PDA

View Full Version : StarCraft 2 System Requirements




haiggy
May 19, 2007, 06:37 PM
Hey guys,
I was just wondering... what do you think the system requirements for this game will be? I'm thinking of getting the next revision of the MacBook Pro... do you think I'll be able to run the game with full settings and not experience any slow downs? Run it above 60 fps?

I know it's all speculation and nobody really knows, but I don't want to be disappointed with the gameplay. It looks too awesome.

Do you think it would run well on ANY of Apple's current offerings?

Thanks



NickElls
May 19, 2007, 06:54 PM
Seeing as WarCraft III runs well on my 1.83 GHz iMac, StarCraft II will probably run well on a new Macbook Pro, which would probably be about the same specifications if not higher.

Nermal
May 19, 2007, 06:58 PM
It's apparently been in development for around 4 years, so I wouldn't expect the hardware requirements to be too steep. You'll need to wait and see to be sure, but I'd be amazed if it fails to run on any Intel system (not counting the GMA-based machines).

statikcat
May 19, 2007, 07:11 PM
Graphics on full? Doubtfull.. probably 70-80% though. 3/4.. should still look great. I havnt beed able to play one game on my MBP Core Duo 2 with 2gb of ram on full yet. At least a recent game that isnt like the Simms or some crap.

Cabbit
May 19, 2007, 07:18 PM
Graphics on full? Doubtfull.. probably 70-80% though. 3/4.. should still look great. I havnt beed able to play one game on my MBP Core Duo 2 with 2gb of ram on full yet. At least a recent game that isnt like the Simms or some crap.
Of course you cant play any recent games on full with your MBP the X1600 is a low end graphics card.

statikcat
May 19, 2007, 07:24 PM
Didnt realize poster said "next" revision to MBP. Guess that depends on what the upgrade is :).

Rocksaurus
May 19, 2007, 09:27 PM
It's apparently been in development for around 5 years, so I wouldn't expect the hardware requirements to be too steep. You'll need to wait and see to be sure, but I'd be amazed if it fails to run on any Intel system (not counting the GMA-based machines).

I've heard that number floating around (5 years dev) can anyone post a solid source on that info?? Since Blizz doesn't have any system requirements posted or a release date or anything really, I just assumed it's got years to go before we see it... If it'd been in development for 5 years then you'd think they could ballpark some of this info for us?

Mr.Texor
May 19, 2007, 09:38 PM
It's apparently been in development for around 5 years, so I wouldn't expect the hardware requirements to be too steep.

Tho this seems to make sense, it's not always like that. Many games usually are in development for more than 2-3 years and even then require the latest hardware.

IIRC, some developers.. develop their games using hardware specifications for future video cards and latest technology. For example, the new crysis game. I think it's been in development for more than 2+ years and they are going to require some of the best hardware to run it.

Said that, blizzard always tries to have a really wide range of hardware that can play their games. their latest (WoW) can be played in some very old hardware :)

mattscott306
May 19, 2007, 09:46 PM
Blizzard uses a well thought out process to try to get as many gamers to play their games as possible. Like the poster above said- You can play WoW on a wide range of computers, and I remember I played Diablo 2 on what was then a slow computer when it came out. It's just how they do things.

haiggy
May 19, 2007, 10:10 PM
Well the thing is, I'm a hardcore WC3 player and I got my iBook 3-4 years ago. So around the time it game out / a little after it came out. And yet, I get pretty crappy frame rates. I can get a max of 34 and it will go to 0.3 in some cases. Seeing as the hardware was out AFTER the game was released, I was kind of disappointed. Now I can't wait to get my MacBook Pro and own it up... I'm expecting a 25% increase in my skill based on my technical limitations I have now. I don't want this to be the case with StarCraft 2, where I'm getting the computer BEFORE its released and not getting ultimate results. Kind of see my point?

