Rig Suggestions.

[Rez13]

Hi I'd like to start off and say that I'm new to these forums. I'm not sure if this is the place for me to be posting this, but sorry in advance if I missed a section in the forums where this belongs.

I'm currently looking to buy a new gaming rig, and I'm torn between choosing an i5-2500k or spending less money and go with an X4 955 with an AM3+ mobo, to maybe upgrade to a bulldozer cpu if needed. I really am just looking for a good cpu that can handle SC2 really well.

Moved to GH.
-ViRGE

 

[DominionSeraph]

For SC2 you want Intel. Given that SC2 barely scales beyond two cores, I don't think an 8 core Bulldozer is going to be a SC2 behemoth.

If you want to save money you could go with an i5 2400 and a H series motherboard. Even an i3 2100 would be better than a 955.

Fill out the sticky so we can help you better.

Since I already had a i5 2500k build in my cart and it seems money is an issue, I just threw in the cheapest SC2 Ultra capable card and here's the result:
($10 off the PSU with promo code EMCKAHK22)

You could save another $17 dropping down to 4GB RAM.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.723890

And if you don't need that much hard drive space you could save another $10 by going dropping from 1TB to 500GB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136795
$10 off with promo code EMCKAHK34

 

[lehtv]

Agree, i5-2400 and i3-2100 are fast for SC2 and you get your savings over choosing 2500k as you won't need an overclocking mobo either. Being very CPU intensive, GTX 460 1gb should be enough for SC2 but not on Ultra settings.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-8.html :

(Video card: GTX480)

 

[DominionSeraph]

GTX 460 1gb should be enough for SC2 but not on Ultra settings.

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page7.html

 

[lehtv]

^ The minimum fps with a 460 can't be 44, if the minimum fps with a 480 is half of that (see my post above). The chart I posted suggests that ultra quality can be much more demanding than it seems based on your chart.

 

[DominionSeraph]

^ The minimum fps with a 460 can't be 44, if the minimum fps with a 480 is half of that (see my post above). The chart I posted suggests that ultra quality can be much more demanding than it seems based on your chart.

You're using a CPU chart in a CPU-limited game to try to argue that a certain GPU won't work. The GTX 480 is irrelevant -- GTX 480 SLI only gets 2FPS more than a GTX 460.

Tom's Hardware's SC2 CPU bench is a CPU bench, so they probably have it filled with AI at max unit count.

I watch SC2 on Youtube all the time at 1080p. I'm certain that not all of them are rocking 2500k's yet they're not dropping to 10fps, so don't take Tom's benchmark as indicative of even SC2's average performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-3.html

The StarCraft II Map Editor allows us to create a large map with a lot of melee units and structures ready to fight. For this purpose, we use the majority of a large 256x256 map space, filling it with different terrain details, including water and fog, and placing 380 melee units, 42 static structures, 96 mineral piles, and six vespine geysers.

All of the units are placed in a position where they will attack enemy units and structures from the get-go, and we’re careful to balance the forces so that the AI remains busy for the better part of a minute, which is perfect for our 60-second benchmark. Testing shows the results are very consistent, so we’re ready to generate some performance numbers.

Tom's also shows the same thing as Techspot, just at a lower FPS due to their extreme benchmark:

The GTX 460 is just as ultra-capable as anything else at that resolution.

 

[lehtv]

You're using a CPU chart in a CPU-limited game to try to argue that a certain GPU won't work.

I'm not using a CPU chart. I'm using only one result from that chart, i5-2400 + GTX 480.

The GTX 480 is irrelevant -- GTX 480 SLI only gets 2FPS more than a GTX 460.

And you're using a CPU-bottlenecked chart showing FPS from an obviously less demanding benchmark than the one I posted.

If there is are situation where FPS will drop down to sub 30 on a GTX 480, GTX 460 will do much worse. In such a situation, the CPU doesn't bottleneck the GTX 480 unlike in the chart you posted.

I'm certain that not all of them are rocking 2500k's yet they're not dropping to 10fps

You have some pretty low standards. 35fps minimum at all times is what I'd call running a game smoothly. I really doubt the 460 will manage that on Ultra settings, perhaps with the exception of pairing it with a highly OC'd 2500K.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm not using a CPU chart. I'm using only one result from that chart, i5-2400 + GTX 480.

I don't care what you think you're using. It's a CPU chart and you're trying to infer GPU performance from it.

IAnd you're using a CPU-bottlenecked chart showing FPS from an obviously less demanding benchmark than the one I posted.

Ultra is ultra. That is the "video" part of it.

IIf there is are situation where FPS will drop down to sub 30 on a GTX 480, GTX 460 will do much worse. In such a situation, the CPU doesn't bottleneck the GTX 480 unlike in the chart you posted.

Wat.

SC2 is a very CPU limited game. Loading down the CPU even more with 380 ground units all attacking at once like Tom's benchmark does NOT make the GPU suddenly more important.

Jesus, I don't think you even know what a video card does.

You have some pretty low standards. 35fps minimum at all times is what I'd call running a game smoothly. I really doubt the 460 will manage that on Ultra settings, perhaps with the exception of pairing it with a highly OC'd 2500K.

Yup, I was right. You don't have a clue.

Here's a hint: The video card does not "help" the CPU. It's an entirely different subsystem, they don't just add. You could have GTX 580 tri-SLI but if you're CPU limited, you're not getting any higher frame rates. And SC2 is CPU limited at the GTX 460 level at 1920x1080 on ultra, even with Sandy Bridge.

 

[lehtv]

It's a CPU chart and you're trying to infer GPU performance from it.

You're not getting it. I was not inferring GPU performance from a CPU chart. I was inferring it from one test result of a known test system. Whether that test result appeared in a CPU chart or a GPU chart is completely irrelevant.

