What Kind of Machine Will Run StarCraft II? We Find Out!
What Kind of Machine Will Run StarCraft II? We Find Out!
Posted 07/27/2010 at 5:30pm
| by Alex Castle and Alan Fackler
66
Comments
Print
StarCraft II’s only been out for a day, and while everyone else in the tech world is still buried in the long campaign or the cut-throat multiplayer, our thoughts are already turning to the game’s ramifications on the hardware world. Blizzard is famous for their commitment to making games that work on a wide range of systems, and we wanted to see to what extent that’s true with StarCraft II.
Toward that end, we’ve installed the game on 4 different systems. A top-of-the-line gaming machine, a more-realistic aging gaming PC, a non-gaming laptop, and a netbook. Hit the break to find out how the game ran on each system. The results are surprising!
The Rig: Predator
We wanted to take a look at StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty running near its full potential (our Dream Machine is a little bit of overkill, and we'd like to keep this within more of a consumer-friendly range), so we tapped Acer's 2010 Predator computer as our testing system of choice. And for good reason. Sporting an Intel i7 930 clocked at 2.8 GHz, 12 GB of DDR3 RAM, and a single GTX-470, we figured it would have more than enough power to deliver some high performance numbers.
That being said, StarCraft performed quite admirably, typically hovering between 75 and 100 FPS at 2560x1600. We did witness minor slow down, but not for the usual reasons--tons of enemies hitting the screen with hardly any slowdown. Some of the levels in the single-player campaign feature pretty detailed and particle-rich environments, but the lowest dip we saw was still 42 FPS, and this was in very rare instances. The Predator handled multiple enemies and strands of AI—we set the difficulty to brutal for benchmarking purposes--without a hitch. We waged some pretty epically crowded battles in the challenge mode that ran stably at around 100 FPS. No surprise here.
It's a pleasure to report that StarCraft 2 isn't simply a good lucking RTS. It's a good looking game, period. It's smooth, responsive, colorful, and the particle effects and in-game movies are all top notch. And the FMV cutscenes are probably making people at Square squirm a little. We'll be touching more on quality as we have more time to play it.
The Rig: The Aging Beast
This computer is something a lot of our readers might have—a capable gaming PC with some parts that are a little less than top of the line. The machine we tried it out on is running a 2.67GHz quad-core Core i5 with a GTX 295 and 4 GB of RAM. In other words, it’s definitely no dream machine, but it’s got a lot of life left in it. How does StarCraft play? Amazing. With all settings maxed out at 1900 X 1200 this computer still plays Starcraft with an average 70 fps. Even in intense battles with lots of units, the game rarely dips below 60 fps. This computer’s more than enough to get the most out of StarCraft 2.
The Rig: The IT Special
StarCraft II has already proven itself to play fantastically on dedicated gaming hardware, but we wanted to see how it runs on a machine that’s not originally designed to play games. For that, we used an IT-issued Dell Latitude E6400 notebook. This 2-year-old laptop’s all business—a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo proc and a respectable 4GB of memory, saddled by integrated graphics.
How does StarCraft play?
Well, alright. Sort of. If you turn all the graphics all the way down (and we mean all the way) the game is actually thoroughly playable. We saw an average of 40fps at the laptop’s native 1440 X 900 resolution, staying above 30fps even in the heat of battle. The game doesn’t look very pretty with the settings this low, but it’ll still get you your StarCraft II fix during your lunch break at work.
The Rig: The Little Guy
Watching StarCraft hum along at 42FPS on Alex Castle’s two year-old business laptop struck a strange note of curiosity in all of us, mostly because it was clear that Blizzard has made a real effort to make sure that gamers with varying degrees of computerized sophistication can own and enjoy the experience.
We could have tested progressively slower and slower laptops to see just how little power could be used to run the game smoothly, but opted instead to test the worst of the worst, the slowest of the slow. We decided to test StarCraft 2 on a netbook.
The verdict? Ehhhh...
We installed SC2 on a Samsung N210, running an Intel Atom N280 with a gig of RAM. We didn’t have high hopes, but were hoping at least to achieve a playable, albeit bad looking version of the game. Unfortunately we did not achieve the “playable” part of the game, even with the settings dumped to their lowest capacities. Granted, the little guy was able to load a map, complete with an entire squadron, and move them from place to place at (we’re guessing) around 5 FPS. But the moment any sort of battle began, the slowdown became un-bearable. This wasn’t necessarily a huge surprise, but showed us that even developers as talented as Blizzard can’t quite make everyone across the playing field happy.
