StarCraft2 Specs

[capoeirista]

I've never played the first one, and I don't plan on getting this, but I remember a big thread a while ago with people asking what the system reqs for this game would be. I found this article on a British gaming website, and thought it might be of use to some of you... Apparently these are taken from a Spanish gaming magazine. I guess these are PeeCee though...

http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189528

Minimum Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 25Mb RAM
CPU: Pentium 4
RAM: 1Gb
Internet: ADSL 1 MBit

Recommend Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512Mb RAM
CPU: Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb
Internet: ADSL 3 Mbit

Optimal Requirements:

GFX: Geforce 9000er or Radeon 3000er Series
CPU: Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb with DualChannel mode.

NB: "Blizzard has yet to confirm the specs, so far only confirming that the game will require Pixel Shader 2.0."

[iShater]

I was addicted to the first one, and I expect to be so to the second one.

I just hope when the Mac specs come out, my iMac can cut it.

[ninjapenguinart]

This game is one of the reasons why I bought the highest end iMac and upgraded it to 4 gigs "3rd party retailer memory"

[ruinfx]

sounds made up to be honest, i will believe it when i see it.

[haiggy]

I think my MBP would run it fine.. or I hope so.. with ATLEAST 30+ fps. The only thing that is holding me back would be my VRAM I guess with 256 instead of the 512. I just got my logic board replaced but I haven't picked it up yet... let's hope they got one with the 512 MB graphics chip on it! Haha that would be sweeet

[aidanpendragon]

How do you think my 1.42 eMac will handle it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[thejadedmonkey]

This is probably some of the worst news I've heard in ages.

I won't be able to play SC2 on my 1 year old MBP.
My friend in the navy won't be able to play SC2.

Actually, I don't know anyone who will be able to play SC2 with these sort of requirements! (all my friends have laptops)

If this is the truth, I might as well as sell my Macbook Pro for an Airbook and build a desktop... Ha! Like I could afford to:mad:

[crazzyeddie]

This is probably some of the worst news I've heard in ages.

I won't be able to play SC2 on my 1 year old MBP.
My friend in the navy won't be able to play SC2.

Actually, I don't know anyone who will be able to play SC2 with these sort of requirements! (all my friends have laptops)

If this is the truth, I might as well as sell my Macbook Pro for an Airbook and build a desktop... Ha! Like I could afford to:mad:


What are you talking about? The minimum requirements are really low. The Radeon X1600 will definitely be able to run this game, even if you only have 128MB of VRAM. Although it might not "meet" the minimum requirements, all you need to do is run at a lower resolution if it lags. Blizzard is just doing a great job of making the game scalable so that almost anyone will be able to play it.

[thejadedmonkey]

It requires 256mb of VRAM. I have 182mb.

[iShater]

Keep in mind none of this stuff is confirmed :rolleyes:

[QCassidy352]

sounds like the new imacs will do beautifully. :)

[Antares]

How do you think my 1.42 eMac will handle it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure it will be Intel Mac only. So you'll probably be out of luck... Time to upgrade, anyway, right?. :)

[Sijmen]

256MB VRAM is pretty hefty.

[nagromme]

I was hoping for lower specs, for an RTS game... but my iMac can handle these specs if true.

My MacBook Air... no.

[Krevnik]

It requires 256mb of VRAM. I have 182mb.

How do you have 182MB? Do you mean 128MB?

[Help!]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/876/876096p1.html


"Blizzard has not released final, official system requirements for StarCraft II. The numbers you're seeing are a result of independent speculation from a Spanish game magazine."

[eXan]

It requires 256mb of VRAM. I have 182mb.

VRAM means $h!t. When will people realize it?

[QCassidy352]

VRAM means $h!t. When will people realize it?

agreed. if your video card is in the named series, you'll be fine. VRAM would only matter if you were running it on a very high resolution.

Of course, since these specs are just speculation anyway, this whole discussion is pretty pointless.

