In 1vs1 it wouldn´t matter. There are not enough units and players to affect your fps.
This fight gives me less than 25fps with a firstname.lastname@example.org, 2400cas12 RAM (game seems to care much more for frequency than timings)*
*FPS is in top left corner, i usually measure with fraps benchmark and by eye, but i frapsed this vid randomly which messed up colors some due to a bad setting in fraps and hurt performance quite a lot
OBS and Xsplit both run pretty well for low resolutions and FPS, like 720, 24fps for example. That's 22.1m pixels per second. 1920x1080, 48fps would be around 4.5x as many, and the overhead becomes massive. If you only lost a third of your FPS, it would be a good result for the best software capture methods (probably OBS game capture, if you can make it give you the FPS that you have set, which can be difficult at times)
So i ask again: Do you really want to run at 10-15fps instead of 25 before losing FPS further?
It's an intense fight and you can't bring a CPU to its knees so easily without two maxed armies, low worker counts and lots of static defenses, so triple the numbers and ask yourself again if you want. I think this is a very honest assessment.
Going to Piledriver which would be at best a slight step up in singlethreaded performance and then also introducing the overhead from streaming at a higher FPS and resolution would likely make your game run quite a bit worse than it does right now, though you'd have a pretty stream while your FPS stayed above 48, or whatever you set. It just sucks to drop below that number and have your stream looking bad and your game playing horribly, which is the main thing you have to watch out for, IMO, so it's my strong opinion to either buy + OC some used sandy bridge CPU or a sweet Haswell system for this game, or hold your money til you can afford something with nice singlethreaded performance, if Sc2 or certain other games are your priorityEdited by Cyro999 - 7/21/13 at 8:35pm