 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||
Today we are going to run some preliminary performance tests using Blizzards upcoming game, StarCraft II Wings of Liberty, which has just entered the beta testing phase. Although the results will be based on a beta version of the game, they should give you a fairly good idea of how your gaming system will handle this exciting real-time strategy game...
StarCraft II is a game that needs no introduction, largely because you have all been hearing about it for many years. The game has been in the making for what seems like forever, and has been delayed almost as long as Nvidia’s upcoming Fermi architecture (sarcasm). Still the delays do not seem to have discouraged anyone from wanting to play this game, and if anything, it has made us desperate to get a taste of what this new real-time strategy game is all about.
A handful of lucky gamers are getting that taste as we speak, with the beta version of StarCraft II Wings of Liberty. Although a release date has not officially been announced, Blizzard are claiming to release the game this year and honestly, they had better do so! Still, with the game currently in beta testing stages, this is a good sign that the release date is not all that far away. Therefore, after a long wait, it is now time to work out if your gaming rig requires any last minute updates to help you enjoy StarCraft II to its fullest. Although real-time strategy games are often not nearly as visually demanding as first person shooters, there have been games that have been able to bring even the most capable rigs to their knees, Supreme Commander springs to mind as an example. Given that there will be a massive audience for StarCraft II, we suspect that it will be optimized for a range of hardware. After all, the original game became the best-selling PC game for that year, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide. This was an impressive record to set 12 years ago, back in 1998, and if that was not impressive enough, StarCraft sold 9.5 million copies across the globe within a decade of its release.
Naturally then, Blizzard has high hopes for the second installment of the StarCraft franchise and so they should, since the initial release of the original StarCraft game the Battle.net online multiplayer service has grown by a staggering 800%. Believe it or not, after all this time StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world. That is saying quite a bit, as other popular real-time strategy games, such as Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, are lucky to survive more than a couple of years with a significant amount of players logged on. Of course we are not going to dare compare the quality of a half baked game like Red Alert 3 to StarCraft II, at least not yet anyway. With that said, let’s move on to discuss the testing process... |
|||||
|
|
Matt |
Posted on: 02/20/2010 04:33 PM
Awesome stuff I cannot wait to play this game and thanks for the data so far. Also Dave on page 2,6 and even 7 it was explained why on the Core i7 was used. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 02/21/2010 12:26 AM
Posted by Dave on 02/20/2010 03:58 PM
Thank you for the feedback Dave. I know it is important to cover more CPUs and I will do so once the game exits the beta stage. |
|
Dave |
Posted on: 02/20/2010 02:58 PM
I think it is important to include more cpu's Not just i7's. maybe throw in a few Core 2 Duo/Quads, and some AMD's |
|
FULMTL |
Posted on: 02/21/2010 10:42 PM
maybe add the AthlonII X3/4 AMD CPU's because they are getting more popular in desktops. |
|
udgnim |
Posted on: 02/22/2010 01:56 AM
I think there's an error somewhere. the min and average framerates for the 4870 1GB are higher at 1920*1200 than 1680*1050. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 02/22/2010 02:16 AM
Posted by udgnim on 02/22/2010 02:56 AM
There is no mistake here, I have double checked. This can be put down to a few things. First of all we are only talking about 2fps so that is within the error margin for testing. The drivers do not fully support this game yet and it is possible the card is currently better optimized for higher resolutions. |
|
sysrpl |
Posted on: 02/23/2010 07:25 PM
