Designing an economical Starcraft 2 Rig

[Upfromtheashes]

Hi
I am Building a new comp to play Starcraft 2
Wanted to Play everything very high Most likely on a 20-23" Monitor - and Looking to spend $1000 Dollars or so on base components but less if this can be done
Any recomendations ?
Thank You

 

[v8envy]

Might want to wait for release to see what the minimum hardware is to do that. Otherwise, I think this would work:

$28 ar/abing NZXT case, hot deals
$35 AR/abing Corsair 400 watt psu
$110 full featured amd board of choice
$100 X3 or X4 cpu
$20 dvd drive
$280 ar/abing 5850 or 2x ar/abing 5770
$100 4gb PC1066 DDR3 RAM
$100 os license
$60 hard drive
$200 keyboard, mouse, monitor, fans

This puts you right at $1000 with the lowest possible cost components, rebates and bing. Another solution would be to look for a pre-built box from the likes of HP, Dell or Gateway with an OS license and simply upgrade the PSU and drop in a 5850. Should be doable for about $1000 as well.

 

[Upfromtheashes]

Thanks for the Help
Would you say that spending $100 dollars extra on the video card will net more performance than say spending the extra $100 on a more expensive CPU?

 

[Udgnim]

SC 2 only uses 2 cores (this doesn't mean that you should only look at dual core CPUs though). buy a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor. you'll see more in SC 2 compared to a 16:10 aspect ratio monitor. get a video card that has more than 512 video RAM.

 

[v8envy]

When it comes to gaming:

A $90 CPU won't bottleneck $1000 in video hardware.
A $90 GPU is guaranteed to limit game performance even with a $1000 CPU.

The budget CPUs of today are plenty fast for most existing games (doubly so once overclocked) and that doesn't look to be changing. Spending an extra $100 on a CPU may get you a frame or two better performance. Spending an extra $100 on a GPU could double (or in the case of extreme budget, quadruple) your game performance.

 

[akugami]

If possible, look to buy the best possible monitor. I've found that for many people who game, the monitor is the longest lasting component. Furthermore, a monitor is the part that displays all the pretty graphics. Having a crap monitor means you are always longing for something better. A $500 monitor might sound horribly expensive but if you use it for the next 5 years then it is a solid investment.

I've got a Dell 2005WFP and it is still a great monitor today which is now used by the Significant Other. I've also got a 2407WFP and an Acer monitor (dual monitor setup) in my current rig. Both are 24" monitors which I got a couple years back. While the Acer is fine for web browsing, office type stuff, it is the Dell 2407WFP which I use for photo processing and gaming. The Dell is a superior monitor in terms of color and has noticeably less ghosting.

Mind you, I'm not telling you to drop five Benjamins on a monitor. Just that, if possible, you might want to think about spending a little more on a decent monitor rather than get something off the bargain bin.

 

[RussianSensation]

When it comes to gaming:

A $90 CPU won't bottleneck $1000 in video hardware.

I don't know about that, this is definately not true. Even $200 CPUs limit $500 videocards (Core i5 750 is around 15% slower than Core i7 975 with GTX480 at 1920x1080 4AA/16AF:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/cpu/cpus-and-games-2010/perf_table.png&1=1

CPU clock speed also matters for Blizzard Games:
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,6.html

Plus in the overall context, recommending a dual core CPU for 1 game is a bad idea. You should assemble a system with an idea that it will play some other games as well. From an overall perspective, a $200 CPU vs. a $100 CPU is $900 vs. $1000 rig. But that $1000 rig will be so much faster in everything, that the bang-for-the-buck for a full system build with a dual core processors is actually worse:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/18799/15

When assembling a system from scratch rather than upgrading components, Core i5 750 or 1055T are the way to go.

My recommendation for base components (so not including monitor?) from Newegg is:

Core i5 750 ($195)
Gigabyte P55A-UD3 ($120)
4GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1333/1600 ($110-115)
Antec Sonata III + 500W PSU Antec ($90)
GTX470 (NV runs better than ATI in SC2: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,4.html
($350)
Samsung F3 1TB or similar ($80)
LG/ASus DVD-writer or similar ($25)

Total: $975

If you have a Microcenter or Fry's near you, then you can get good deals on 1055T or i5 750.

