DiabloFans

The 8120 is preferable among those two processors, but consider that the Intel Core i5-3450 is about the same price, more power efficeint, and much faster.

The 550 Ti is fine, but if you can afford to step up to a 560 (about $50 more, the speed is a lot better: http://www.anandtech...duct/541?vs=543

Quote from Enty

I'm wondering if I should buy a 680 or a 7970, they're both great and amazing but I feel like games are optimized for Nvidia alot more, including D3. which has promotions all over Nvidia pages.

If you can wait, I'd hold out for a 680 for reduced noise and power consumption. But the 7970 is still a good card, and both are overpowered for Diablo 3*

* ...at 1080p60. Higher-resolution or faster screens could push these cards a bit.

So the big announcement was the Geforce GTX 690: http://www.anandtech...unching-may-3rd

Basically, two 680s in the physical space of one. Also costs as much as two 680s ($1000). Very classy looking design, but probably too loud for my tastes

It appears that people hoping for the 670/660 will have to keep waiting...

Quote from Ren134

Thanks for the advice. I played on 13 inches before, it was decent. I'm not quite sure why you think it ruins the game

It's all subjective. I can say from experience that the chat font used in Diablo 3 (at least the beta), can be hard to read at resolutions lower than 1600x900. It's too small for the amount of pixels. I think this is something Blizzard will have to address eventually, but it's something anyone thinking about playing the game at 1366x768 should be aware of.

If you're not going to overclock:

• You can save some money by getting a non-K CPU.
• You can save some money by using DDR3/1600 instead. Fast RAM mostly benefits integrated graphics, which you're not using.
• A quality 500 watt PSU would be enough.
• An H77 motherboard is cheaper.
• The combined savings from the above would allow you to get a GTX 680, which will outperform the 670 in all games even if the CPU is overlocked.

With a single 1080p screen, you'll have no problems with Diablo 3 at max quality with either of these approaches. Other games give better results with a 680 and a stock-clocked CPU.

Quote from Ren134

Does lower resolution look better on smaller screens?

Maybe down at the 11" level, but you won't be able to get a big enough GPU such a small laptop.

Ideally, you'd get a laptop with a 1920x1080 screen, but then it'll need a GPU that's twice as powerful (and needs twice the cooling), so the whole laptop will need to get bigger, and the weight starts to stretch the definition of "laptop"...

Desktop PCs don't have all these compromises, but if you need a laptop you just have to be aware that it won't be perfect

Once you're loaded, SSD vs. HDD is meaningless. It's all GPU from that point on*. So an SSD isn't going to improve your PvP success.

They are nice, and make great OS drives, but in general I'd consider them a luxury item with little value for gaming. Especially the 60 GB one you're looking at. It'll get very cramped, especially when you factor in future D3 expansion packs and the many programs that insist on being on your C-drive.

* Assuming you have enough RAM and CPU performance, of course.

All around medium? Probably not. The Athlon X2 is a very old processor, so CPU-intensive items will have to be low/off. But graphical options can be high with a 460. Take a look at the second paragraph of my first message.

I can't guarantee a no-lag or hardly-any-lag experience with an Althon X2. A big battle might be more than it could handle, so you'll have to be careful in those situations. It should still be playable.

No one is building new PCs with Athlons anymore, so OCZ didn't list it on ther specifications. It should work fine, though; things haven't changed much in the last several years.

That GPU should be able to max out most games settings, but it still might be sluggish during large battles becauuse your CPU can't keep it all straight. You may be in a weird situation where the graphics-intensive options (resolution, anti-aliasing, textures, fx, shadows) can be high, but CPU intensive options (physics, sound mixing) have to be low.

No. If you drop your gear when you die, in a cooperative game, especially a random one, your "team" has a strong incentive to get you killed.

When things get busy (like the four pillars thing or any cooperative game), a system that's close to the minimum requirements will struggle.

Most systems are GPU-limited, so lowering the resolution will help. Upgrading the GPU (or, in the case of an integrated graphics setup like yours, adding a discrete GPU) will improve performance and allow you to raise the quality levels.

Are you thinking about buying one of these for Diablo 3?

I won't rush to get 100%, but I imagine that over the years I'll work towards it.

Diablo-Fiend is right. I want to add that with a 250 watt PSU, space won't be an issue because it can't power a physically large card.

I recommend a Radeon 7750. It's slot-powered (meaining 75 watts max), so your PSU should be able to handle it, and it's new enough that should you build yourself a new computer, you can re-use this card. They sell for $110-$120, currently. At your monitor's 1280x1024 resolution, it can probably max out all the game's details.

Diablo 3 definitely leans hardest on the GPU. I've tried on several computers and the GPU makes all the difference. RAM amount, storage speed, CPU speed... all don't seem to have much effect (within reason; an Atom CPU with 1GB of RAM won't do it...)

Blizzard wants everyone to be able to play, so you're not going to need a monster card for this game. Any modern $150-or-more GPU should be able to play the game with all the quality levels at "high" with a 1080p screen.