AoWolf
May 19, 2007, 10:40 PM
Well the thing is, I'm a hardcore WC3 player and I got my iBook 3-4 years ago. So around the time it game out / a little after it came out. And yet, I get pretty crappy frame rates. I can get a max of 34 and it will go to 0.3 in some cases. Seeing as the hardware was out AFTER the game was released, I was kind of disappointed. Now I can't wait to get my MacBook Pro and own it up... I'm expecting a 25% increase in my skill based on my technical limitations I have now. I don't want this to be the case with StarCraft 2, where I'm getting the computer BEFORE its released and not getting ultimate results. Kind of see my point?

It just too early to know really.The time to ask is when it goes to beta.

ReanimationLP
May 19, 2007, 11:37 PM
The only thing they have said is that it requires Pixel Shader 2.0.

So, you need a 9500-series or better ATi card, or a GeForce FX or higher.

Since the Macbook Pros have the X1600, they're great for it.

I'm willing to bet its running on a very very tweaked and rebuilt Warcraft III engine, with new graphical goodies and abilities.

Fearless Leader
May 19, 2007, 11:39 PM
on the faq they say it has a very scalable engine that could run on an variety of systems.

ReanimationLP
May 19, 2007, 11:52 PM
on the faq they say it has a very scalable engine that could run on an variety of systems.

Yeah, I mean Pixel Shader 2.0 has been out since 2002/2003 graphics chips.

I know the GMA 950, and all current ATi and nVidia offerings have Pixel Shader 2.0.

Err, if you dont have 2.0, you might want to just buy a new computer. Or a new video card. Even like a GeForce FX5200 will play this game.

Soulstorm
May 20, 2007, 02:43 AM
I know that Blizzard creates games that are not demanding in terms of hardware, but guys, do you believe the iMac in my Specs will play this game at an acceptable speed?

Counterfit
May 20, 2007, 04:41 AM
At least a recent game that isnt like the Simms or some crap.

Did this remind anyone else of old RAM modules, or am I just that much of a geek?

Benjamin
May 20, 2007, 04:55 AM
Did this remind anyone else of old RAM modules, or am I just that much of a geek?

Yes and I miss my old Quadra :(

ReanimationLP
May 20, 2007, 05:38 PM
Did this remind anyone else of old RAM modules, or am I just that much of a geek?

30-pin or 72-pin? ;)

ezekielrage_99
May 20, 2007, 06:41 PM
I do have to admitt Blizzard does a very good job in releasing products that are very well supported over a variety of different operating systems and hardware.

I can't see how SC2 will be any different, and I am glad that it wasn't a Universe of Starcraft game....

I think the game will need 1GB RAM, 20GB on the HDD and most probable 64MB to 128MB video card minimum to run.

Now to wait another 5 years for the release.......

;)

bobber205
May 20, 2007, 07:21 PM
5 years?!

That quick?! :eek:

Kidding aside, I think everyone will be surprised how quickly it arrives.

applekid
May 20, 2007, 07:57 PM
Everybody is flipping out about system requirements that don't exist yet... :confused:

It might be more appropriate to ask if there was a release date.

statikcat
May 20, 2007, 08:02 PM
If they have been working on it for 5 years then they didnt have a full staff on it the whole time.. no way. Seriously this isn't an entirely new game.. just new graphics and mod'd and new units. And new compaigns. I cant believe it would take a full staff 5 years unless the game was at least near ground up. I bet it was hardly worked on the 1-2 years TBC was being worked on :)

topgunn
May 20, 2007, 08:09 PM
They make comments in the FAQ about the possibility of having DX10 only graphics effects. If this is true, the answer is "NO". You will not be able to run SC2 on any current Mac (or the next revision either) with EVERYTHING maxed out with or without Boot Camp.

About the release date, I think late 2008 is a reasonable estimate. I doubt highly that it will be out in 2007 or even early 2008 due to the lack of hard info they have been able to provide.

Chone
May 20, 2007, 08:20 PM
Anyone who has played Warcraft III can tell from a hundred feet away that Starcraft is using the same engine.

Judging by the screenshots and graphics, I think a computer that can handle C&C3 decently will be able to handle Starcraft 2 beatifully.

And yes, the MBP does handle C&C3 decently.