More like this
monkeykid753
August 04, 2010 at 1:32pm
What do you guys do with your old rigs?
Because I know that you no longer have a use for many of those old systems. And if they are just taking up space, a giveaway contest would be amazing for us readers who have elderly/weak machines. And you could make a limitation saying that you have to have a subscription to participate in the system giveaways.
Just an idea from a big fan, subscriber, and power user.
Also... is the CAPTCHA necessary? There was never any real spam...
smatt
August 03, 2010 at 4:03pm
on a different note, is anyone else as happy as i am that blizzard released something NON WOW related??? i mean, yeah it's not the full 3-campaign monster most of the world was hoping for but it's still pretty damned good. now if only Diablo 3 would come out.
smatt
August 03, 2010 at 3:47pm
wouldn't call anything with a core i5 "aging". anything over 18 months could be aging but certainly not within the 12 month mark. My setup is a core 2 quad 2.66ghz OC'd to 3.6ghz. xfx 5870, 4gb ddr2 800 ram. SC2 defaults to ultra settings @ 1680x1050 (my max reolution) and it runs like a dream. by their standards a 5870 is aging too despite being one of the best cards on the market. not sure what they were thinking when they picked their models but the results are certainly accurate. basically if your machine is within 2 years old and it was top of the line back then you should be just fine. besides, 60fps is traditionally the normal gamespeed (i think halo was the first to run at 30fps). anything higher than that is just overkill.
jasonrt604
August 01, 2010 at 11:26pm
I personally think the 'aging beast' is pretty up to date but I keep telling myself one thing when I read Maximum PC... It's MAXIMUM PC not budget pc, upgrade pc, or price performance pc. Its all skewed for maximum performance.
I just bought an Intel E6600 processor and ATI 4850 to upgrade my system so I can play the game (my Celeron E1200 / Nvidia 8400 just won't cut it) and I'm sure that will be enough.
For their AGING system I really think last years zero point, or possibly their $650 speedy budget system from a few months back might have been a little nicer to see.
Love Maximum PC but sometimes a review of a Maximum game with hardware for the rest of us would be nice.
cdowley
July 29, 2010 at 2:21pm
Guess that makes my Q6600 (stock speed, board doesn't OC it well for some reason) and GTX275 dinosaur-era ancient, eh?
For the record, my rig runs SC2 at high settings without a hitch.
Muerte
July 30, 2010 at 10:57am
That's good to know. I have the same processor. I had never run any game that maxed out the processor. Need a new mb and might try to find another nvidia 8800 to run sli to beef it up but still a very good processor.
B10H4Z4RD
July 29, 2010 at 7:37pm
lol same setup as me. Sorry if this is unrelated, but it might be the 6600 thats not so great at overclocking. unless you have a p5n-d. then it might be the board.
cdowley
July 30, 2010 at 8:02pm
... which is OK by me in the end, as I've never been a "serious overclocker" to begin with. I'll fiddle with it from time to time, but that's about all.
sniggler
July 29, 2010 at 8:05am
My 5850 @ 1920 x 1080 with everything on Ultra never drops below 60 fps.
It's XFX xxx edition but the overclock isn't that spectacular so I wouldn't expect it to make a huge difference.
Also, running my core i7 920 D0 @ 3.6 GHz & 6 GB ddr 3, tri-channel @ 1450 MHz (D0 is locked obviously) so that probably helps.
Still, from what I've seen so far you could probably run this game using a 6600 GT and a P4 on medium without any issues (except for the 3d interactive crap in the single player campaign).
Buddhistpalm2
July 28, 2010 at 11:30pm
Like a lot of posters said already, a Core i5-based PC is not an aging machine. An aging PC is one using a Core2Duo/Quad or older CPU, like mine. I am currently using a Q6600 (@3.15GHz), HD4870 (1GB) and 6GB of DDR2-800 with a 1680x1050 monitor.
violian
August 02, 2010 at 4:49pm
Yeah, totally agree with you. Didn't Core i5 come out like only 2 years ago? It's not like people are upgrading their CPU's every year, or even every 2 years for that matter - unless you're a hardcore gamer. Core 2 Duo would've been a much better definition of aging because people who have this CPU (like myself) are probably getting to that point where they're thinking about getting a CPU upgrade or entirely new computer.
