Wow, its amazing the difference a video card makes.

[Skyze]

Athlon II quad core is a weak processor?? i bought it 2 weeks ago....

realize that theres so many computer elitists out there, that anything under the $5k machine they buy every year is weak.

I mean, I somewhat understand, having $4000 worth of guitar gear and still not being happy with what I have.. I guess some people just spend all that money on getting new computer specs to brag about.. The difference is, the quality between a $500 guitar and a $3000 guitar can be felt and make a difference when you tour (wont fall apart, makes your playing more comfortable, etc)... where if you buy a $500 computer or a $3000 computer.. What is your goal? I understand if they are doing audio engineering/recording or high-detail graphic work, but if its just gaming, the difference is minimal. a $500-700 gaming computer you could go buy in almost any store right now should be able to run SC2 at ultra no prob.

[TheEconomist]

@Skyze: I only just recently upgraded my PC from 2003. It was an Athlon 3000, 6800GT. I upgraded to an i5 750, GTS 250 for 750$. Hardly went the way you said. The fact is that the Athlon II's are the very lowest of the budget end for processors. Not only that but it's a quad core so in dual core optimized games it's going to run even worse because the clock speed is so slow. I could understand if I had said an E8400 was incredibly weak or some other processor. But, these processors were low-end budget processors upon release. Now they're almost a year old on top of being an old architecture. If you don't believe me, check benchmarks which compare it to other quad cores and dual cores. Then, consider the fact that they're slow clocked quad cores running a dual core game meaning that it's only using two slow clocked CPUs. Then, surely, you can fully understand what it is I am saying.

@Rashed: The Athlon II's are an old architecture re-released to capture the budget market. It may be new to you but they're incredibly old in architecture and poor performing (for a new CPU). Check the benchmarks. The problem isn't the card or the optimization. This is proven by the fact that there are dozens of people in other threads who've said they they get great performance with a GTS 250/4850 (equal in performance). Hell, HuskyStarCraft uses a 9800GT (GTS 250 = GTX9800++) to play and he plays at 1920x1080 with everything but shadows maxed. Also, the fact that you get the same performance in High as in Ultra shows the CPU is slowing you down. Ultra should almost cut in half the FPS of High.

Hopefully, that was enough to nip this in the butt and there will be no more of this "you're a PC elitist" or "Blizzard, you suck at optimization".
.

[Rashed801]

@Skyze: I only just recently upgraded my PC from 2003. It was an Athlon 3000, 6800GT. I upgraded to an i5 750, GTS 250 for 750$. Hardly went the way you said. The fact is that the Athlon II's are the very lowest of the budget end for processors. Not only that but it's a quad core so in dual core optimized games it's going to run even worse because the clock speed is so slow. I could understand if I had said an E8400 was incredibly weak or some other processor. But, these processors were low-end budget processors upon release. Now they're almost a year old on top of being an old architecture. If you don't believe me, check benchmarks which compare it to other quad cores and dual cores. Then, consider the fact that they're slow clocked quad cores running a dual core game meaning that it's only using two slow clocked CPUs. Then, surely, you can fully understand what it is I am saying.

@Rashed: The Athlon II's are an old architecture re-released to capture the budget market. It may be new to you but they're incredibly old in architecture and poor performing (for a new CPU). Check the benchmarks. The problem isn't the card or the optimization. This is proven by the fact that there are dozens of people in other threads who've said they they get great performance with a GTS 250/4850 (equal in performance). Hell, HuskyStarCraft uses a 9800GT (GTS 250 = GTX9800++) to play and he plays at 1920x1080 with everything but shadows maxed. Also, the fact that you get the same performance in High as in Ultra shows the CPU is slowing you down. Ultra should almost cut in half the FPS of High.

Hopefully, that was enough to nip this in the butt and there will be no more of this "you're a PC elitist" or "Blizzard, you suck at optimization".
.

Hmm....What CPU do you recommend?

[TheEconomist]

Honestly, I don't see why your current CPU isn't running StarCraft 2 great. Although, we know for a fact it's bottlenecking you for the above reasons. I recommend you turn down physics and see if that helps. That should take some load off your CPU.

If, for some reason, you can get a new computer: I highly recommend my build (i5 750, GTS 250). That's the best deal I could find in over six months of thorough researching.

[Rashed801]

Honestly, I don't see why your current CPU isn't running StarCraft 2 great. Although, we know for a fact it's bottlenecking you for the above reasons. I recommend you turn down physics and see if that helps. That should take some load off your CPU.

If, for some reason, you can get a new computer: I highly recommend my build (i5 750, GTS 250). That's the best deal I could find in over six months of thorough researching.

It runs great at Ultra / High settings, it just when i have a large battle (say 30 vs 30 units), FPS goes down below 25, that's what ticks me off.

[TheEconomist]

That definitely should not be happening.

[Norfindel]

It's easy to test, just set the graphic settings on Low. If there is no slowdown, it's the video board.

[n00bonicPlague]

I'm playing on a borrowed laptop, so I have no idea what it has, but I play on the lowest settings possible. It still trips up from time to time because of programs that periodically run in the background, but I don't have the option of turning those off since it's not my laptop. I really need to save up and get a desktop of my own.

[TheEconomist]

It's easy to test, just set the graphic settings on Low. If there is no slowdown, it's the video board.

The higher settings put more strain on the CPU as well. You should change that comment to "Set all of the CPU-intensive settings on Low".

[Norfindel]

The higher settings put more strain on the CPU as well. You should change that comment to "Set all of the CPU-intensive settings on Low".

I meant the combo that sets everything globally, just set it to Low, and it deactivates even physics. But yes, a better test would be to lower all settings that say "this will eat CPU like there's no tomorrow". If there are no slowdowns that way, it's probably safe to say it's the CPU.

Anyways, the game can run on Low in an Athlon X2 7750 with ATI 780G integrated graphics, with 30 fps minimum, with no visible drops in performance.

The easiest way to see if it's the CPU, would be to open the task manager in the performance tab before running the game. When it starts to die, Ctrl-tab, and take a look at the CPU usage in that instant. If it's very high, you have a problem with the CPU.

Take a look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,2570-7.html
.