Ultra is ultra. That is the "video" part of it.

So what? It's obviously not the same ultra as in the benchmark where the 480 dropped way below 30fps.

SC2 is a very CPU limited game. Loading down the CPU even more with 380 ground units all attacking at once like Tom's benchmark does NOT make the GPU suddenly more important.

Alright, you're probably right about that.

But that still doesn't mean that 460 will perform just as well as 480. I'm not really sure what test results to believe anymore - hardwarecanucks' testing shows a gtx 480 is over 50% faster than 460 with ultra and 4xAA, despite CPU performance being virtually the same as in techspot's testins. I don't see why this sort of difference couldn't translate into more intensive situations in the game too.

Yup, I was right. You don't have a clue.

<3 you too

Here's a hint: The video card does not "help" the CPU. It's an entirely different subsystem, they don't just add. You could have GTX 580 tri-SLI but if you're CPU limited, you're not getting any higher frame rates. And SC2 is CPU limited at the GTX 460 level at 1920x1080 on ultra, even with Sandy Bridge.

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything I said in the part you quoted. Essentially I just stated a faster CPU would make the game run well enough that you wouldn't need anything more than 460

 

[Rez13]

Sorry I forgot to mention that I already have an ATI 5770 that a bought about a year back. I don't intend on replacing it for sc2. I have a friend who has an I5 760 with the same graphics card as me and runs sc2 flawlessly. I just want to upgrade my cpu, keep the same box, psu, hdd. Just looking for cpu+mobo+memory upgrade really. [edit] Also I'm looking to spend maybe around a max of 300-350$ for this upgrade. Since I don't really plan on getting any OC'ing done, other than maybe the turbo boost that the 2500k offers. Should a Micro ATX mobo avoided to save a couple of bucks?

 

[Ken g6]

Ain't nothin' wrong with micro-ATX, unless you have lots of PCI* cards to install. Which leads us back to:

If you want to save money you could go with an i5 2400 and a H series motherboard. Even an i3 2100 would be better than a 955.

 

[Rez13]

Alright thanks a lot for all of your input guys. I really appreciate it!

 

[lehtv]

Sorry I forgot to mention that I already have an ATI 5770 that a bought about a year back.

That's just perfect lol

Just looking for cpu+mobo+memory upgrade really [...] max of 300-350$ [...] no OC'ing

$190 i5-2400 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074
If you're curious how it compares to $20 more expensive 2500 see http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=363

$45 G.Skill Ripjaws 2x4GB 1333 CAS9 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231311

$105 Asrock Z68 Pro3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157251
It's only $15 more than a H67 micro-ATX board that supports 4 DIMM as well, IMO worth it. Benefits: full size, more expansion slots, option for SSD caching, compatibility with Ivy Bridge.

Total $340

 

[titan131]

Are you sure that you don't want to overclock? maybe sometime in the future? if you are sure that you don't, than a 2400 and ASRock H67M is good value and offers good performance and could save you some money. If you do want to overclock then I would suggest a 2500k, the Asrock z68 pro3 and Kingston Value 4GB DDR3 1333 or if you can stretch your budget 8GB G.SKILL Value Series.

Edit: forgot to mention ram on the non overclocking build, 8GB 1333 Gskill would do nicely for that too.

If it were me I would not buy G.Skill Ripjaws over the value series because they cost more and are basically the same but with fancy heat spreaders that might get in the way of your cpu cooler.

 

[lehtv]

^ If he wanted to overclock he'd do well to get the Hyper 212+ cooler, which would bring it closer to $400

 

[titan131]

^ If he wanted to overclock he'd do well to get the Hyper 212+ cooler, which would bring it closer to $400

true, the stock cooler is capable of a mild overclock but for 4.5 and onwards you'll need a better cooler. (anand took his 2500k to 4.4 using a stock cooler and it was stable but it might be a bit noisy)

 

[mfenn]

If there is are situation where FPS will drop down to sub 30 on a GTX 480, GTX 460 will do much worse. In such a situation, the CPU doesn't bottleneck the GTX 480 unlike in the chart you posted.

I don't think that you can say that that is true in all cases. SC2 can be both CPU bottlenecked and GPU bottlenecked, but usually not at the same time.

For example, if you're in a 4v4 with just looking at an empty area of the map, the framerate can very easily drop quite low from all the unit AI processing that's going on. A GTX 460 versus GTX 480 won't matter very much in that situation.

Conversely, if you're looking at a huge battle with a bunch of VRs and Corrupters (AI light units), you could very easily be GPU bottlenecked because of the effects.

So, in short both sets of Ultra charts are right, they just show different situations. A chart comparing CPUs is obviously going to be using a CPU bottlenecked situation whereas a chart comparing GPUs is going to use a GPU bottlenecked situation.

In my personal experience, SC2 at Ultra on a GTX 260 + i7 870 was perfectly playable. SC2 at any quality settings on a GTX 260 + Q6600 was not.

 

[mfenn]

That's just perfect lol

$190 i5-2400 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074
If you're curious how it compares to $20 more expensive 2500 see http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=363

$45 G.Skill Ripjaws 2x4GB 1333 CAS9 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231311

$105 Asrock Z68 Pro3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157251
It's only $15 more than a H67 micro-ATX board that supports 4 DIMM as well, IMO worth it. Benefits: full size, more expansion slots, option for SSD caching, compatibility with Ivy Bridge.

Total $340

I'd probably save the $5 on RAM by getting the normal stuff.

An extra tidbit is that according to Axel, you can actually overclock the i5 2400 a bit in a Z68 mobo. This is by adjusting the max turbo multiplier. You can get it up to 3.8GHz with all cores active I believe.