Rob42o
July 28, 2010 at 11:18am
SO I could honestly careless for any bliztard games. But a friend of mine gave me a Guest Pass to try StarCraft II. Its now been downloading for over 24 hours and only at 54%. What kind of shit ass servers does bliztard have supporting their Digital Download? Its not my connection I proved that. It is purely on their end. They just lost any support or enjoyment I might have had for this Game. Ill stick to companys that can fuel a game release with better hardware, an fast connections. F*** Bliztard!
Bawlnutts
August 02, 2010 at 1:12pm
SO I could honestly careless for any stds. But a friend of mine gave me herpes to try stds. Its now been itching for over 24 hours and even with cream. What kind of shit ass lovers does my friend have supporting their libido? Its not my fault I proved that. It is purely on their end. They just lost any trust or enjoyment I might have had for them. Ill stick to friends that can fuel my libido with better condoms, an fast finishing. F*** STDS!
sniggler
July 29, 2010 at 8:06am
It's 12 gigs! Unless you have a 50 mbps internet connection, quit whining.
Caboose
July 28, 2010 at 12:50pm
WOW!
I think you're missing some common sense.
People have been waiting for Starcraft II for years. Many, many years. It's one of the most anticipated games ever! And you want to know why it's taking forever to download the game? How many GB is the install?
You do realize, that servers are finite, and if you've got EVERYONE IN THE FUCKING WORLD trying to download/install StarCraft II at the same time, IT'S GOING TO BE SLOW!
Steam's got some pretty fast servers, but when a very highly anticiapted game (Left 4 Dead/Left 4 Dead 2) is released, it sometimes takes a while to actually get the game to download/unlock. Heck, it took me 2-days to get Alien Swarm, and I've got a 15Mb internet connection!
Heck, when Service Pack 3 for XP was released, Microsoft's servers got hammered and downloads were at a complete crawl to non-existant!
So why don't you just calm down!
FFS
mesiah
August 02, 2010 at 10:39pm
If blizzard is using the same torrent software that they use for WoW on their download then it is probably your own dumb fault for the slow download. Windows firewall usually blocks the download which significantly slows things down. The down loader will usually tell you if it detects a slow down due to your firewall and will instruct you on how to make an exception for the program. Usually games that use some form of torrent style down loader update with amazing speed. The more people trying to get the update, the faster it comes. So, if they are indeed using this system, stop nerd raging long enough to fix your firewall. If they aren't using the torrent method, rage on, it should be standard practice these days :D
*Sory caboose, the post was intended for rob. Hit reply on the wrong window.
Biceps
July 28, 2010 at 1:48pm
I downloaded Alien Swarm in like 10 minutes on release day. I played it once - it crashed, so I played something else. It looks like a good game - I just got sidetracked; but reading your comment made me feel like a bad person. Sorry!
Caboose
July 28, 2010 at 2:02pm
Aww don't feel bad. I wasn't able to download it when it was released, and had to wait until I got home from work, by then many others too were getting home from work and trying to download it at the same time.
armada439
July 28, 2010 at 10:29am
Jeez I had no idea my GTX295 was an "aging" card... who would have thought that?! Especially when it beats every other card out there except the GTX480 and HD5970... And the i5... man that was the best bang/buck gaming cpu just a couple months ago... so old... ugh
By the way, I'm sure my HD4850/8800GTS/7900GT could all destroy Starcraft 2 seeing as its almost entirely cpu based (as can be seen in your business laptop results).
aerogamer
July 28, 2010 at 10:20am
HA! Aging?!? Check out the rig I'm still rocking ('couse I've done some upgrades...)
Asus A8N SLI-Deluxe, AMD Athlon 64 x2 4400+ (Toledo), 2GB SuperTalent DDR400, EVGA 8800GT 512MB, Creative Audigy 2 (YEAH!!!), 3 Raptor X's in RAID 0, 500GB Seagate.
*Some of the upgrades (video card, raptors) came as a result of FedEx apparently using my computer for a game of yard ball when I moved and shipped it through them, amazingly ASUS replaced the board for me under warranty; major props to them because I wholly expected to pay since defective quality can't be blamed for a hole in the board where my video card used to be. :) ...I love ASUS...
