Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Can i run starcraft 2 with my settings?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 28, 2011 2:21:35 PM

My current card is around 2 years old.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I was wondering if I would be able to Starcraft 2 in a enjoyable and smooth manner.

I am currently running 1 gb of ram from G.Skill because 1 stick failed.

But now I am about to buy 4 gb of gskill ram for 70 $$

Would I be able to play SC2 smoothly even though my comp is around 2 years old?

My intel processor is a duo core processor, it says 1.6 ghz but i believe it converts to 2.2 or 2.4?

More about : run starcraft settings

a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 2:32:03 PM

It's going to struggle, badly.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 2:32:34 PM

What should i do?

Of course I don't mind playing it on low settings if it is smooth.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 2:36:23 PM

It may be time to get a new rig. You COULD upgrade this one you have, but by the time you have got it up to a standard that can take SC2 reasonably well, you may as well have spent on a fully new rig.

Could you list full specs please, i'll give you a start:

CPU: Core2Duo 1.6Ghz
RAM: 4GB G Skill DDR2
GPU: 512MB 3850 AGP
PSU:
HDD:
Monitor Resolution:
OS:
Score
0
February 28, 2011 2:41:56 PM

I think you've got the right idea bringing your ram up to date...OS will generally take the first 1-1.5 gigs, so once you get to 3-4 you should be ok there. You might be able to play on lower settings, and if you're happy then great! If not, I would start considering a budget to upgrade the CPU, which would probably mean the MB too...maybe the PSU to make a new GFX card reach its potential...normally how my system upgrades go. Luckily for my wife I do more 'browser shopping' than actual buying, lol.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 9:34:38 PM

*** specs

CPU: Intel pentium E2140 1.6GHZ Cure2Duo (Can i support 64 bit Windows 7 or 32?)
Ram: G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
GPU: VGA POWERCOLOR AX3850 512MD3 RT
PSU: PSU ANTEC|NEO POWER 500 500W RT
HDD: HD 500G|WD WD5001AALS
Monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
OS: Currently windows xp, I am considering upgrading to 7. Can i run 64 bit or only 32 bit? Or should i stick with XP

I want to play smoothly at any settings.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 10:03:12 PM

Note you are still using an AGP card. There hasn't been a new agp card in years. There is no real upgrade path, meaning you will have to replace motherboard and cpu (maybe even ram) if you do decide to upgrade.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:03:16 PM

or some reason i can run the game on my AMD M880g WITH ATI MOBILLITY ON low settings decently? shouldnt i be able to run it on my desktop?
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:04:40 PM

my graphics card is a PowerColor AX3850 512MD3 Radeon HD 3850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

PCI EXPRESS NOT AGP
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 10:12:26 PM

chiyeung said:
my graphics card is a PowerColor AX3850 512MD3 Radeon HD 3850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

PCI EXPRESS NOT AGP


It may be PCI, but that doesn't mean that upgrading to a new GPU will help you. Your system is woefully underpowered outside of the GPU; the graphics card just seals the deal.

You really ought to consider getting a new build put together, reusing your case and monitor (and your motherboard, maybe? Still not sure what its specs are) will save you enough that a solid build of a couple hundred dollars should do you fine for SC2.

But please, what is your motherboard? If you're not sure, download and run CPU-Z, and tell us what is in the "Model" field of the Mainboard tab.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:27:50 PM

You will have no problems playing StarCraft II with high frames; you just have to turn down some video settings. It's a very well coded game and efficient on just about any computer with the right settings.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:54:12 PM

so basically my "PowerColor AX3850 512MD3 Radeon HD 3850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card" can't run starcraft 2 stably?

I am not looking into playing this game at max specs.

My computer runs L4d2 fine.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:55:02 PM

MB ASUS P5QL/EPU P43 775 RT is my mobo. I have a DFI blood iron on the side
Score
0
February 28, 2011 10:57:30 PM

Did you read what I typed? It'll run it fine with reduced settings. Stop getting your panties in a bunch and don't listen to anyone telling you to purchase unnecessary upgrades.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:01:44 PM

chiyeung said:
MB ASUS P5QL/EPU P43 775 RT is my mobo. I have a DFI blood iron on the side


Okay, so you have This mobo?

As said, your computer should handle it at lower settings, but again, your CPU is the problem here... Starcraft 2 is a CPU-intensive game, so it'll suffer more from a weak CPU than a weak GPU. If you've got 50 or so dollars, consider the upgrade to a Wolfdale CPU as listed here, you can easily increase your clock a full gigahertz by buying the E3400 for only 51 bucks (with free shipping).
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:03:46 PM

minitron815 said:
Did you read what I typed? It'll run it fine with reduced settings. Stop getting your panties in a bunch and don't listen to anyone telling you to purchase unnecessary upgrades.