Xeem
May 20, 2007, 08:39 PM
I'm just hoping my iBook can handle it. I'll play through the single player campaign on my PC (it has a GeForce 7900GS), but I'm hoping to be able to play on-the-go as well. This game could be what it finally takes to replace the World of Warcraft addiction that has run rampant amongst my group of friends for years.

dethl
May 21, 2007, 08:33 AM
Some of us might not be able to run 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF with no frameskips but I'll be happy getting SC2 to run decently.

I have a PM G5 Dual 2.0Ghz and soon I'll be putting a 7800GS in it to replace my ailing 9600 Pro. This little change should get me well into the SC2 requirements. A little more RAM won't hurt either.

Catfish_Man
May 21, 2007, 10:07 AM
I think many of you are underestimating how much has changed in the engine. For example, it's using Havok for physics, where WarCraft 3 (as far as I know) didn't do physics at all.

Queso
May 21, 2007, 10:14 AM
Having never played Starcraft I'm not yet sure whether this game is for me, but I'm hoping the X600 in my G5 iMac should be sufficient. Just to give the option.

topgunn
May 21, 2007, 11:02 AM
Some of us might not be able to run 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF with no frameskips but I'll be happy getting SC2 to run decently.

I have a PM G5 Dual 2.0Ghz and soon I'll be putting a 7800GS in it to replace my ailing 9600 Pro. This little change should get me well into the SC2 requirements. A little more RAM won't hurt either.

Where did you find a 7800 for a G5?

PianoPete
May 21, 2007, 12:40 PM
Having never played Starcraft I'm not yet sure whether this game is for me, but I'm hoping the X600 in my G5 iMac should be sufficient. Just to give the option.

You poor neglected soul. You should consider trying it. It's always a frontrunner in 'best computer games of all time' type polls and has a 10.0 rating at Inside Mac Games.

killmoms
May 21, 2007, 12:56 PM
I think many of you are underestimating how much has changed in the engine. For example, it's using Havok for physics, where WarCraft 3 (as far as I know) didn't do physics at all.

And this brings up an interesting pointówasn't there some huge flap a few years ago about how Havok was too much work to port to PPC for a number of reasons? I seem to recall a number of A-list titles not coming to the Mac because they used the Havok physics engine. It'd surprise me if SC2 is supported on PPC Macs at all (especially since it probably won't come out until sometime in 2008, probably later than sooner).

FullCollapse
May 21, 2007, 03:28 PM
You poor neglected soul. You should consider trying it. It's always a frontrunner in 'best computer games of all time' type polls and has a 10.0 rating at Inside Mac Games.

i second this opinion. cheap too, you can get the game and expansion for $20, even less on ebay i bet.

anyway, i bet current technology will run SC2. not on full, but definitely playable. can't wait for this game!

mkaake
May 21, 2007, 04:17 PM
They make comments in the FAQ about the possibility of having DX10 only graphics effects. If this is true, the answer is "NO". You will not be able to run SC2 on any current Mac (or the next revision either) with EVERYTHING maxed out with or without Boot Camp.

About the release date, I think late 2008 is a reasonable estimate. I doubt highly that it will be out in 2007 or even early 2008 due to the lack of hard info they have been able to provide.

They've stated that they'll be releasing a mac version side by side with the windows version... i.e., no DX10 required, as there *is* no DX10 on a mac. Whether they do that with the windows version or not is pointless, as both versions will likely reside on the same disc.

topgunn
May 21, 2007, 04:27 PM
They've stated that they'll be releasing a mac version side by side with the windows version... i.e., no DX10 required, as there *is* no DX10 on a mac. Whether they do that with the windows version or not is pointless, as both versions will likely reside on the same disc.
I didn't not say that there was a possibility of requiring DX10 but rather that there might be DX10 only graphics effects. In others words, there may be some lighting or shading effects that are only available with the appropriate DX10 hardware and software. The game will still run fine on DX7, 8 or 9 hw/sw or OpenGL for Mac users but they will not be able to get the "full" visual experience. It has nothing to do with Blizzard releaing a Mac/PC hybrid at launch.