Obviously, you can go on a budget and get an Athlon II X4 640 + 5770, which will cut your costs and still be fast enough for Starcraft up to 1920x1080. Just throwing what $1000 system I would put together. Alternatively, you can also get a standalone PSU (Corsair or Seasonic) and a case.

 

[v8envy]

Yes, better performing CPUs perform better by definition. But was that really a bottleneck? In other words, did the i5 get 50 fps while the i7 got more than 60 fps? Were any games unplayable with an overclocked i5 that suddenly became playable with the i7?

Pure percentages are misleading. For example, my old E2180 at 2.8 ghz + 8800GT got 120 fps with the source engine at 1680x1050 when a xeon 3210 at 3 ghz
got 140, a hefty % improvement. But was it bottlenecking me in T2? Not really.

On a strict budget I'd still pick a 5850 and an X3 CPU over say a 5770 and a faster quad core intel CPU. Ideally I'd get what you recommended; but that build doesn't fit under 1k when you add in an OS license, monitor and keyboard. When you have to compromise to fit a budget the CPU, psu and case are the only places to look.

And finally, the 5850 gets over 100 frames/second in SC2 at 1920x1200. The 470 is not on that comparison as far as I could see. While it *could* perform better I could argue that the difference between call it 120 fps once the 5850 is overclocked and even 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fps is not significant on an LCD monitor limited to 60 fps in the first place.

 

[superccs]

I played the beta, for some reason it seemed exactly as I remember SC1. Maybe I am wrong. Paying $1000 to play it does seem strange though. I would put up $0.25 maybe if the contents of my pocket jingled.

 

[zerocool84]

It's always a dumb idea to build a computer for a game that's not even close to being out yet. You still have 2 months left.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

Based on the beta's performance on my PC, you could probably get away with spending a fair bit less than $1000 to play it with fairly close to maximum visual quality.

 

[Upfromtheashes]

Will a 400 Watt PSU have enough juice to support another video card in Crossfire in the Future?

 

[ZipSpeed]

Will a 400 Watt PSU have enough juice to support another video card in Crossfire in the Future?

It depends on what video card you will be Crossfiring. I recommend not skimping on a PSU. A reliable PSU will save you headaches in the future. Not to mention a larger watt PSU will provide better upgrade opportunities in the future. I like the Seasonic S12II series if you're looking for a starting point.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4&cm_re=seasonic_s12ii-_-17-151-094-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139004&cm_re=corsair-_-17-139-004-_-Product

 

[Upfromtheashes]

Thanks for the PSU -
I acually have an Antec 500 Watt Earthwatts that I am going to Try -
Also Curious in regards to Power useage - Will a graphics card use the same amount of juice even if running a less demanding game ?
I am trying to make an efficient system and wondering about the acual real world saving in dollars per month for a High end Graphics card vs a mid range along with a mid range CPU vs Low end one - say an AMD X3 series VS a $200 Intel Core I5 750
And then maybe even considering a green monitor the question is however will paying an extra $100 for it save me $100 dollars over the long run in power bills ?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

It's always a dumb idea to build a computer for a game that's not even close to being out yet. You still have 2 months left.

Close to being out? July you mean? Plus the beta is already out and thousands are playing already. The requirements aren't that high if I got away with my Opteron 170 and Radeon 4850. That said it still feels nice to play it on an i7.

 

[digitaldurandal]

When it comes to gaming:

A $90 CPU won't bottleneck $1000 in video hardware.

While the correct advice for him is to spend more on gpu than cpu at this venture, your statement here is asinine. Please don't post something that may be misleading to someone who doesn't know better. I assume you were exaggerating.

This would have a profound affect on minimum frame rates.

 

[digitaldurandal]

even 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fps is not significant on an LCD monitor limited to 60 fps in the first place.

Have you ever run the FPS comparison tool? I cannot find the name of it but even 200 fps is smoother than 100 and you can see it with the tool. It isn't that the monitor is displaying more frames, but the frames it is displaying are closer to perfectly aligned.

 

[zerocool84]

Close to being out? July you mean? Plus the beta is already out and thousands are playing already. The requirements aren't that high if I got away with my Opteron 170 and Radeon 4850. That said it still feels nice to play it on an i7.