I built this in Feb 2005 and then upgraded/repaired it in summer '07.
p47riot
July 28, 2010 at 10:45am
I'm sporting about the same specs: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, Athlon 64X2 4600+, 2GB OCZ Platinum DDR400, EVGA 9800GT 1GB. All details on SCII cranked to Ultra and it runs smooth at 1900x1200. Every now and then I'll catch a stutter or a chug, but that's the worst of it. Amazing looking game!
gendoikari1
July 28, 2010 at 8:50am
A better example of a formerly-great machine would be, say, a low-end Core 2 Quad/high-end Phenom, a GeForce 9800 GT(X)(+) and 2-4GB RAM.
I would have tried running SCII on my ancient laptop (Pentium M 1.6Ghz, Intel 915GML, 1GB RAM), but it would take up 1/4 of the free space.
matmatician
August 20, 2010 at 8:08pm
I've got a Core 2 Duo E4500 and a XFX 9800 GTX XXX+. Only thing different is I have 6 gigs of ram. Havent tried running SCII tho cuz I know if I do, 3 weeks of my life will disappear and I will never get them back.
EDITED:
Ok, Got sc2, and am currently running at 1800x1030 on my 50 inch plasma tv with AA on (4x I believe) and everything else on very high. I had one stutter one time, and that was because I left Google Chrome open in the background with 3 tabs open. Closed that out, and went right back on to gaming. Runs like a boss.
Biceps
July 28, 2010 at 10:15am
Unless the person who has "an aging gaming rig" recently went out and purchased a new Mobo, along with an i5 with no upgrade path, a new copy of their OEM OS, etc, I would say your "aging gaming rig" was kind of a poor example.
My Core2Duo 2.33 GHz , 2x 8800GT in SLI with a 1680x1050 monitor is definitely an aging gaming rig (I built it three years ago), but it can still play most games that have come out at pretty reasonable FPS, often HIGH settings (thank you console makers for retarding the progress of PC gaming!)
zakn
July 28, 2010 at 7:26am
And AMD. Your Driver updates bricked me. Took me 3 hours to restore back and figure out a stable update path.
wankers
zakn
July 28, 2010 at 7:22am
Phenom x2 3hz BE. 4Gig ram. 4970x2 (no xfire, a dual gpu card)
I have ultra on all settings and it looks great. Im still a good 6 months from a new build (as an earlier commenter said, most of us are on a 12-18 month cycle).
I'm waiting to see what sandybridge has to offer (although a 700 dollar upgrade to an 870 machine is real enticing)
somethingelse
July 28, 2010 at 7:18am
I'm sure my overclocked to 3.5Ghz PentiumD 930 with 4GB of DDR2-5300, 2 150GB WD raptors in raid0 and 2 Nvidia 7900GTX SLI will run this game like a champ :P
Won't find out till price on it drops a bit though, I'm sure by then blizzard will release a few patches to fix some bugs and maybe enhance performance a bit more :)
Bender2000
July 28, 2010 at 6:57am
Must be nice to work where an "aging" system is an i5 with a great GPU. Too bad you did the test with what was sitting around, but that's life. I would have liked to see your previous Zero Point with the Core 2 Quad and 8800GTX cards, that is pretty mid level these days everywhere esle but your office. I have a Phenom X4 at 2.4GHz and a single 8800GTS on a 20" LCD and no problems yet. Kudos to Bilzzard for making the game scale well. I'm gathering the parts for a new sys based on a Core i7 930 and GTX470 right now but looks like I really don't need to upgrade to play.
hagbard
July 28, 2010 at 6:16am
As everyone else said, your "aging beast" is still more powerful than most of the PCs used by us, the readers. My PC is a much better example of an aging beast; it has a Q6600 CPU and a GeForce 8800GTS. It still plays every new game I throw at it, and usually with high settings, at 1920 x 1200. It's probably much closer to the specifications of a PC owned by an average gamer interested in SC2.
