GT220 for Starcraft II

[dpk33]

My friend has a Core 2 Duo E6600 at stock and a GT220. He plays at low resolutions, so would this setup be alright for Starcraft II at 1024x768 or does it need more CPU power? The CPU cannot be overclocked, since it's an HP motherboard.

 

[Rifter]

CPU is going to be an issue, might be ok foir 1v1 but i wouldnt try and play any 4+ player games.

 

[lopri]

I don't think an E6600 will pose as much trouble as a GT220 will do. GT220 is a low-end part and often times you can't even tell what clock/memory it comes with until you check with the gpu-z. Some with DDR2, some with DDR3, etc. Core/memory frequencies may vary per vendors.

OP, if your friend already has the setup what's the harm in trying it out and see for himself first? I think something like a GT240 w/ GDDR5 will be a huge upgrade over the GT220 for SC2. They're disappearing off the shelf but if you look hard you may find one for $50-ish. It doesn't need an external power source.

 

[swilli89]

CPU is going to be an issue, might be ok foir 1v1 but i wouldnt try and play any 4+ player games.

Hopefully you're joking here. Although I just upgraded to an 2500k, my E6600 even stock ran almost full Ultra settings 4vs4 all day no problem. It could even play Desert Strike custom games which would have over a 1000 units at the end, not holding back a Radeon 4890 at all, much less a Gt220.

Yeah I mean I went from about 40 FPS to 65 FPS but still it was completely playable, especially for a RTS game.

The gt220 is by far the limiting factor and a 40$ GTS250 or 60$ Radeon 4870 would run circles around it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hopefully you're joking here. Although I just upgraded to an 2500k, my E6600 even stock ran almost full Ultra settings 4vs4 all day no problem. It could even play Desert Strike custom games which would have over a 1000 units at the end, not holding back a Radeon 4890 at all, much less a Gt220.

Yeah I mean I went from about 40 FPS to 65 FPS but still it was completely playable, especially for a RTS game.

The gt220 is by far the limiting factor and a 40$ GTS250 or 60$ Radeon 4870 would run circles around it.

The op said it is an HP motherboard, so I suspect that it is an off the shelf system. If so it probably has a 300 watt or less power supply, without a six pin connector. I agree that the video card is the limiting factor, but I believe both the ones you mention require a six pin connector and would probably be too much for the power supply unless he has or will upgrade it.

As someone else suggested, a GT240 DDR5 might be a safer choice, or even a HD 6670 for somewhat better performance at a higher cost.

By the way, I play with an E4500 which may be even slower than the E6600, and can play at med to high settings in single player or skirmish vs AI. I havent played much on line though.

 

[Lonyo]

You cna download the free trial version/demo thing and try it out before you buy, if he doesn't own it already.

 

[exar333]

I don't think an E6600 will pose as much trouble as a GT220 will do. GT220 is a low-end part and often times you can't even tell what clock/memory it comes with until you check with the gpu-z. Some with DDR2, some with DDR3, etc. Core/memory frequencies may vary per vendors.

OP, if your friend already has the setup what's the harm in trying it out and see for himself first? I think something like a GT240 w/ GDDR5 will be a huge upgrade over the GT220 for SC2. They're disappearing off the shelf but if you look hard you may find one for $50-ish. It doesn't need an external power source.

I agree with this. Get a little better GPU and this will run better. It will function with a GT220, but with that CPU having a little better GPU will help. By no means is the E6600 'fast' but it's good enough to play SC2 at low resolutions.

 

[Rifter]

Hopefully you're joking here. Although I just upgraded to an 2500k, my E6600 even stock ran almost full Ultra settings 4vs4 all day no problem. It could even play Desert Strike custom games which would have over a 1000 units at the end, not holding back a Radeon 4890 at all, much less a Gt220.

Yeah I mean I went from about 40 FPS to 65 FPS but still it was completely playable, especially for a RTS game.

The gt220 is by far the limiting factor and a 40$ GTS250 or 60$ Radeon 4870 would run circles around it.

guess it depends on your definition of playable, i like to see 60FPS locked in, i dont like FPS dips.

 

[dguy6789]

Enjoyable and playable are completely different things. Dips slightly below 60fps is playable for everyone, but some may be bothered by it.

 

[gmaster456]

I've got a friend who plays Civ 5 and SC2 on an E5300 and HD4350 1GB and while Civ 5 runs like crap when anything is happening, I've never heard him complain about SC2.

 

[Silverforce11]

Starcraft 2 scales down very well.

I run it excellent on my E-350 with the integrated radeon GPU with its 80 stream shaders..

Just turn everything low/off.

