What kind of PC do I need?

[chris]

I'd go with ATI simply because their drivers aren't retarded.

sadly I have to agree with Doack on this. Well, i'm not one who knows how to get good FPS out of my hardware and the computers here in norway dont come with ATI cards so.... yeah. I'm going to have to stick with nvidia regardless of how bad their drivers are.

I could do this because I know how my computer works, and the difference between top end cards is negligible if people actually know how a computer works.

huh?

[Xenon]

Anyways, sclegacy has the "current" system requirements for Starcraft II (which may mean they're completely inaccurate if Blizzard stalls for 2 years):

Minimum requirements:
GFX
- GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 256 MB RAM

CPU
- Pentium 4

RAM
- 1 GB

Internet
- 1 Mbit ADSL


Recommended requirements
GFX
- GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512 MB RAM

CPU
- Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2

RAM
- 2 GB

Internet
- 3 Mbit ADSL



Optimal requirements
GFX
- Geforce 9000 or Radeon 3000 Series

CPU
- Core 2 Duo 3 GHz or Athlon X2

RAM
- 2GB with DualChannel mode


StarCraft II is at the moment in it's alpha phase, and it is possible that the system requirements could change before the release.

[Ricky_Honejasi]

I have to presume "Radeon 3000 Series" is "Radeon HD 3000" and so that I never heard until now.

While I am aware it is alpha (thus requirements much higher than final) but it just seems like they try to make too much shiny 3D that requires high-end video cards to have any decent frames while future custom maps with any sizable amount of units would require top cpus just to run them without a slideshow based on that.

What I liked in SC1 is that you didn't needed the strongest of cpus (back then, only a 400 mhz when 533 mhz were reasonably available was more than enough) to see countless of units.

Anyway, I would like to know what wibod and Mesk knows about computers to make the best of them.

[Lavarinth]

Back then SC used sprites though, not 3D renditions of units. Which is why they tried to make WC3 run on lower-end systems and succeeded.. By making the game look like #$%^. I'm hoping they stay away from that route.

[Ricky_Honejasi]

Which is why they tried to make WC3 run on lower-end systems and succeeded.. By making the game look like #$%^. I'm hoping they stay away from that route.

Well personally, I tend to prefer lesser graphics (never been a graphics fan in the first place) but being able to run the game at any speed without spending the big bucks just to have a decent computer to run it. I currently do have an Athlon X2 4200+, 2 gig DDR2 Ram and with a Radeon X1300 and I am hoping I can run it 50-60 fps at 1024x784 at more or less dumbed down settings in normal cases.

You have to remember that it is a game that will have custom maps that can have LOTS of units (300+) seen at the same time unlike other games that you aren't likely to really need more computer requirements due to custom content such as FPS games. Really don't want to wait 4 years just to finally get the computer to see that many units at once.

[wibod]

Since you asked for it Ricky. Right now in my opinion the most important parts of the computer for gaming is the Graphics Card, HDD and your RAM. HDD is on the list only because of how large games have gotten as of late. Graphics Card is by far the most important, and CPU speed isn't a huge factor. It isn't a huge factor because very few games even make use of multi core processors and you can still get away with a high speed single core processor today and probably for the next few years.

Hardware synergy is something many people overlook and don't factor into purchasing parts. People will buy what is cheapest instead of going with hardware that performs best when paired with other hardware. For example the motherboard I am using would work fine with an nVidia card and Core2, but it is designed with an ATi card and AMDX2 in mind and as a result it helps avoid problems I may have had to deal with.

Also on a hardware note, get the right fucking power supply I can't stress this enough.

[Lavarinth]

My power supply is over 1000 watts o.O

[IskatuMesk]

That means nothing if it's a POS.

[Lavarinth]

That means nothing if it's a POS.

No, you are!

[IskatuMesk]

wat

[Marco]

So much info, but the truth is, whether ATI or Radeon, AMD or Intel, you are getting something that will generally be compatible and run everything in a stable competent way.  As I said, computers are getting cheaper and both video card and cpu chip technology haven't done much in the last year, so the latest and greatest technology is financially accessible at the moment.

[UntamedLoli]

ATI's 4000 series is going to be the same price if not less than the current one.

Also ATI=Radeon series, thats nVidia.

[chris]

My power supply is over 1000 watts o.O

what?! over 9000!?

[chris]

Since you asked for it Ricky. Right now in my opinion the most important parts of the computer for gaming is the Graphics Card, HDD and your RAM. HDD is on the list only because of how large games have gotten as of late. Graphics Card is by far the most important, and CPU speed isn't a huge factor. It isn't a huge factor because very few games even make use of multi core processors and you can still get away with a high speed single core processor today and probably for the next few years.

tell that to my 2.5GHz celeron.

[UntamedLoli]

800mhz P3 to a 2.3ghz A64 was less of an upgrade for gaming than 9200 to 9800 Pro, that tells us you either can't take care of it or the rest of it is garbage as well.