BAMT
July 28, 2010 at 6:30am
Q6600 and 8600GT over here and it still gets at least 40FPS on newer games with tweaked settings.
jakthebomb
July 28, 2010 at 6:15am
My Macbook Pro 13" is the 2010 model, has the following configuration. a Intel core 2 duo at 2.40Ghz, 4 GB DDR3 RAM, Nvidia 320m. high settings, no slowdowns. I think the 12GB of ram that the first system had was NOT realistic at all. The most i have ever seen in a desktop was 8GB, also i think Maximum PC has too high of expectations in regards to Gamining, The difference between 100 and 60 FPS is bull, if you are using a LCD screen running at 60hz, anything higher than 60FPS is pointless as the Screen won't be able to show the difference.
jakthebomb
Caboose
July 28, 2010 at 7:06am
On Intel systems with DDR3 running in tri-channel mode (6-RAM slots), you're ram will be 3, 6, or 12 GB (I guess you could run 9GB if you wanted very mismatched). AMD systems, and systems running Dual-Channel mode (4-RAM slots) you'll find with, mostly, 8GB of RAM. I've yet to see a 16GB system.
And your comment about the framerate and the monitor refresh rate. Sure, the monitor won't display more than 60FPS, but if the game is running at a much higher framerate, then you've got a lot of blanket room for the FPS to drop. a 40FPS drop from 100 to 60 is a lot easier to handle, than a 40FPS drop from 60 to 20. Heck, the human eye can only see what, 30fps. So technically, anything over 30fps is a waste! ;)
jakthebomb
July 28, 2010 at 10:10am
For the RAM, i was saying that not many have a system equiped with that much ram. I do know that it is possible. But in reality does a More powerful CPU make a difference with gaming? I could have swarn that the GPU takes care of most aspects of gaming. CPU is for AI, Sound, Scripts, Waypoints, and overall how the game functions. GPU is for Graphics, Physics. I don't think i could see better performance in gaming with anything above a 2Ghz dual core CPU. For the Graphics card, though i can understand better performance with a better card.
Here are the Specs Maximum PC should have used,
The Ultimate system,
core i7, Quad running at 3+Ghz, 16GB of DDR3 RAM in dual channel, and a Geforce 480, in SLI mode.
The Gaming Enthusiest,
Intel Core 2 Quad, Running at 2.66Ghz, 4 or 8GB of DDR3 RAM in dual channel, and a Geforce 465, in SLI mode.
The Avrage Gamer,
Intel Core 2 Duo, Running at 2.0+Ghz, 4GB of DDR2 or DDR3 RAM, in dual Channel, and a Geforce 330 or 320 single card
The Budget PC,
Intel Pentimum Dual Core Running at 2.0+Ghz, 2GB of DDR2 RAM in dual channel, and a Geforce 9600 or 9800 single card
The aging system,
Intel Pentimum 4 HT 3.0Ghz, 1GB of DDR2 RAM in dual Channel, and a Geforce 6800, 7600, 8600, or 9400, single card.
This gives you a better range, as some people are still using a Pre Core type processor. Also what about non DirectX 10 cards?
jakthebomb
Dac
July 28, 2010 at 6:07am
Wanted to say that I like the idea of testing the latest games against current real-world hardware configs that any of us might be running. We just need a better spread of hardware. This article is too close to being 2 high end machines and then 2 machines no one would realistically use. Yes I know there is some grey area in there but not much. But still, I would like to see more of this. Cheers!
avenger48
July 28, 2010 at 6:06am
I suspect Maximum PC needs to do a hardware survey, to see what its readers are actually running. It would be interesting to see.
Also, if anyone is wondering if they can run this game and don't know about it already, System Requirements Lab (I think a nVidia sub-company) has the Can You Run It tool.
brak
August 03, 2010 at 9:56pm
According to Blizzard, Starcraft II should run on my 3.5 year-old laptop with nVidia graphics. Sweet. I was thinking of running it on the almost new server, but that's in the back room and it has Server 2003 running on it and it's a bloody desktop system. I guess it would have to run inside an XP virtual machine, which would be more hassle than it's worth. Oh, and I'd have to install a video card. Yay for 3.5 year-old laptops!! I remember when Age of Kings came out. OK, I don't actually remember it much. I seem to have lost a week right about then to playing the game.
matmatician
August 02, 2010 at 3:20pm
Yeah, that is a pretty good idea. I feel like I cant be the only one out there running a Core 2 Duo and 9800 series gpu. And the weird thing is, I'm pretty content with that. Runs ME2, MW2 both flawlessly on my 50" plasma with 2x AA on.