 

[Rezist]

Alot of pro's with nice systems play with everything off anyways. It's not about the graphics it's about getting the APM spam!

 

[MustangSVT]

I find this statement just FALSE. stock e6600 will NOT run a 4v4 game smoothly at a competitive (hell, even ladder) level especially not in ULTRA settings. It will not even stay at 20fps when all 8 ppl are battling with e6600 , let alone stock.

SC2 is highly cpu depenedent . Although any c2d should run the game ok, when there are lot of units , it will NOT be fast enuogh to micro the units.
but I guess if its just A-attack , then sure, you can play.

You can download demo to test the full game in 1v1. it would be a nice way to test the game.

Hopefully you're joking here. Although I just upgraded to an 2500k, my E6600 even stock ran almost full Ultra settings 4vs4 all day no problem. It could even play Desert Strike custom games which would have over a 1000 units at the end, not holding back a Radeon 4890 at all, much less a Gt220.

Yeah I mean I went from about 40 FPS to 65 FPS but still it was completely playable, especially for a RTS game.

The gt220 is by far the limiting factor and a 40$ GTS250 or 60$ Radeon 4870 would run circles around it.

 

[oynaz]

I've got a friend who plays Civ 5 and SC2 on an E5300 and HD4350 1GB and while Civ 5 runs like crap when anything is happening, I've never heard him complain about SC2.

Civ 5 always run like crap. If I am not mistaken, it is the most hardware intensive game to date. Not bad for a turn based strategy game!

 

[swilli89]

I find this statement just FALSE. stock e6600 will NOT run a 4v4 game smoothly at a competitive (hell, even ladder) level especially not in ULTRA settings. It will not even stay at 20fps when all 8 ppl are battling with e6600 , let alone stock.

SC2 is highly cpu depenedent . Although any c2d should run the game ok, when there are lot of units , it will NOT be fast enuogh to micro the units.

You sure are making a lot of absolute statements. I've been in diamond 4's for over a year now and consistently am in the top 10 in my division. I mean sure there's the master league lol, but I just wanted to show that I'm at least competitive. With my E6600 and radeon 4800 series gpu, i played 4's on high settings with never a dip into unplayability.

I don't want to hear that unplayability is up to someones subjective analysis, you can either sustain a high apm efficiently or you can't. I should know why that is important as I played Starcraft 1 and Broodwar and I was in the top 500 melee nationally a few times.

And here's the thing.. do you play in matches where people basically treat it as no rush? Just building up 200/200 armies and massing? Because good matches are decided way before you can get close to that point. A LOT of systems are going to chug if you have noob players hiding in their bases building up to 1600 units (8x200)

One bad thing about SC2 is the removal of the 12 unit selection max. Lets noobs mass armies way too easily. Anyways..

 

[MustangSVT]

lol... you are saying daimond in 4v4 is something to be proud of? . and talking about "noobs"??:whiste: ,but thats a whole another subject, lets not talk about that here.

You previously said "FULL ULTRA", but now you say high? hmm... :whiste:

as I've said before a stock (like you said) e6600 is not sufficient cpu to run sc2 at competitive level in FULL ULTRA.

You sure are making a lot of absolute statements. I've been in diamond 4's for over a year now and consistently am in the top 10 in my division. I mean sure there's the master league lol, but I just wanted to show that I'm at least competitive. With my E6600 and radeon 4800 series gpu, i played 4's on high settings with never a dip into unplayability.

I don't want to hear that unplayability is up to someones subjective analysis, you can either sustain a high apm efficiently or you can't. I should know why that is important as I played Starcraft 1 and Broodwar and I was in the top 500 melee nationally a few times.

And here's the thing.. do you play in matches where people basically treat it as no rush? Just building up 200/200 armies and massing? Because good matches are decided way before you can get close to that point. A LOT of systems are going to chug if you have noob players hiding in their bases building up to 1600 units (8x200)

One bad thing about SC2 is the removal of the 12 unit selection max. Lets noobs mass armies way too easily. Anyways..

 

[nyker96]

since your friend gonna get this game, why not buy it, try it out on his e6600/gt220 system see how far you can take it. If you can't run the game at a reasonable fps, then consider throwing more cash probably at the GPU side.

 

[tweakboy]

My friend has a Core 2 Duo E6600 at stock and a GT220. He plays at low resolutions, so would this setup be alright for Starcraft II at 1024x768 or does it need more CPU power? The CPU cannot be overclocked, since it's an HP motherboard.

If hes going to use 1024res SC2 will fly. You should consider OCing your CPU, you can get it to almost 4Ghz.

For this resolution all you need is a 8800GT or 9800GT or ATI equivlant. gl