Wow, you need to grow up and quit with the ad hominem. I noticed you in another thread giving someone ***. Act like an adult, and if you aren't one, at least try to be a little mature.

And while he doesn't need an upgrade, spending 50 dollars to get a much better CPU is in his interest for SC2, since it is so CPU-intensive. Graphics won't mean anything if his system struggles to figure out the orders the enemy is giving to units halfway across the map.
Share
February 28, 2011 11:06:47 PM

"You really ought to consider getting a new build put together, reusing your case and monitor (and your motherboard, maybe? Still not sure what its specs are) will save you enough that a solid build of a couple hundred dollars should do you fine for SC2. "

You just told him to upgrade his system when all he asked if he could run the game smoothly which he can. I like how you get butthurt when you're horribly wrong, your ass must be sore all the time.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:07:21 PM

Best answer selected by chiyeung.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:08:44 PM

minitron815 said:
"You really ought to consider getting a new build put together, reusing your case and monitor (and your motherboard, maybe? Still not sure what its specs are) will save you enough that a solid build of a couple hundred dollars should do you fine for SC2. "

You just told him to upgrade his system when all he asked if he could run the game smoothly which he can. I like how you get butthurt when you're horribly wrong, your ass must be sore all the time.


Wow, are you 14 or something? Grow up, punk.

On-topic, I guess the fact that Starcraft 2 is CPU-intensive is lost on you.

Yes, he'll be able to run it smooth, provided he isn't in a big map with a ton of units moving around. Once he does, his CPU is going to get bogged down real quickly. If he wants to run it decently (IGNORING GRAPHICS COMPLETELY), he needs to step up his core at least a little bit.

Not to mention I only told him to "consider" the upgrade and that he would be bogged down in bigger battles, not that he wouldn't be able to run it at all.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:10:17 PM

Yes that is my MOBO. So i will buy the ram first and play the game. If i feel that is really lacking, i will buy the processor. Do you know if it can run 64 bits windows 7?

Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:11:16 PM

It runs on my friend's Crapbook Pro with a GMA4500 and C2D 2ghz. He turns down the graphics settings but it runs very smoothly. Good job showing you're a retard once again.

So uhm... you're not going to admit that you recommended for him to upgrade his whole system unnecessarily?

I love the lack of accountability; that's mature.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:15:55 PM

chiyeung said:
Yes that is my MOBO. So i will buy the ram first and play the game. If i feel that is really lacking, i will buy the processor. Do you know if it can run 64 bits windows 7?


The processor will handle Windows 7 fine. Worry about getting your RAM up (would recommend this $58 set if you're in the U.S.), and then see if you can run SC2 with your current build. I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:18:13 PM

wannaturnuptheheat said:
The processor will handle Windows 7 fine. Worry about getting your RAM up (would recommend this $58 set if you're in the U.S.), and then see if you can run SC2 with your current build. I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up.



What is your vie on this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

VS.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Thank you all for good information. Do you know if my current processor can handle windows 7 32 bit or 64 bit?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:19:51 PM

minitron815 said:
It runs on my friend's Crapbook Pro with a GMA4500 and C2D 2ghz. He turns down the graphics settings but it runs very smoothly. Good job showing you're a retard once again.

So uhm... you're not going to admit that you recommended for him to upgrade his whole system unnecessarily?

I love the lack of accountability; that's mature.


It runs on his Core 2 Duo 2 GHz. That's two cores at 2.0GHz
Now look at our OP:

Dual-core 1.4GHz.

That 600MHz (per core, so effectively 1000MHz combined or so in single-core terms since SC2 can utilize multi-core setups) makes all the difference, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This is about more than the eye candy, this is the fact that the CORE of the computer can NOT keep up with all the orders. That's the nature of ALL RTS games -- they are ALWAYS dependent on good CPUs.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:21:06 PM

wannaturnuptheheat said:
It runs on his Core 2 Duo 2 GHz. That's two cores at 2.0GHz
Now look at our OP:

Dual-core 1.4GHz.

That 600MHz (per core, so effectively 1000MHz combined or so in single-core terms since SC2 can utilize multi-core setups) makes all the difference, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This is about more than the eye candy, this is the fact that the CORE of the computer can NOT keep up with all the orders. That's the nature of ALL RTS games -- they are ALWAYS dependent on good CPUs.



