 if you are going to compare it to the best card ATi has released to this point (The 5850). If you also take into account Nvidia's upcoming announcement of its 4xx series at Cebit from March 2-6, you will also realize that hey, maybe the 5830's price will drop to a much more reasonable $220! In all, this card needs some time. We were just spoiled for a long time by the phenomenal performance of the 5850, and the phenomenal performance of the 4890.

However, if you can find a 4890, take it over the 5830 imo. I still wouldn't buy the 5830 until it drops to $220.

In terms of actual SC2 Beta performance, I would expect it to trounce the 4890/5770/4870 because that is how the general consensus is going. 5xxx trouncing their 4xxx equivalents and superiors.

http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/24/dc93fa54-c27c-400b-80d5-82bfa2565d78.jpg
maybe unreliable result from a sc2 benchmark from a chinese website.
full benchmark here

This part of the guide is for those of you are planning to build new systems! As you probably already know, there are a couple sockets out there, but did you also know that there are also chipsets? This will cover the major chipsets on the AMD AM3, Intel LGA 1156, and Intel LGA 1366 sockets! The focus here is on gaming performance, not encoding or any of that other stuff!

A chipset is part of choosing a socket, and there are often multiple chipsets for each socket. While a socket determines what CPU the motherboard can handle, the chipset determines the motherboard’s performance. When buying a motherboard, a chipset is often the difference between a $200 high performance board, and an $80 budget board. AMD and Intel both have their own chipsets, and until recently, Nvidia also had their brand of chipsets.

It does a lot of things, but for gamers, the most important aspects are probably the allocation of the PCIe lanes, multiGPU support, and the overclocking ramifications.

Intel currently 4 chipsets for its LGA 1156 socket, 1 chipset for its LGA 1366 socket and AMD currently has 5 (with another chipset coming very soon!) chipsets for its AM3 socket.
+ Show Spoiler [Intel] +
+ Show Spoiler [AMD] +
It seemed like I attacked the X58 platform quite a bit huh? Well, that’s because it offers very little in terms of gaming performance over the P55 and 790FX. In a single GPU setup it’s a waste, and in a dual GPU setup it can shine very well, but a 790FX setup will close in on it quite easily since most games are GPU limited, not CPU limited!
I think Tom’s Hardware puts it best in their i7 980X article when they say:
“Ah, but can it play Crysis? Sure, of course it can. More importantly, the Radeon HD 5850 we’re using to test with can play Crysis. The processors here are merely able to keep up.”