In the article you mention you used FRAPS to determine the frame rates. This is unnecessary and may somewhat effect performance rating. The StarCraft II Beta includes a hidden frame rate counter. In game press Ctrl + Alt + F to make it visible. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 02/23/2010 10:35 PM
Posted by sysrpl on 02/23/2010 08:25 PM
In no way does FRAPS impact performance. Also does this hidden frame rate counter record performance over a given time period and output the average and minimum frame rates? |
|
beast595 |
Posted on: 02/25/2010 02:23 AM
Hi, I know it isn't exactly relevant to the article, but do you know if an nvidia geforce 7160 integrated chip would be able to squeeze past the game's minimum requirements? I am not very astute when it comes to computer hardware. Thanks for your help! |
|
sniper444 |
Posted on: 02/25/2010 03:38 AM
I dont think there is much point try to play any new games with integrated graphics. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 02/25/2010 03:40 AM
Posted by beast595 on 02/25/2010 03:23 AM
Sorry mate I wouldn't even bother with a GeForce 7160. It might be playable at a very low resolution with the lowest possible quality settings but it would look awful. |
|
Darkknight512 |
Posted on: 02/26/2010 09:39 PM
As with many games, it is not really the true frame rate that matter's from playing it a bit what frame rate do you feel is required for a good smooth game play? |
|
Guest |
Posted on: 03/01/2010 01:37 AM
Any chance we could get some XP vs Win7 numbers? |
|
Artem |
Posted on: 03/01/2010 05:47 AM
forget about XP, win7 is faaaar better and far more stable XP vs win7 is like win3.1 vs win95 |
|
woozel Posts: 1 Joined: 2010-03-02 |
Posted on: 03/03/2010 02:01 AM
Hey just wondering if anyone can tell me if my system will run the game smoothly on medium? I really want to experience the graphics, and I'm not sure where my system stands. Operating system:Windows 2.6.0.6002 (SP 2) CPU type:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5750 @ 2.00GHz CPU Speed (GHz):2.02 System memory (GB):2.997 Graphics card model:NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT Graphics card driver:nvd3dum.dll Desktop resolution:1280x800 Hard disk size (GB):220.292 Hard disk free space (GB):102.022 |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/03/2010 05:54 AM
Posted by woozel on 03/03/2010 03:01 AM
It might work but since we tested only with the maximum quality settings it is hard to say. Still the GeForce 8600M GT is very slow so at a guess I would say no. |
|
Xaanix |
Posted on: 03/03/2010 07:32 PM
Can anyone test this with SLI? I have a GTX 285 and when i livestream the framerate drops to around 35. Given that GF100 first generation looks like it will be a disaster, i'm thinking of buying a second GTX 285 instead up upgrading to the newer generation NVIDIA cards. ( I wont go ATI because i also have 3DVision which is Nvidia only ). I dont care to spend the money upgrading unless starcraft 2 benefits significantly from SLI (40%+ improvement in framerate) Can someone test this and post results? |
|
Fermi |
Posted on: 03/03/2010 08:46 PM
Xaanix have you not heard of Nvidia's Fermi? It would be pure insanity to purchase another GeForce GTX 285 right now. Even without Fermi on the way screw 3DVision just get a Radeon HD 5870!!! |
|
Xaanix |
Posted on: 03/04/2010 02:43 PM
Fermi: GF100 which i mention in my comment obviously IS the Fermi. Read this article for reasons why i'm thinking it makes more sense to simply get another gtx 285 and SLI it. http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/17/nvidias-fermigtx480-broken-and-unfixable/ I still want to know if SLI helps performance in SC2. Cant find anywhere on the net where this is confirmed or denied. |
|
jinzougen |
Posted on: 03/04/2010 06:09 PM
I know these "will it run on my system" questions are probably pretty lame, hopefully you guys will show some mercy... I have a laptop, a Lenovo T400, Core 2 Duo, and a ATI Mobility Radeon 3400 series card... (can't actually remember the exact model number, I'd have to look it up). I'm very curious to see how my system might stand up to SC2, I'm a die-hard fan and really want to play SC2 when it comes out. I know there aren't any measurements but maybe you guys might have some intuitions. The good thing is that I don't need to run SC2 anywhere near the resolutions tested, as my laptop screen has a native resolution of 1280x800. |
|
Artem |
Posted on: 03/05/2010 05:55 AM