[NAG]

Blizzard is very good about letting their games play on every computer that they can. Look at wow if you want an example of how low they can go.

[mauroespartan11]

:DI've never played the first one, and I don't plan on getting this, but I remember a big thread a while ago with people asking what the system reqs for this game would be. I found this article on a British gaming website, and thought it might be of use to some of you... Apparently these are taken from a Spanish gaming magazine. I guess these are PeeCee though...:confused:
:apple::apple::apple::apple::eek::(:D:mad::cool:
http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189528

Minimum Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 25Mb RAM
CPU: Pentium 4
RAM: 1Gb
Internet: ADSL 1 MBit

Recommend Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512Mb RAM
CPU: Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb
Internet: ADSL 3 Mbit

Optimal Requirements:

GFX: Geforce 9000er or Radeon 3000er Series
CPU: Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb with DualChannel mode.

NB: "Blizzard has yet to confirm the specs, so far only confirming that the game will require Pixel Shader 2.0."

[haiggy]

VRAM means $h!t. When will people realize it?

Well, that's not totally true...
I just got my MBP repaired and they gave me a 2.6GHz CPU instead of 2.2GHz logic board with 256 MB instead of 128 MB VRAM... and I get 25% more framerates... I'm sure most of it is because of the processor but VRAM has to be a part of it too...

[Shlokda]

thats a bunch of bull. The game has been in development for the past 4 years or so. Also they'll do like war 3 where you can scale all the specs and shading and textures. I'd say if you can run war 3 on full specs really well, you probably have a very good chance of running sc2 AT LEAST with sc2 specs scaled down a little bit. sc2 looks reallygood but i dont think graphically its insanely beyond war 3. Besides, they dont want to pull a crysis and alienate 3/4'ths of their faithful customers.

[eXan]

Well, that's not totally true...
I just got my MBP repaired and they gave me a 2.6GHz CPU instead of 2.2GHz logic board with 256 MB instead of 128 MB VRAM... and I get 25% more framerates... I'm sure most of it is because of the processor but VRAM has to be a part of it too...

Its very likely due to faster CPU. Some games benefit more from faster CPU, than GPU. Extra VRAM doesn't add any significant amount of FPS, especially on laptop video cards with *****ty memory buses.

Although its true that extra 128 MB can improve performance under curtain circumstances, but definitely not by 25%.

[Tom B.]

I'll be happy if I can get 20fps at minimum settings on my MacBook.

If not, my brother is building a PC for Age of Conan, so I supose I can just use that. :)

[haiggy]

I'll be happy if I can get 20fps at minimum settings on my MacBook.

If not, my brother is building a PC for Age of Conan, so I supose I can just use that. :)

Yeah, currently with WC3 in an area with fog of war and no units... I've seen as high as 275 fps. In battles and following your army it's always 80-150 fps :) So I'm hoping SC2 will be ATLEAST 30. Anything below 30 will disappoint me :(

[rbarris]

Blizzard has not released final specs for the game yet.

That said we are actively developing and testing on all the Intel Mac systems using AMD/ATI X1600,X1900,HD2400/HD2600, and also NVIDIA 7300/7600/8600/8800. So we're confident that it will be playable on any dual core Intel Mac with an AMD or NVIDIA GPU when it ships.

[QCassidy352]

We're confident that it will be playable on any dual core Intel Mac with an AMD or NVIDIA GPU when it ships.

sweet. That's great news.

How about intel with integrated graphics and/or dual G5s with dedicated graphics?

[MBHockey]

Blizzard has not released final specs for the game yet.

That said we are actively developing and testing on all the Intel Mac systems using AMD/ATI X1600,X1900,HD2400/HD2600, and also NVIDIA 7300/7600/8600/8800. So we're confident that it will be playable on any dual core Intel Mac with an AMD or NVIDIA GPU when it ships.

Awesome.