Will StarCraft II take advantage of DirectX 10? What other graphical goodies are included?

The game will be compatible with DirectX 10, and we're still considering whether there will be exclusive DirectX 10 graphic effects, but the graphics engine will also be very scalable to ensure that a wide range of different systems will be capable of running StarCraft II. The new engine is also capable of rendering very large units, as well as large numbers of units on screen together. Havok physics have been integrated into the engine for added realism as well.

killmoms
May 21, 2007, 04:30 PM
I don't think there's anything about DirectX 10 that would prevent the same effects from being possible on the Mac, as long as unified shader architecture hardware was available. That is to say: if NVIDIA 8000-series or ATI 2xxx-series GPUs come to the Mac before Starcraft II launches, those machines will be capable of producing the same effects as on the Windows version.

Soulstorm
May 21, 2007, 05:42 PM
I think that multi-threaded OpenGL which is implemented in the newer versions of OS X will give a very good boost to warcraft 3. I know it did on World Of Warcraft...

rbarris
May 22, 2007, 09:50 PM
Some of us might not be able to run 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF with no frameskips but I'll be happy getting SC2 to run decently.

I have a PM G5 Dual 2.0Ghz and soon I'll be putting a 7800GS in it to replace my ailing 9600 Pro. This little change should get me well into the SC2 requirements.

As system requirements have not yet been stated, it is too soon to know if a 2GHz G5 will be supported or not; keep this in mind when planning your upgrades.

rbarris
May 22, 2007, 09:52 PM
IMO the term "DX10 effects" can be confusing.

Really the issue at hand, is Gen4 shader hardware, for example the GeForce 8800.

Hardware is what makes the effects, so when I see "DX10 card", to me that means Gen4 shader hardware.

If and when Gen4 shader hardware is available on OS X under OpenGL, we can take a look at effects that are unique to Gen4 hardware. The presence or lack of DirectX on OS X is not an issue.

G3n0cide2007
Jun 1, 2007, 11:02 PM
I know it's to early to tell, but do you think my system (which i will list in a second) will be able to run it at full?

First off im using a
AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor 6000+
2 gig ddr2 ram - Corsair
Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb

Using this on a Asus M2N32-SLIDeluxe motherboard and using Vista as my OS.

Thanks!

bobber205
Jun 1, 2007, 11:47 PM
I know it's to early to tell, but do you think my system (which i will list in a second) will be able to run it at full?

First off im using a
AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor 6000+
2 gig ddr2 ram - Corsair
Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb

Using this on a Asus M2N32-SLIDeluxe motherboard and using Vista as my OS.

Thanks!

Dude. You have a freakin' 8800! What do you think? :p

G3n0cide2007
Jun 2, 2007, 12:37 AM
Dude. You have a freakin' 8800! What do you think? :p

ughh.. well going by your post... i'd say yes.. but as im no technical expert... that was the reason i asked :P correct?

bobber205
Jun 2, 2007, 12:53 AM
Though this could change any second, the 8800 is pretty much the best video card out there. You should be fine. :D

Erasmus
Jun 2, 2007, 01:00 AM
Dude. You have a freakin' 8800! What do you think? :p

Agreed.

Further, as punishment for your ignorance, I shall be forced to permanently confiscate the 8800. I request you mail it to me.

;)

CJM
Jun 2, 2007, 09:47 AM
If they have been working on it for 5 years then they didnt have a full staff on it the whole time.. no way. Seriously this isn't an entirely new game.. just new graphics and mod'd and new units. And new compaigns. I cant believe it would take a full staff 5 years unless the game was at least near ground up. I bet it was hardly worked on the 1-2 years TBC was being worked on :)

It isn't a new game... apart from the new engine... apart from the new units.. apart from the new missions...

Then what pray, is it? :rolleyes:

miller218
Jun 4, 2007, 08:25 AM
You're comparing the next revision of a high end laptop with a consumer laptop that was languishing at the time. I think SC2 will be very playable for you.