He mine as well wait at least another month. For all we know Nvidia or ATI could throw out something good and prices are going to drop for components anyways.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Yes, better performing CPUs perform better by definition. But was that really a bottleneck? In other words, did the i5 get 50 fps while the i7 got more than 60 fps? Were any games unplayable with an overclocked i5 that suddenly became playable with the i7?

Pure percentages are misleading. For example, my old E2180 at 2.8 ghz + 8800GT got 120 fps with the source engine at 1680x1050 when a xeon 3210 at 3 ghz
got 140, a hefty % improvement. But was it bottlenecking me in T2? Not really.

On a strict budget I'd still pick a 5850 and an X3 CPU over say a 5770 and a faster quad core intel CPU. Ideally I'd get what you recommended; but that build doesn't fit under 1k when you add in an OS license, monitor and keyboard. When you have to compromise to fit a budget the CPU, psu and case are the only places to look.

And finally, the 5850 gets over 100 frames/second in SC2 at 1920x1200. The 470 is not on that comparison as far as I could see. While it *could* perform better I could argue that the difference between call it 120 fps once the 5850 is overclocked and even 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fps is not significant on an LCD monitor limited to 60 fps in the first place.

Well duh if you're running at 120 fps, 20 more fps wn't make a diff. It would be a colossal mistake however to trust anything any site has or will say about the graphics performance that SC2 (will) need. Without a doubt there will be mods coming out which will push the graphics and computing envelopes of cheaper computers. Unless you plan on just playing vanilla, I would recommend buying the best you can especially for a game which will have a very long life.

 

[Sylvanas]

Some

benches

nuff said.

 

[FragKrag]

Those tomshardware benches and Legionhardware benches seem so conflicting to me. Not sure what Tomshardware was doing anyways. Testing 4xAA with seemingly random cards. A 9800GT and a GTX 260..? Come on?

I would agree with withholding any purchases until SC2 is finally released though. Not sure if the benches are actually reliable considering that Blizzard might make (or has made) changes to the game still.

 

[faxon]

so build the rig around getting your CPU clock speeds up as high as possible and drop in whichever 5770 you can find cheapest, would be the best bang for your buck that way.

 

[dookulooku]

Those tomshardware benches and Legionhardware benches seem so conflicting to me. Not sure what Tomshardware was doing anyways. Testing 4xAA with seemingly random cards. A 9800GT and a GTX 260..? Come on?

Did you read the thing carefully? AA had to be forced and it didn't work on the ATI cards. GF100 wasn't available when the article was published (April 2010).

 

[v8envy]

While the correct advice for him is to spend more on gpu than cpu at this venture, your statement here is asinine. Please don't post something that may be misleading to someone who doesn't know better. I assume you were exaggerating.

This would have a profound affect on minimum frame rates.

No, I am not exaggerating at all. If you look at game benchmarks for the 720 x3, especially overclocked to 3.4-3.8ghz, you'll see that it does NOT limit performance in almost all titles out there. That's a $99 chip today. The $90 x4 propus is not a slouch once overclocked either. Spending $200 more for an i7 and another $100 more for the motherboard would not be a good bang/buck even though that's exactly what *I* did -- but I didn't have a specific budget for my build.

Once again, I stand by my statement that an overclocked i7 980x on a $350 enthusiast board paired with a 9800GT would perform *WORSE* in all but a few corner cases than a 720 x3 on a $100 board with 2x GTX480s ($90 cpu and $1k in graphics vs $1k cpu and $90 graphics). Even at 1080p. And even in those corner cases the performance will be more than adequate. The better GPU solution would allow higher AA settings and more detail in every graphically demanding game.

I'm not arguing that the best of the best of the best will perform better than something mainstream. My point is: if you *have* to cut corners somewhere finding a bang for the buck CPU is a better idea, gaming wise, than getting a slightly better CPU and a much worse graphics card. $200 more in a CPU budget is diminishing returns after the $100 pricepoint whereas the difference between a $100 and $300 video card is a factor of 2-3 better game performance.

 

[taltamir]

1. OP, what is your current rig? it might be sufficient... starcraft is not going to have crazy high requirements.
2. Wait some more time, prices go down and new tech arrives every month in the computer world. Build your new rig 1 week before the game is out if you MUST get it on day 1.