I still play the original Starcraft -- can't wait for SC2 ^_^

[Sijmen]

sweet. That's great news.

How about intel with integrated graphics and/or dual G5s with dedicated graphics?

There have been many posts about this already (questions mainly) – the answer seems to be 'we don't know yet'.

[rbarris]

I'd like to post more specifics but it would be premature. We're confident about Intel Mac with NV or ATI GPU. As the game gets closer to beta and release we can share some more details on the topic.

[Jack Flash]

Blizzard understands the economics of producing a computer game. To turn the massive profits they do they must both create a superb game, and make it playable on as many computers as possible.

Luckily they are great at doing both. Their engines are extremely scalable and I highly doubt, given the market penetration of laptops with Integrated Graphics, that the game wouldn't play on a MacBook.

However, I strongly doubt it will be universal binary.

[soberbrain]

Awesome.

I still play the original Starcraft -- can't wait for SC2 ^_^

Same here. I started playing again in anticipation of SC2. I'll have to wait until the official specs are announced before I get a new Mac.

Protoss Carriers = FTW!

[Sdashiki]

SC2 = WC3 engine with a little more visual tweaks and im sure alot more code tweaking.

So, I doubt that its going to tax todays hardware at all. WC3s engine is super clean and awesome. SC2 is just pushing it to the limits.

With that said, this game (which has been in the works since 64/128MB VRAM was top of the line) is going to play on your machine you have today...or im just hopeful. :rolleyes:

::i may be completely off::

[Tom B.]

I just thought I should warn any original StarCraft players that it no longer works for me in 10.5.3.

[rbarris]

SC2 = WC3 engine with a little more visual tweaks and im sure alot more code tweaking.

So, I doubt that its going to tax todays hardware at all. WC3s engine is super clean and awesome. SC2 is just pushing it to the limits.

With that said, this game (which has been in the works since 64/128MB VRAM was top of the line) is going to play on your machine you have today...or im just hopeful. :rolleyes:

::i may be completely off::

You're completely off, as it turns out.

The SC2 engine is brand new, completely shader based, and requires Shader Model 2.0 GPU hardware. On that basis alone it is not comparable to the WC3 engine.

While the systems I listed at top of page are not an official minimum spec for SC2 on Mac, they are an excellent starting point to consider if you are considering buying a new machine and want it to be able to run SC2 well. When we have a frozen minimum spec to publish we will do that, and I am 100% confident it will include the systems listed (Intel Mac with NVIDIA or ATI graphics).

[Ja Di ksw]

rbarris -
Let me start off by saying I love Blizzards game, and I'm sure this one is going to be no exception. SC1 is one of my all time favorite games. That being said . . . .

The announcement of SC2 happened over a year ago, and we still don't have the minimum system requirements? I'm all for making sure the game is as polished as can be and not rushing it out early, but when I look at how many units are listed on the official page and that we don't even know what will be able to run it after over a year of the announcement, I get pretty disappointed. Either things are being held back longer than I thought they would (units not being "released" even though they're long done, for example), things can only be released closer to the launch date (can you not give out system requirements until right before the launch or something?), or I think the announcement was just very premature.

Again, I love Blizzard, I just feel that if it was announced in '07 and doesn't come out until '10, it was a little premature to announce it.

[rbarris]

That isn't really correct - you now know that the machines listed above will be able to run it. What type of machine do you have, maybe I can offer some more info.

So while the hard minimum isn't yet available, as I said the machines above are in the set that we build and test on every day.

[eXan]

rbarris -
Let me start off by saying I love Blizzards game, and I'm sure this one is going to be no exception. SC1 is one of my all time favorite games. That being said . . . .

The announcement of SC2 happened over a year ago, and we still don't have the minimum system requirements? I'm all for making sure the game is as polished as can be and not rushing it out early, but when I look at how many units are listed on the official page and that we don't even know what will be able to run it after over a year of the announcement, I get pretty disappointed. Either things are being held back longer than I thought they would (units not being "released" even though they're long done, for example), things can only be released closer to the launch date (can you not give out system requirements until right before the launch or something?), or I think the announcement was just very premature.