Well the thing is, I'm a hardcore WC3 player and I got my iBook 3-4 years ago. So around the time it game out / a little after it came out. And yet, I get pretty crappy frame rates. I can get a max of 34 and it will go to 0.3 in some cases. Seeing as the hardware was out AFTER the game was released, I was kind of disappointed. Now I can't wait to get my MacBook Pro and own it up... I'm expecting a 25% increase in my skill based on my technical limitations I have now. I don't want this to be the case with StarCraft 2, where I'm getting the computer BEFORE its released and not getting ultimate results. Kind of see my point?

Hard-Hat-Mac
Jun 6, 2007, 11:12 AM
Hey All,

I'm pretty sure SC2 will run fine on the newest SR MBP but I just wanted to double check.

topgunn
Jun 6, 2007, 04:37 PM
Hey All,

I'm pretty sure SC2 will run fine on the newest SR MBP but I just wanted to double check.
Before the new MBP was released, we were speculating about how a game we know very little about would run on a computer of which we don't know the specs. Now, we know about the MBP but we still don't know the first thing about the system reqs for SC2 so there is no way to be sure. I imagine the most important thing is when SC2 is actually released. If it is released before the end of 2008 then the MBP should run everything great. If it comes out in 2009, then it may be a little underpowered.

And yes, I do not think 2009 is out of the question for SC2.

Ja Di ksw
Jun 6, 2007, 04:50 PM
While of course we won't know for sure until it comes out, I think it'd be fine. I run WC3 at full everything on my 1.5 GHz PB G4. I think the new MBP's will handle it well. Full settings? Shrug. Probably, but I dunno. Beef it all the way up with RAM before you try :).

Dynamyk
Jun 7, 2007, 06:03 PM
I hope it will run on my Macbook :(

CANEHDN
Jun 7, 2007, 11:02 PM
I know it's to early to tell, but do you think my system (which i will list in a second) will be able to run it at full?

First off im using a
AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor 6000+
2 gig ddr2 ram - Corsair
Nvidia 8800 GTS 640mb

Using this on a Asus M2N32-SLIDeluxe motherboard and using Vista as my OS.

Thanks!

Stop trying to brag. You know it's perfectly fine.

aliquis-
Jun 11, 2007, 05:00 AM
My friend who is more of a gamer than me didn't thought so, but then he plays wow in 1920x1080 and probably have many settings above "low".

Also it probably depends on how many units you have, on my athlon64 3000+ with 6800le even wc3 lags in 1024x768 mid when there is a big fight, and I guess we can be very sure that sc2 will need more gpu than that and the 8600m gt isn't that much faster than my gpu, i think, 50-100% maybe ;/

giganten
Jun 11, 2007, 11:01 AM
This game looks cool..
I hope it will run on the 2.2ghz SR MBP.

Chone
Jun 11, 2007, 02:39 PM
LOL as always you guys are underrating your computers and overrating Starcraft 2 (graphically speaking of course).

Have you seen the SC2 trailers? Do you know Blizzard? Do you know your computer? You can come and saw my **** off if your SR MBP doesn't run Starcraft 2, unless of course SC2 is released like 4 years from now...

haiggy
Jun 11, 2007, 05:51 PM
I heard release date is August 2008.... so who knows

amusiccale
Jun 11, 2007, 06:19 PM
LOL as always you guys are underrating your computers and overrating Starcraft 2 (graphically speaking of course).

Have you seen the SC2 trailers? Do you know Blizzard? Do you know your computer? You can come and saw my **** off if your SR MBP doesn't run Starcraft 2, unless of course SC2 is released like 4 years from now...

I think this point is more to indirectly brag about your most recent equipment purchases. "Do you think that two 8800s in SLI will run SC2 on minimum settings? What sort of framerates would you expect with an octocore MP? Will it run on my multitouch ultraportable?" :D

aliquis-
Jun 14, 2007, 09:27 AM
LOL as always you guys are underrating your computers and overrating Starcraft 2 (graphically speaking of course).