My core2duo i believe is at 2140 @ 1.6ghz, i will consider an upgrade if it doesnt work well =]
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:23:47 PM

chiyeung said:
What is your vie on this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

VS.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Thank you all for good information. Do you know if my current processor can handle windows 7 32 bit or 64 bit?


Between those two... I stand by my recommendation. You get a heat spreader for an extra 7 bucks, but unless you plan on OCing the RAM (which you shouldn't need to), it has no real effect.

Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems.

EDIT: Yeah, again, I realized it was actually 1.6, my mistake, but it's still a wee bit on the weak side for RTSing... You should be able to play the campaign fine, but don't go into massive custom maps expecting to run well, unfortunately... My dual-core laptop (2.8GHz) really struggles on some survival/massive maps, the troll's claims above aside, but can handle the campaign swimmingly.
Score
0
February 28, 2011 11:40:33 PM

"My intel processor is a duo core processor, it says 1.6 ghz but i believe it converts to 2.2 or 2.4?"

Are you dyslexic or just an overall retard?

"That 600MHz (per core, so effectively 1000MHz combined or so in single-core terms since SC2 can utilize multi-core setups) makes all the difference, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "

Again, you're just talking out of your ass just like you were before. Assuming that the dual 1.6s cannot handle SC2 is just wild speculation and bullshitting on your part. Then again you have no idea what you're talking about so what should I expect.

"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

You just keep making yourself stupider and stupider. Please enlighten us as to how the 64 bit version of Windows 7 is more stable than the 32 bit version.

Don't listen to this retard; buy the game and play it first before making any purchases.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:41:44 PM

Yeah really I bet he could handle the campaign fine, but a really hectic multiplayer match would prob bog his system down due to the lacking cpu. The HD 3850 still does pretty good considering how old it is. My daughter uses one with a Phenom x3 and it hold sits own quite well. If your goal is getting between 30-60 fps the 3850 can handle that pretty well. Your cpu does hold that card back a bit though. As wannaturnuptheheat said, you really could benefit from a cpu upgrade performance wise, not just for Starcraft, but other titles in general, but only if you feel your current cpu is not up to task. If you don't notice any issues, no point in upgrading yet obviously.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:51:54 PM

minitron815 said:
"My intel processor is a duo core processor, it says 1.6 ghz but i believe it converts to 2.2 or 2.4?"

Are you dyslexic or just an overall retard?

"That 600MHz (per core, so effectively 1000MHz combined or so in single-core terms since SC2 can utilize multi-core setups) makes all the difference, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "

Again, you're just talking out of your ass just like you were before. Assuming that the dual 1.6s cannot handle SC2 is just wild speculation and bullshitting on your part. Then again you have no idea what you're talking about so what should I expect.

"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

You just keep making yourself stupider and stupider. Please enlighten us as to how the 64 bit version of Windows 7 is more stable than the 32 bit version.

Don't listen to this retard; buy the game and play it first before making any purchases.


So I misread the 1.6 as 1.4. Doesn't change the fact that it is still weaker than my 2.8GHz dual-core, or the 2.0GHz dual-core processor you said runs fine. That's fine and dandy for your friend with that core, good for him.

So you want benchmarks, here you go, bro:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...

See what's going on there? INDEPENDENT OF GRAPHICAL SETTINGS, framerate climbs quickly as you increase your core power. The review even says, and I quote:

Quote:
In our previous StarCraft II beta benchmark article, we suggested that a dual-core CPU at 2 GHz would be the minimum you’d want to use for this game. Today's more demanding benchmark suggests that this class of CPU is probably less than you’d want under your hood during large battles, where the AI is controlling a lot of units. It might suffice, though, for smaller engagements, or at even lower resolutions and quality settings.


Let me reiterate: "This class of CPU is probably less than you’d want under your hood during large battles, where the AI is controlling a lot of units". Oh, hey, weren't you claiming the CPU doesn't matter? It's funny, that review says EXACTLY what I was saying about the AI unit commands sucking the CPU dry.

And the 64 bit version will run better for him with more RAM (read: He'll be able to use it all).

Quote:
Dyslexic... retard... bullshitting... stupider... retard...


But hey, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're such an angry little teenager? Tell you what, chill out, step away from the computer, and admit that you need to grow the *** up.

EDIT: Holy ***. You said

Quote:
buy the game and play it first before making any purchases


When I said:

Quote:
Yeah, again, I realized it was actually 1.6, my mistake... You should be able to play the campaign fine, but don't go into massive custom maps expecting to run well,


Not once have I told him he needs to upgrade his CPU or else he won't be able to run it at all, as you seem to believe I did. I said (correctly, as the Tom's review agrees) that big maps need better cores, and that's just fact.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
February 28, 2011 11:59:25 PM

I mean, seriously look at my avatar and username, people.