Again, I love Blizzard, I just feel that if it was announced in '07 and doesn't come out until '10, it was a little premature to announce it.

Developers usually dont announce system requirements early to make them as accurate as possible.

As for taking so long to release SC2...

Look at SC1. Its a professional e-sport in Korea. Blzz are making SC2 to become an e-sport too - and THAT requires the game not only to be fun, but challenging and balanced. Thats is A LOT of work. I'm not sure if SC2 will be as balanced as SC1, but they are trying very hard!

[eXan]

I just thought I should warn any original StarCraft players that it does not work in 10.5.3.

I'm sorry that it's probably too late for most of you though.

:confused:

I've just played it on iMac G5 .5.3 with no issues

[Dagless]

:confused:

I've just played it on iMac G5 .5.3 with no issues

From what I've heard it's a problem with a certain breed of Intel chips.

Either way I'm buying a new iMac later this year so that'll likely run SC2 well. Can't wait for this one.

[Sijmen]

The game still starts fine on my late 2007 model Intel iMac (C2D 2.4). Didn't play though, maybe that would crash, no idea.

[nagromme]

I have never played an RTS game before*, but StarCraft 2 looks like the one to win me over! I'll be delighted if it turns out my Air can run it (which means no key disc protection of course) but if I can't game on the go, I'll just play at home on my iMac.

* Unless you count Lemmings or Hordes of Orcs... which are sort of related concepts. Sort of.

[Barham]

You're completely off, as it turns out.

The SC2 engine is brand new, completely shader based, and requires Shader Model 2.0 GPU hardware. On that basis alone it is not comparable to the WC3 engine.

While the systems I listed at top of page are not an official minimum spec for SC2 on Mac, they are an excellent starting point to consider if you are considering buying a new machine and want it to be able to run SC2 well. When we have a frozen minimum spec to publish we will do that, and I am 100% confident it will include the systems listed (Intel Mac with NVIDIA or ATI graphics).

Always great to hear from you on this forum. It reminds me of the early days of WoW. Now, in that vein, my question is not whether I'll be able to run SC2 (MBP 2.4 8600), but whether I'll have to boot into XP to get maximum performance (As I currently do with WoW). Will there be more performance parity now that the client will be based only on Intel? It's probably too early for you to say, but I figure it's worth a shot.

[redsteven]

I have never played an RTS game before*, but StarCraft 2 looks like the one to win me over! I'll be delighted if it turns out my Air can run it (which means no key disc protection of course) but if I can't game on the go, I'll just play at home on my iMac.

* Unless you count Lemmings or Hordes of Orcs... which are sort of related concepts. Sort of.

One of the best things about the original starcraft, Nagromme, was that it was so much MORE than just an RTS.

most RTS games are just that... real-time strategy games, and while you might be able to find plenty of different maps, you're still playing an RTS.

Because blizzard shipped the original starcraft with a map editor (and community members then expanded upon that) people were able to make all sorts of maps that DIDN'T require super RTS skills.

While I loved playing the campaign, my favorite part of starcraft were the user-made multiplayer maps.

UMS stands for "use map settings." When you use map settings on a map, then the game uses whatever parameters and AI triggers were set by the map creator, and that means you can make all sorts of games from RPGs to my favorite - defense games.

Defense games can be played competitively or in teams. If I was playing turret defense, then I'd start with one builder unit and it would be my responsibility to prevent the enemies who start at the top of the screen from reaching the bottom. I'd have control of a thin "lane" and I'd be able to build missile turrets on it. The more enemies I kill the more money I get, and the more turrets I can build. Then if I get enough money, on most maps you can purchase upgrades or super-units, such as an air vehicle with good anti-air capabilities to help you out.