i guess it'll launch on lowest settings, small maps, 1on1 .... or not |
|
jinzougen |
Posted on: 03/05/2010 05:32 PM
Actually, when I go to the ATI site and look at the Mobility cards they have, the specs for the 3400 series don't match up to the specs that display in my ATI catalyst control center. Very strange, I appear to have a card which is significantly better than the 3400 series, maybe it's just using 3400 series drivers or something. Here are the specs as measured by the catalyst control center: Memory Size: 256 MB Memory Type: DDR3 Core GPU Clock: 680 MHz Memory Clock: 800 MHz Comparing these specs to the ones on ATI's site, my card seems to be closer to the 3870 or 3850 (though doesn't match entirely with either!) So, it seems I have a better card than I thought, though I still don't know if it's decent by SC2 standards. Any new thoughts based on the new info? |
|
dan |
Posted on: 03/05/2010 06:27 PM
wat about 9600m gt?? |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/05/2010 10:55 PM
Posted by jinzougen on 03/05/2010 06:32 PM
There are four versions of the Mobility Radeon HD 3400 and you have the Mobility Radeon HD 3470 which has a core frequency of 680MHz and a memory frequency of 800MHz. This is still an ultra slow GPU with a memory bandwidth of just 12.8GB/s. The Mobility Radeon HD 3870 for example is still slow but that has a bandwidth of 54.4GB/s. To give you an even better idea the slowest graphics card we tested was the Radeon HD 5570 and that has a bandwdith of 28.8GB/s, more than twice that of your Mobility Radeon HD 3470. So as you can see you are really going to struggle. Posted by dan on 03/05/2010 07:27 PM
The GeForce 9600M GT has a bandwidth of just 25.6GB/s so to give you an idea it will be slower than the Radeon HD 5570 that we tested, likely quite a bit slower. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 03/12/2010 10:31 PM
anton what graphics card? Must be pretty good since those aint bad frame rates given the settings and the processor. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/12/2010 11:15 PM
Rashed801 I am actually not much of a fan when it comes to the Radeon HD 5670. I think in terms of value its pretty poor and for slightly more you can get a much faster graphics card. Here is a review I wrote for TechSpot on the Radeon HD 5670... http://www.techspot.com/review/240-ati-radeon-hd-5670/ Overclocking your processor will certainly help, how much I am not sure. A Phenom II X2 or X4 would really help you out  |
|
Rix |
Posted on: 03/14/2010 07:44 AM
@woozel I have the same specs as you. I have been running it on low-medium, its not brilliant and the fps keeps dipping to 20s, but its playable. There is a vid on YT, where the poster claims to be running sc2 on High-Ultra with a 8600m gt. |
|
XPEH-BAM |
Posted on: 03/17/2010 05:37 PM
What monitor did you use for this test? |
|
Rashed801 Posts: 3 Joined: 2010-03-08 |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 07:16 PM
Ok, I read this review and decided to buy the Radeon 5670 512 MB, since it shows that it can play on Ultra 1680x1050 on frame rate average 47 and lowest 42. I bought it, hooked it up, played the game, I am getting high frame rates like 50-60 when i am building, but as soon as there is a large attack and battle going on, my frame rate drops to 20-30'ish... How come? is it my CPU? here are my specs: # Operating system: Windows 7 32-bit. # CPU type:AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200 # CPU Speed (GHz):2.22 # System memory (GB):3.249 # Graphics card model:ATI Radeon HD 5600 Series # Graphics card driver:atiu9pag.dll # Desktop resolution:1280x960 # Hard disk size (GB):232.876 # Hard disk free space (GB):84.231 Please let know whats wrong! thanks  |
|
Dave |
Posted on: 03/08/2010 08:42 PM
Well you only have 3.2GB of memory there and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 is very slow by today's standards so I would say that is it. |
|
Rashed801 Posts: 3 Joined: 2010-03-08 |
Posted on: 03/09/2010 03:03 AM
Isn't 3.2 GB Ram more than enough? I have 4 GB, but Windows 7 is taking up 0.8 of it. Yeah i think my Athlon 64 X2 dual core could be causing the low frame rate during battles, what do you suggest? If i get a Phenom II, do u think it will increase my frame rate? |
|
To amd x2 |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 12:46 AM