You'd think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to Starcraft.
Score
0
March 1, 2011 12:14:37 AM

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_i...

Here's a link to laptop forums about SC2 performance. Someone's using a T5550...

The point is don't call people out and be wrong with numbers in the SAME post.

"I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up. "

You obviously don't know what you're talking about regardless of your avatar.

"It may be PCI, but that doesn't mean that upgrading to a new GPU will help you. Your system is woefully underpowered outside of the GPU; the graphics card just seals the deal. "
This implies he can't play it and you told him to buy a new system; something you still haven't taken accountability for.

"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

You just keep making yourself stupider and stupider. Please enlighten us as to how the 64 bit version of Windows 7 is more stable than the 32 bit version.

Again I didn't say anything about the RAM but you still haven't told us how the 64 bit version is more stable.

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 12:20:59 AM

minitron815 said:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_i...

Here's a link to laptop forums about SC2 performance. Someone's using a T5550...

The point is don't call people out and be wrong with numbers in the SAME post.

"I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up. "

You obviously don't know what you're talking about regardless of your avatar.

"It may be PCI, but that doesn't mean that upgrading to a new GPU will help you. Your system is woefully underpowered outside of the GPU; the graphics card just seals the deal. "
This implies he can't play it and you told him to buy a new system; something you still haven't taken accountability for.


Oh, my god.

Seriously, how bloody difficult is it to grasp?

Not ONCE did I say "you will be unable to run Starcraft 2 at all", I merely said "having that weak of a core will cause your computer to get bogged down during bigger maps/battles" -- that "bogging down" being EXACTLY what the OP was worried about. I don't care HOW low you turn down the graphics, because SC2 uses the CPU to run the AI (which includes stuff like pathfinding for individual units, in addition to the raw orders of "go over there"), maps which have more going on in them will simply require more computing power. It doesn't MATTER about the graphics, the computer doesn't have to render an enemy army of 100 Zerglings off-screen, but it does need to calculate pathfinding for them; and THERE is where the CPU needs to be beefier.

As for where I told him his computer is woefully underpowered, yes, by modern standards it is. I stand by what I said; he'll be able to play SC2 at the bare minimum settings.

Will OP be able to run SC2? Probably. Will he be able to do any of the big custom maps? Probably not. And in case you haven't gotten the chance to play SC2 (judging from your replies, you haven't played much of it, or any RTS for that matter), most of the fun lies in the crazy custom maps people come up with; I think my system would probably die, though, if I tried to do a survival map (where hundreds of enemy units, each with individual pathfinding and movement orders, are spawned in massive waves) with a 1.6GHz dual-core CPU. That may be me presuming on what the OP is doing, but remembering some of the bigger campaign maps, he may yet find himself being bogged down.

That said, I stand by what I said: If you can play all the parts of it you want to, that's fine, don't waste money upgrading. However, realize that your CPU is probably the limiting factor there, and that should be your first target of upgrading (to make sure, if your framerates drop and you aren't at minimum settings, reduce settings. If framerates stay low, it's off-screen CPU operations that are slowing you down.)

minitron815 said:
"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

You just keep making yourself stupider and stupider. Please enlighten us as to how the 64 bit version of Windows 7 is more stable than the 32 bit version.

Again I didn't say anything about the RAM but you still haven't told us how the 64 bit version is more stable.


64-bit = can use all his RAM. I was referring to RAM, and when I said 'stable', I meant "will be better for you".

Don't worry, the top half of this post was pre-written, because I knew what you were going to say; you're so predictable in your pattern.

As for new material, that very article you link to says:

Quote:
I didn't get into any huge battles, but 2v2 and ffa play seemed fine.


Once again, you flaunt your ignorance as to the gameplay itself. WHAT does he say?
Quote:
I didn't get into any huge battles
. WHAT have I said?
Quote:
I said (correctly, as the Tom's review agrees) that big maps need better cores


Edit: sorry, you were talking about someone else. But sure enough, what do they say...

Quote:
It runs SC2 fine in 1v1 (haven't tried the other modes)


Again: Small map. Small amount of units.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 12:27:07 AM

Also minitron: LOL @ the fact that you're fixated on what I said about 32 bit vs 64 bit Windows. It's clear that you realize that you're rapidly losing the topical argument about SC2, so now you're trying to discredit me by implying I have little technical knowledge. I don't have to know jack *** about OSes to know about CPUs' effect on a game, and I think I've proven that.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 12:38:47 AM

wannaturnuptheheat said:
Also minitron: LOL @ the fact that you're fixated on what I said about 32 bit vs 64 bit Windows. It's clear that you realize that you're rapidly losing the topical argument about SC2, so now you're trying to discredit me by implying I have little technical knowledge. I don't have to know jack *** about OSes to know about CPUs' effect on a game, and I think I've proven that.