I recommend that you find the original starcraft and give it a shot, even if you only play multiplayer.

[eXan]

One of the best things about the original starcraft, Nagromme, was that it was so much MORE than just an RTS.

most RTS games are just that... real-time strategy games, and while you might be able to find plenty of different maps, you're still playing an RTS.

Because blizzard shipped the original starcraft with a map editor (and community members then expanded upon that) people were able to make all sorts of maps that DIDN'T require super RTS skills.

While I loved playing the campaign, my favorite part of starcraft were the user-made multiplayer maps.

UMS stands for "use map settings." When you use map settings on a map, then the game uses whatever parameters and AI triggers were set by the map creator, and that means you can make all sorts of games from RPGs to my favorite - defense games.

Defense games can be played competitively or in teams. If I was playing turret defense, then I'd start with one builder unit and it would be my responsibility to prevent the enemies who start at the top of the screen from reaching the bottom. I'd have control of a thin "lane" and I'd be able to build missile turrets on it. The more enemies I kill the more money I get, and the more turrets I can build. Then if I get enough money, on most maps you can purchase upgrades or super-units, such as an air vehicle with good anti-air capabilities to help you out.

I recommend that you find the original starcraft and give it a shot, even if you only play multiplayer.

hah while UMS can occasionally be fun, playing BW competitively (like I've been doing for a year now) is much MUCH more fun and doesn't get boring, like UMS. Koreans are insane! O_O

[nagromme]

Defense games can be played competitively or in teams. If I was playing turret defense, then I'd start with one builder unit and it would be my responsibility to prevent the enemies who start at the top of the screen from reaching the bottom. I'd have control of a thin "lane" and I'd be able to build missile turrets on it. The more enemies I kill the more money I get, and the more turrets I can build. Then if I get enough money, on most maps you can purchase upgrades or super-units, such as an air vehicle with good anti-air capabilities to help you out.

Yeah, I've come to realize that Hordes of Orcs (and the whole tower defense genre) got its start with Starcraft. So now I can simply imagine if both sides had mobile AND fixed units, and both sides could attack, then it would be a full RTS. Maybe throw in more ways to gather resources (other than just killing enemies for hold). The RTS concept is less intimidating to me now, and even the management of stats and abilities (which I hate about RPGs) is fun once I got into it. Hordes of Orcs made a good gateway drug :)

Question: is it a given that SC2 will have modding tools on the Mac platform?

[chickenninja]

the biggest system requirment will be internet connection speed of your service provider, solo play is boring and comps(ai players) consume system specs. the game will be "scalable" so well all have a fighting chance to play on some level, but when you talk about zerglings in quadruple digits then processor starts becoming really important, get the higher end graphics card if not for the v-ram then for the pixel shaders and what not. it would be wise to postpone your computer purchase untill SC2 is released rather than buy now hoping you get something powerfull enough.

if you guys havent played shattered galaxy you might like it.

[redsteven]

Question: is it a given that SC2 will have modding tools on the Mac platform?

Yes. Warcraft II did, and that was back in the olden days... like when I was in 4th grade... so I guess 1996 or so.

Starcraft did as well, and although they released an OS X version of starcraft, the map editor was never updated and therefore requires classic : \

The thing with starcraft was that although the included map editor offered far more customizability that almost any other game on the market, it still had its limits. The third party map editors (made by community members) were typically PC only.

But on the starcraft 2 site Blizzard has repeatedly said that the Starcraft 2 map editor will be able to do virtually ANYTHING you want it to.
That's one hell of a claim to make, but I believe them.


Click it, you know you want to. (http://www.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=110000124) Blizzard launched their own digital download service and of course, it's mac compatible.
I'm assuming though that you'll still to download the OS X installer from their website separately, but you'll still probably need to purchase the paid download so that you can get a registration key.