I ve played the beta single player. I have to say the beta of starcraft JUST USE ONE CORE. So any review about multi tasking - threading just make me laugh. My specs are: * AMD x2 3800+ 2000@2800mhz s.939 E6 1.35v (stock) * DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D@SLI * OCZ 2x1GB DDR400 2.5-3-3-6 Rev.2 * Sapphire 1950pro@stock 512MB I bought 2nd hand ram this week because SC beta used more than gig when I was watching replays (first week of the crack ^^) I've played all 2009 games and before with just 1gb of ram. At 1024x768 on high settings i get average of 40fps, i repeat, just use one core. Now I've ordered a 5770 and will keep this precious build until the bulldozers will come up. Conclusion: do not buy any phenom. Just oc a little ur cpu and learn more (by yourself also). |
|
Dave |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 04:07 AM
@ To amd x2 - You might be spending a little to much time laughing at others to notice but this game is very much dual core optimized. Look at the utilization results here the second core is being used. Not to mention with a single core the load is locked at 100%. Ohh and you are playing at 1024x768 and getting just 40fps, that is not good, I repeat that is not good news at all. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 04:20 AM
Posted by Rashed801 on 03/09/2010 04:03 AM
Hi Rashed801, you wouldn't want any less than 3.2GB of available memory for this game. But I do feel that the Athlon 64 X2 is your biggest weakness. This has nothing to do with how many cores it has, it is more that by today's standards the Athlon 64 X2 is gutless. The Phenom II X2 would lay waste to it and at less than $100 they are an exceptional buy! Also the comments make by guest user "To amd x2" are inaccurate. |
|
Rashed801 Posts: 3 Joined: 2010-03-08 |
Posted on: 03/10/2010 04:43 AM
Posted by Steve on 03/10/2010 05:20 AM
Thanks for the response Steve! By the way, what do you think of my GPU Radeon HD 5670 512 MB? I bought it last weekend, and played on just "high" settings, but frame rate drops to 20'ish when there is a huge battle going on, i guess my CPU (Athlon 64 X2) is getting in the way? Do you think Overclocking my CPU might help increase the frame rate during those sequences? or should i just go after a brand new CPU? |
|
anton |
Posted on: 03/12/2010 07:17 PM
i have normal framerate(25-60) with my Athlon X2 ~3.3 GHz at 1650x1080 ultra high |
|
Frag Krag |
Posted on: 03/18/2010 10:39 PM
Man I saw these benchmarks a while ago and I was quite surprised. After talking with some 4870/GTX 260/5770 users though it seems these results are correct >< I was really surprised to see how badly the 4870 and 4890 performed because they were both beaten by the traditionally less powerful 5770, and even the 5750 could trounce the 4870 :/ I'd like to see how the new ATi HD 5830 performs though, since nobody seems to be benchmarking it on SC2. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 03/18/2010 11:05 PM
Posted by XPEH-BAM on 03/17/2010 06:37 PM
Dell 30-inch 3008WFP was used for testing. |
|
PoisonJam |
Posted on: 04/05/2010 11:21 AM
Great article - I'm considering a graphics card upgrade just for this game so it was perfect timing. In case this helps anyone, I am able to play the beta on very low settings with the following spec: E4300 @ 1.8GHz 4GB DDR2 7300GT (stock settings) Dell 2007FP 1600x1200 Haven't had any slowdown but it does look very cartoony, which I have to confess to actually quite liking! I have watched a few videos online played at higher settings and of course it looks better but as long as I can play the game I'm happy |
|
wally1 |
Posted on: 04/08/2010 10:18 PM
Awesome game I am loving the strategy involved and thanks for the article it helped me a lot with my GPU upgrade. |
|
Spikey39 |
Posted on: 04/20/2010 01:37 PM
Hi!I have a question for the guys around here.I have a PC with the next hardware : Intel Celeron D 3,06 Ghz nVidia GeForce 7200 GS/7300 SE 2,50 GB RAM DDR2 Desktop resolution : 1280x1024 With my system i get in SC II around 20-25 FPS.Can someone give me some advices on how to increase my FPS?Thank you,waiting for response. |
|
PoisonJam |
Posted on: 04/21/2010 08:16 PM
@Spikey39: Your CPU is pretty bad, but buying a better graphics card should still help a lot and is the easiest upgrade - as long are your PSU can handle it! Is your graphics card AGP? |
|
Spikey39 |
Posted on: 04/24/2010 11:43 AM