He does the same kinda crap in other threads too to try to distract from his continually flawed advice post when he gets called out on crap. When all else fails, he'll call you a AMD fanboy I guess... Wait for it...wait for it...
Score
0
March 1, 2011 12:45:05 AM

wannaturnuptheheat said:
Also minitron: LOL @ the fact that you're fixated on what I said about 32 bit vs 64 bit Windows. It's clear that you realize that you're rapidly losing the topical argument about SC2, so now you're trying to discredit me by implying I have little technical knowledge. I don't have to know jack *** about OSes to know about CPUs' effect on a game, and I think I've proven that.


sorry for all the unnecessary drama.

I will be improving to windows 7 64 bit
I will be improving to 4gb RAM
I will most likely play on low-medium settings
I may upgrade depending on situation

I wish i clarified this earlier. I will mainly be playing 1v1s and 2v2s.
Not sure how much cpu power i will need
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 12:46:40 AM

chiyeung said:
sorry for all the unnecessary drama.

I will be improving to windows 7 64 bit
I will be improving to 4gb RAM
I will most likely play on low-medium settings
I may upgrade depending on situation

I wish i clarified this earlier. I will mainly be playing 1v1s and 2v2s.
Not sure how much cpu power i will need


All right, if you're sticking with small-map matches, you should probably be good with your current CPU. Again, you ever want to see if your CPU is affecting performance, just turn down some graphics settings when things slow down and if it doesn't help, CPU is probably your problem.
Score
0
March 1, 2011 12:50:35 AM

wannaturnuptheheat said:
All right, if you're sticking with small-map matches, you should probably be good with your current CPU. Again, you ever want to see if your CPU is affecting performance, just turn down some graphics settings when things slow down and if it doesn't help, CPU is probably your problem.



Thank you. I will message you guys and let you know!
Score
0
March 1, 2011 12:55:08 AM

Sorry you got destroyed by me in the other forum. Butthurt? Need some Vitamin E?

"64-bit = can use all his RAM. I was referring to RAM, and when I said 'stable', I meant "will be better for you".

So you just changed the word "stable" to "better" to make yourself look less retarded; got it.

....

You blindly told the OP to upgrade his system when you admitted yourself you didn't know what the requirements were:
"I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up. "

Now your ignorant ass is spouting off wild bullshit about operating systems you're obviously clueless about:

"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

Obviously anyone could tell him that a faster CPU will make SC2 run better but that wasn't the original question.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 12:57:33 AM

minitron815 said:
Sorry you got destroyed by me in the other forum. Butthurt? Need some Vitamin E?

"64-bit = can use all his RAM. I was referring to RAM, and when I said 'stable', I meant "will be better for you".

So you just changed the word "stable" to "better" to make yourself look less retarded; got it.

....

You blindly told the OP to upgrade his system when you admitted yourself you didn't know what the requirements were:
"I'll be the first to admit that I may be overestimating SC2's CPU draw, but when the absolute minimum required is a 2.6 gig single core, I have doubts about a dual-core 1.4's ability to keep up. "

Now your ignorant ass is spouting off wild bullshit about operating systems you're obviously clueless about:

"Your current processor (1.6GHz, not 1.4GHz, my mistake) should... be able to, I suppose? The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is really just a stability one, and you'll also need it to be able to fully utilize your RAM. Should have no problems."

Obviously anyone could tell him that a faster CPU will make SC2 run better but that wasn't the original question.


Still fixated on the OS issue. Still generously using vulgarities and insults. Still acting like a little kid.

I think our conversation is done here.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 1:02:48 AM

minitron815 said:
Lots of really stupid stuff.....


Hey, dont post. I think the OP has decided what he wants to do. Everyone else seems to be in agreement with this until the Op needs more advice, except you, since you want to keep arguing with wannaturnuptheheat. You can stop now, no one cares what hate you have to add to this now. Thanks. Later.
Score
0
March 1, 2011 1:03:42 AM

Still wrong and still can't make yourself look like you weren't a retard.

Why don't you troll the other post I demolished you in.

Anyone who asks questions in these forums shouldn't be allowed to post:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/310626-33-first-build...

That's hilarious.

If we're going to give OP advice on how to make SC2 running at max settings I could start recommending i5s and ***. That wasn't the question.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2011 1:18:27 AM

This topic has been closed by Randomizer
Score
0
!