Have you seen the SC2 trailers? Do you know Blizzard? Do you know your computer? You can come and saw my **** off if your SR MBP doesn't run Starcraft 2, unless of course SC2 is released like 4 years from now...WC3 gets quite low fpses here in 1024x768 everything medium on my 6800le 128MB in os x during fights. And I assume sc2 will have both more units and better graphics so I wouldn't be so sure. Depends on what you mean with "run" thought. WC3 ran on my GF2 Ultra 64MB aswell, just with even more lag, even on low quality, and in Windows.

Cabbit
Jun 14, 2007, 10:40 AM
The only thing they have said is that it requires Pixel Shader 2.0.

So, you need a 9500-series or better ATi card, or a GeForce FX or higher.

Since the Macbook Pros have the X1600, they're great for it.

I'm willing to bet its running on a very very tweaked and rebuilt Warcraft III engine, with new graphical goodies and abilities.

Geforce 6 higher, Geforce FX is only kinda DX9 Shader 2 compliant. As is evidence that even the fastest FX card ran Half life 2 in DX 8.1 Shader level 1.3 mode. This was common depending on the game and shaders it used. FX cards are not fully Shader 2 compliment.

jonnos
Jun 15, 2007, 03:03 AM
i know its off topic but.

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/

new leaked video with new units.

:D :D :D :D

Chone
Jun 15, 2007, 06:25 PM
WC3 gets quite low fpses here in 1024x768 everything medium on my 6800le 128MB in os x during fights. And I assume sc2 will have both more units and better graphics so I wouldn't be so sure. Depends on what you mean with "run" thought. WC3 ran on my GF2 Ultra 64MB aswell, just with even more lag, even on low quality, and in Windows.

Low FPS? What do you play FFA or 4v4 or what? I have a 6800XT in my PC but I used to have a 9600SE and it ran Warcraft 3 at 1280x1024 all high and it never dropped enough to be noticeable and I'm confident it will run Starcraft 2 at a playable level without degrading the experience, I mean, it runs Command & Conquer 3 just fine and THAT looks more demanding than SC2.

dethl
Jun 18, 2007, 01:19 PM
Where did you find a 7800 for a G5?

Its not for a G5 yet, I have to modify the firmware with stuff up at StrangeDogs. Then I get the awesome power that is the 7800 :D

epine
Mar 9, 2008, 11:57 PM
anyone know if the MBA will be able to run it?

xparaparafreakx
Mar 10, 2008, 12:09 AM
anyone know if the MBA will be able to run it?

I will assume that will be a NO, but my air is great for everything else, even for Starcraft I and Brood War.

Preps debit card for high end MBP 17" when Starcraft II. Unless CD Macbook Pro 17" can do it.

epine
Mar 10, 2008, 12:12 AM
Yup I just cancelled my order for the MBA. I had it ordered since March 1st and thankfully because of the delayed shipping, It will allow me to cancel my order.

redsteven
Mar 11, 2008, 02:00 PM
Yup I just cancelled my order for the MBA. I had it ordered since March 1st and thankfully because of the delayed shipping, It will allow me to cancel my order.

IMO, the macbook air is for a very specific audience. It's for the consumer that's on the go a lot, wants something real easy to carry, and doesn't plan on playing games much and doesn't need to do anything heavy duty with their computer.

Games and the macbook air probably won't mix... you'd be better off with a macbook pro if ur interested in games.

QCassidy352
Mar 11, 2008, 02:34 PM
I will assume that will be a NO, but my air is great for everything else, even for Starcraft I and Brood War.

Preps debit card for high end MBP 17" when Starcraft II. Unless CD Macbook Pro 17" can do it.

CD 17" MBP will definitely be able to run it. It will run on all intels except *maybe* those with integrated graphics. the x1600 will be more than sufficient.

FullCollapse
Mar 11, 2008, 03:29 PM
CD 17" MBP will definitely be able to run it. It will run on all intels except *maybe* those with integrated graphics. the x1600 will be more than sufficient.

we don't know that for sure yet, but i would agree with this statement. if anyone can make the game run on what will be lower end machines by the release of this game, it's blizzard.

rbarris
Mar 22, 2008, 01:44 AM
Anyone who has played Warcraft III can tell from a hundred feet away that Starcraft is using the same engine.