No,is PCI Express.And i know the CPU is pretty bad,because this i want to buy an Core 2 Extreme and an nVidia GeForce 9600 GT. They're both compatible with my motherboard,but i don't have money yet to upgrade. |
|
Rageful |
Posted on: 04/29/2010 09:09 PM
hi Guys Would you help me out a little bit please? I am getting serious problems running sc2 beta. Got only 20-30 fps .. My rig is pretty strong tho ( or well at least it is supposed to be strong ..) intel quad q6600 @3000 MHZ nvidia geforce gtx275 driver: 197.45 4gb ddr2 @ 1066 mhz ram vista 64bit that's pretty much of it I dont get it really .. my video card should be running this game at max settings with no problems whatsoever.. or i might be CPU limited? i don't thinkt hat either.. oh btw im running the game at 1680x1050, ultra settings. |
|
Calle2003 Posts: 14 Joined: 2010-04-27 |
Posted on: 04/29/2010 10:02 AM
Very good idea with a multi core comparison but I heard HT usually has a negative impact in gaming. I therefore have all Cores on but HT off in my gaming rig (Core i7 860@3,8 GHz). HT off requires less voltage as well. Could you do an article with HT on and off, please? Only way I could compare was with the i7 750 which does not have HT. |
|
Steve Posts: 74 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 04/30/2010 11:56 AM
Posted by Rageful on 04/29/2010 10:09 PM
I am not sure what to tell you mate. Obviously you should get getting a lot more performance out of that system in this game. Have you tried running something like 3Dmark Vantage to see how your system performs? Is the performance acceptable in other games? Posted by Calle2003 on 04/29/2010 11:02 AM
Interesting but I cannot say I have seen any difference in performance when disabling HyperThreading. That said HT does nothing for games as hardly any utilize 4 cores and almost none use more than 4. Furthermore StarCraft2 makes very poor use of the CPU and at best can only utilize 2 cores. At this stage I do not plan to do any more testing with SC2, as awesome as the game is to play its hardware requirements are quite basic. |
|
Calle2003 Posts: 14 Joined: 2010-04-27 |
Posted on: 05/02/2010 08:22 AM
Posted by Steve on 04/30/2010 12:56 PM Interesting but I cannot say I have seen any difference in performance when disabling HyperThreading. That said HT does nothing for games as hardly any utilize 4 cores and almost none use more than 4. Furthermore StarCraft2 makes very poor use of the CPU and at best can only utilize 2 cores. At this stage I do not plan to do any more testing with SC2, as awesome as the game is to play its hardware requirements are quite basic. Hello Steve, Here's an article which states negative impact of some games (users are reporting stuttering): http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/518995-i7-hyperthreading-negatively-impacts-gaming.html and also there's some links to graphs, like this one (SMT's negative impact on Crysis): http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/737/ I totally understand you don't want to do any more on SC2 since it's still in beta, but maybe when it's released? With SMT technology you cut off all the CPU's cache in half, so it's understandable you can get a negative impact in games, esp the ones using less than 4 threads. To draw a parallel: my previous AMD X2 4400+ with 2 MB L2 cache sometimes beat the faster clocked ones like 4600+ because the double amount of cache (could be seen in several reviews). Anyway, keep up the good work! |
|
shant |
Posted on: 05/03/2010 07:20 PM
hey steve, you forgot to set shaders to extreme  there's an extreme option for it (H)btw can you do it again after its released with AA this time from nvidia control panel using override settings?  i have 9800GT 1GB it runs like a charm @ 1336x768 highest settings(shaders @ extreme) without AA but sometimes gets slow at big battle's, cpu is Q6600+4GB 800 |
|
Busta |
Posted on: 05/03/2010 10:47 PM
I have been playing since the beta was first released and I am pretty sure the extreme setting was added by a patch. As far as I know the game is not being released until the end of the year. They have not even started trialling 3v3 auto-match yet. |
|
Garvey |
Posted on: 05/08/2010 09:56 AM
This game rocks!!! Thanks for the performance article. Helped me decide on my new graphics card. |
|
pallenda |
Posted on: 05/13/2010 05:49 PM