If you do buy it though, just check to make sure it's working with 10.5.3, or that purchase will give u access to both the windows and mac versions.

[nagromme]

Thanks. I'll probably wait for SC2 just because I only have so much time, and other games (QW) are taking my time now.

But I do look forward to SC2--the game and the tools!

[darklyt]

I hope SC2 comes out before I'm off to grad school, or maybe during a vacation, so I can enjoy the game while also enjoying what will hopefully be good grades...

[Ja Di ksw]

That isn't really correct - you now know that the machines listed above will be able to run it. What type of machine do you have, maybe I can offer some more info.

So while the hard minimum isn't yet available, as I said the machines above are in the set that we build and test on every day.

I know those machines are able to run it, but like I said, all we know is that info and a handful of units from starcraft2.com. My machine will be able to run it fine (namely b/c my current one won't, and I'll be getting a new one within a month or two), that's not my complaint.
My complaint is that it was announced a long time ago (over a year) and we still don't have that much information. Not many units, no rough timetable, etc. Mainly, these are my questions:

Will the system requirements (minimum and recommended) be announced very close to the release date, or can we expect them sooner? (eXan kinda answered this, thank you)

Can we get a rough, *ROUGH* timeframe for release? As in, can we expect this ~2009, or is it going to be more ~2012?

Yes, I know it's a sport in Korea, I know it's a great game, yada yada yada. You don't need to convince me of that, Starcraft1 single handedly lowered my grades freshman year of college! I just wish more official information was out about SC2 considering it was announced over a year ago (and someone, I forget who, high up in Blizzard said they wanted to revisit it within 10 years, which I think has passed or come close to passing).

[rbarris]

I can't give you any information on the scheduling of beta testing, final release, or finalized system specs.

But from what you wrote it sounds like your machine specs won't be an issue, so it just boils down to wanting to play it as soon as possible, yes ?

[Ja Di ksw]

Oh yeah, I could have told you any frustration I have is from not being able to play soon enough - with soon enough being after I grab a quick dinner tonight :).

I realize you can't give out any information, that's perfectly understandable. Just saying, can you understand the frustration of people who have been waiting over a year since it was announced, and over decade for this game in general, and we still barely have any info?

And yeah, this isn't a rant at you, even if it comes off that way (sorry). This is a general rant of a SC junkie that needs his fix.

[darklyt]

Oh yeah, I could have told you any frustration I have is from not being able to play soon enough - with soon enough being after I grab a quick dinner tonight :).

I realize you can't give out any information, that's perfectly understandable. Just saying, can you understand the frustration of people who have been waiting over a year since it was announced, and over decade for this game in general, and we still barely have any info?

And yeah, this isn't a rant at you, even if it comes off that way (sorry). This is a general rant of a SC junkie that needs his fix.

You do realize that most Blizzard products are announced years in advance of their release, right? I seem to recall WC3 going through different genres of games after being announced and still took took a couple of years of development once the final games type was settled down to a Heroes system implemented in an RTS.

They seem to have announced SC2 later into development than previous games, but I would be (somewhat) surprised to see a Beta within this year. About a year from now is when I personally might expect something to be announced about Beta-testing. I would definitely not complain if was opened a lot sooner than that.

[SnoopyLoL]

HEY! You know how the WC3 map editor is extremely huge and is like soooooo much bigger then the actual WC3. I've heard that SC2's map editor is going to be EVEN MORE POWERFUL THEN THE WC3 EDITOR :eek: I wonder how well I will be able to play it on the iMac I'm getting for my birthday in July :rolleyes: Just asking. ;) :p

[CJM]

I can't give you any information on the scheduling of beta testing, final release, or finalized system specs.

But from what you wrote it sounds like your machine specs won't be an issue, so it just boils down to wanting to play it as soon as possible, yes ?

Hey, will you be at the WWI this month? ;P

You must be having a right laugh at us poor plebs, squirming over tiny morsels of information. If you could but just tell us one thing; is SC2 in alpha yet?