This isn't true. The Warcraft III engine doesn't know anything about vertex buffers, vertex/pixel shaders, normal maps, HDR, etc. The SC2 engine has all of those and more.

Charybdisz
Jun 14, 2008, 12:34 PM
Hi,

what do you think, will SC2 run very well on the newest 2,4 GHz iMac?

bobber205
Jun 14, 2008, 01:57 PM
Hi,

what do you think, will SC2 run very well on the newest 2,4 GHz iMac?

Why do people ask questions like this? Of course it will.

Charybdisz
Jun 14, 2008, 02:45 PM
Why do people ask questions like this? Of course it will.

How do you know it? So do you think that the optimal system requirements will be the same config like the "slowest" new iMac?

Because I plan to buy an iMac, but I want to make sure that it can run SC2 with nice graphic settings. And I don't want to invest into the faster iMac 20'' if it is not necessary.

bobber205
Jun 14, 2008, 04:34 PM
I'm sure SC2 will run at least decently on all computers with the specs of the iMac. (modern graphics card, C2D processor etc).

Of course I don't think it'll run it at full settings at a super high res and DirectX but few computers will.

ShiggyMiyamoto
Jan 2, 2009, 09:43 PM
My guess is that SC2 will run just fine on computers that were released from at least 2006 and up. My comp specs in my sig, and I'm going to buy SC2 whenever it releases. I have all 3 major OSes available (OS X, XP Pro, and Vista Home Premium 64 bit) to test with. If none of thoses OSes can run it on my hardware, then oh well. I'll save it for when I have hardware that CAN play it. No biggie.

Also, if such demanding games as WoW can run on integrated chips such as the Intel GMA 950 and the GMA X3100, then I bet SC2 will be able to perform just as well if not better than WoW or WC3 and the like. I wouldn't worry so much. It'd suck if Blizzard excludes support for the aforementioned chipsets, but oh well. Heh.

Hard-Hat-Mac
Apr 11, 2009, 11:03 AM
This is the reason why i ordered my new 24in iMac 3.06 4gb ram and the ATI HD4850 512mb card!

I hope it is released sooner than i need to buy another mac to run it at full capacity...

ShiggyMiyamoto
Apr 11, 2009, 11:17 AM
Since I posted last I also got Windows 7 to play with, also 64 bit. I'll report back once I have my paws on the game. ^_^

aznguyen316
Apr 11, 2009, 11:30 AM
I read it was on the list for 2009 game releases.. so yeah like everyone else, the sooner the better for it to run optimally on our systems.

rbarris
Apr 11, 2009, 05:49 PM
While official specs have not been posted yet, and the game is still being developed and optimized, informally speaking any Intel Mac with ATI or NVIDIA graphics should be fine, including the newer 9400M based systems.

aznguyen316
Apr 11, 2009, 10:17 PM
I would agree.

otis123
May 5, 2009, 12:56 AM
While official specs have not been posted yet, and the game is still being developed and optimized, informally speaking any Intel Mac with ATI or NVIDIA graphics should be fine, including the newer 9400M based systems.

How is the mac version coming along? i know you guys do great work, but i'm kind of afraid its going to be a cider port, and i haven't been very impressed with some of the more recent mac games like spore and COD4. I just don't want to have to run it with windows to get better performance.

Aranince
May 5, 2009, 01:58 AM
Blizzard makes their games native AFAIK. Neither the original Starcraft or WoW were cider ports.

sammich
May 5, 2009, 02:04 AM
Blizzard makes their games native AFAIK. Neither the original Starcraft or WoW were cider ports.

Starcraft.....Cider?

If I can find the picture, I'll post it, but the beta (or alpha) of Starcraft 2 was being demoed on Mac Pros. Sure, it could've been in boot camp. But I don't think that would be the case.

All Blizzard games are native, dual-OS discs (windows/mac versions come on the same disc). If only more gamehouses followed Blizzard.

otis123
May 6, 2009, 11:36 PM
I guess you guys are right, blizzard is the only real dev that does native versions, I really appreciate that they are having a mac beta!