would have been nice to see the i5 tested since i'm thinking about gettting a i5 430m + nvidia 360m GPU laptop for a good Starcraft 2 laptop. Do you guys think that setup with w7 and 4Gb ram will be a nice laptop solution for SC2? I'm thinking about getting the Asus 15" G51Jx laptop. |
|
@Spikey39 |
Posted on: 05/15/2010 02:13 PM
You don't have to do both at the same time. What about a second hand GPU? I just upgraded my 7300GT to an HD 4670 and I've seen a massive gain in performance and I've been able to turn a lot of the settings up high on 1600x1200. It's far from a igh-end card and only cost me £60 in the UK. Second hand ones were going on ebay for much cheaper. |
|
Squeak |
Posted on: 06/05/2010 02:19 PM
I personally find the GPU performance benchmarks for Starcraft 2 very startling due to the disparate relations between the Geforce and Radeon cards. For instance, the 5670 is supposed to be on par with the 9800GT according to many benchmark tests (plus minus 5% of each others in most games like Left 4 Dead 2, Modern Warfare 2, Far Cry 2, Hawk etc.), slightly faster than the 8800GT (~10%), and much faster than the 9600GT by a huge amount. The 5750 and 5770 are also supposed to be faster than the 8800GTS, 9800GT, 9800GTX and GT 240 by around 30-50%, but yet this test seems to show that Nvidia cards are more favored than their ATI counterparts for Starcraft 2. Notice how the 9800GT (5670 equivalent) is performing around the level of a 5770 while a GT 250 (between 5670 and 5750 performance) has approached the 5800 series in terms of performance. Is there any reason why the ATI series is lagging behind so much? |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 06/07/2010 09:00 AM
@ Squeak - umm yeah this is a "BETA" game and at the time this article was published it was months away from release. This is simply a beta guide and I would wait for the game to actually be released before getting to excited about benchmark results. |
|
ThuG |
Posted on: 06/12/2010 08:13 PM
I don't know how you got crossfire to work I was running two 5770's through beta trying to crossfire them did everything I could even fresh installs of windows 7 and drivers, making sure each card was running right etc but when I got into sc2 if I had ai enabled (which is basicly crossfire) I would see like 1/2 the mineral fields all sorts of stuff.... so I would have to disable ai to get sc2 to run right thus only using 1 card... I wish they would just say if they are going to support crossfire & sli so we all knew ahead of time. |
|
Zergling |
Posted on: 06/13/2010 10:35 PM
My 5770 CF cards worked well. What drivers were you using? |
|
chou Posts: 1 Joined: 2010-06-21 |
Posted on: 06/21/2010 11:22 AM
I am a noob and my specs are quite awful: - 3gb RAM - 2.4 GHz Intel E2220 Dual Core CPU I am planning to buy graphic card that might allow me to play at medium settings without lag (when big battles occur). My budget is quite low, and I would like to avoid buying also a PSU. Is this possible? I might therefore buy: - 1 addidionnal gb of RAM - a decent graphic card Which one do you advice which is not overkill for my system and that allows me to play correctly w/o PSU? Do you have any further suggestions to upgrade my system? My budget is around 100$ Btw this is my motherboard: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01386897&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=de&cc=at&lang=de&product=3917919 Thanks for help |
|
Asmo |
Posted on: 07/01/2010 03:38 PM
Hi guys, sorry bothering you with my silly question I would like to know if that laptop is going to play SC2 at 1366x768 @ ultra (or at least very high) settings with a stable 30+ frame rate . The laptop is the Toshiba Satellite L505-13N. Thank you for your answers. - 4gb DDR3 Ram (1066MHz) - Intel Core i5 430M (2,26GHz) - ATi Mobillity Radeon 5165 (600MHz core - 800MHz gddr3) - HDD 500gb 5400rpm |
|
puupin |
Posted on: 07/13/2010 07:05 AM
nice article, was planning on upgrading my psu and gettin a 4870 1Gb later this year. makes me feel confident in my purchase to see this card is still stackin up decent against newer games |
|
SwissCheese |
Posted on: 08/10/2010 09:44 PM
This is what i run and let me tell you it runs beautifully. No need to get a quad... duo core is fine (Just OC it )OS: Windows 7 (64 bit) CPU: Intel E8400 (3.0 OC to 3.6 ghz on air cooling) memory: Corsair 8 gigs DDR2 1066 mhz graphics: XFX GeForce GTX 260 |