MPC, Time for a Hardware Survey!!!
Havok
July 28, 2010 at 8:58am
Not everyone likes to state their PC specs as their signature. Maybe, if MPC ever does do a parts survey, they could add an option to the Profile page specifically for system specs. I'm definitely curious to see what some other people are running...
Jeffredo
July 27, 2010 at 10:30pm
From what I've read you can force it with Nvidia cards/drivers, but not ATI. Blizzard didn't see fit to include it in the game but at least Forceware gives you a work-around.
jonahkirk
July 27, 2010 at 8:54pm
I'm a Max pc guide, but try making a build last 4 to five years-with some upgrades along the way (new gpu, hard drive (SSD), operating system. I mean really, a working class bloke with 6 machines-office/gaming rig/ HTPC, laptop, sons computer, daughters netbook, server-I can't wait to upgrade this AMD 939 Athlon X2 3800, but all five other machines filled that replacement gap. At least my 5770, and Intel G1 SSD keep games from sucking too badly. So, 60 months, then 1055t or Bulldozer-I don't know if I can wait.
vistageek
July 27, 2010 at 8:32pm
I never knew they made a monitor with 1900x1200 res. Mine runs at 1920x1200. :/
I Jedi
July 27, 2010 at 8:24pm
Um, your three year old machine should be able to run Starcraft II okay. I checked the system specs, and I can say that this game was meant to be played by the masses, not just the elite gaming-rigs.
ElderJefferson
July 28, 2010 at 4:23am
I put together an AMD Phenom II X3 710, GTX260 with 4G DDR3 last year, and that apparently doesn't come close to MPC's "aging system"! I feel so old...and cheap.
canbbb
July 27, 2010 at 8:00pm
I know you work for "Maximum PC", but I have to agree with the majority of posters here, your mid rig is a top notch machine still. A GTX 260 is much more in-line with what should pass nowadays for a mid-range. A GTX 295 is way up there and no way gets outplayed by a GTX 470 except for the rare DX11 games out there. A real top notch machine would sport 2 x 480 SLIs.
Here's what I would suggest:
Top: 2 X 480 (or 470s) SLI or Crossfire 5870s
Middle: 260 or 4870
Low but still realistically good and playable: 8800 GTX or 3870
And then you can try it on a notebook or laptop, just for fun. That was interesting I have to admit.
On another note, the point of the article: StarCraft is playable on many machines - got it. I've started it today, and I can see why: while the many units on one screen can be demanding on a CPU, there's nothing very demanding GPU-wise... I don't see the subtle shadows and light play that First person shooters out there have (nor would I expect to since this is a RTS). Just saying.
gamefreakjtb
July 27, 2010 at 7:49pm
Love your magazine to death, love the website, but an i5 is aging? So you're saying my Q9400 is dead? Eff that! I am upgrading in two days to crossfire 5770s and my rig plays SC2 on max at about 40-60 with vertical sync included at 1080. My rig is AMAZING and it's budget, if that's aging, you guys need to open your eyes a bit. It may not be dream machine, but no one has the $16,000 to blow on their PC like you guys did. I have my rig for 950 with monitor, and she's amazing. (Her name is Janet)
Basically, I'd like to see a P4 with 512mb of DDR400 and a Wintec 4 series Nvidia GPU. (My previous rig) Now, THAT's aging. And I'm sure it'd run well enough, somewhere around 15-20, on medium?
I'm calling shenanigans.
Lol, okay, I'm done ranting.
Love,
Gamefreakjtb
Caboose
July 28, 2010 at 6:56am
Let me tell you from personal experience, that Crossfired 5770's are sweet! I was running Crossfired 3870's for a little over a year, and then upgrade from the 38xx series to the 57xx series was HUGE! Major power savings, performance boosts, etc. You'll be really happy with your crossfired 5770's.
My Captcha for today: the lyrics
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Multi-Monitor Usage On The Rise http://t.co/eWfJfCEG9 hours 55 min ago
- maximumpc: Windows 8 Consumer Preview Coming On February 29 http://t.co/3Nd04FdR15 hours 43 min ago
- maximumpc: Can RIM *ever* catch a break? Not today! App World numbers not as great as previously reported http://t.co/3ERRhr311 day 11 hours ago