Here's hoping like hell we get SC2 beta keys :D


You do realize that most Blizzard products are announced years in advance of their release, right? I seem to recall WC3 going through different genres of games after being announced and still took took a couple of years of development once the final games type was settled down to a Heroes system implemented in an RTS.

They seem to have announced SC2 later into development than previous games, but I would be (somewhat) surprised to see a Beta within this year. About a year from now is when I personally might expect something to be announced about Beta-testing. I would definitely not complain if was opened a lot sooner than that.

Ah I thought I remembered seeing screenshots way back in '00 or something showing WC3 as a WoW-esque style of game, I always wondered what happened to that :D

I realise it really could be quite a while before SC2 comes out, but I think that including the community in the development, sometime before release, is a really good idea that'll hopefully ensure a balanced, well-rounded game.

Going off-topic a bit, how near/far do people think that WotLK is into a beta release? I may have seen... aheh... some leaked info... but it, to me, looks quite a long way off. Missing textures, zones, talents, broken abilities and whatnot.

[K0uhija]

Remember. All blizzard games are well set for use with low-end computers also, with support for high-end technology. The games are well scalable to make it play with nearly all hardware-configurations. All eyecandy can be scaled, or turned off.

The game will be released in mid-september, or later determined when they see that the game is finished. Latest for the christmas market (as it would in any way make the game sell more on release...) As noted blizzard does not give out beta-ready games.

[Sceneshifter]

Hey guys, I'm not familiar with all the gfx card names mentioned previously on page 2, however, are we SOL with the x3100 integrated card?

[bobber205]

I'm buying a DX10 card this summer just to be ready when this game comes out... ;)

[rbarris]

Remember. All blizzard games are well set for use with low-end computers also, with support for high-end technology.


All depends on what your definition of a low end computer is, which is the whole point of the system specs (sorry, not released yet). A low-end machine that can run WoW may not be a machine that can run SC2 playably - however this should not be surprising considering the spread in release dates between the two titles (WoW was Fall 2004).

[ethernet76]

Well, that's not totally true...
I just got my MBP repaired and they gave me a 2.6GHz CPU instead of 2.2GHz logic board with 256 MB instead of 128 MB VRAM... and I get 25% more framerates... I'm sure most of it is because of the processor but VRAM has to be a part of it too...


It's probably all because of the more vram. The processor doesn't really do much during a game. Not to mention most games aren't written for dual-core machines.

VRAM matters because it allows more textures to loaded into memory. But the most important part is the GPU.

[Eric5h5]

It's probably all because of the more vram.

Nope, this is WoW, which is a 4-year old game that doesn't have billions of high-res textures. 100% guaranteed it's mostly the CPU.

The processor doesn't really do much during a game.

That's dependent on the game, but usually it does quite a lot. The graphics card only displays stuff. Well, "only" isn't the right word given the complexity of 3D graphics, but computing everything (animation and so on) requires a fair bit of CPU grunt.

--Eric

[CJM]

Remember. All blizzard games are well set for use with low-end computers also, with support for high-end technology. The games are well scalable to make it play with nearly all hardware-configurations. All eyecandy can be scaled, or turned off.

The game will be released in mid-september, or later determined when they see that the game is finished. Latest for the christmas market (as it would in any way make the game sell more on release...) As noted blizzard does not give out beta-ready games.

I'd bet you a large some of money that SC2 probably won't be released this year. Blizzard has a rule of releasing games ¨when they're ready¨ not at a time when sales can be maximised. (although, it could be said, this happened for WoW with its November 04 date)

Also, if by your last statement, you're implying there won't be a SC2 beta, I beg to differ. Dustin Browder, SC2's lead game designer stated in the latest Blizzcast that they want to do a multiplayer beta to ensure balance in the races.

[eXan]

It's probably all because of the more vram. The processor doesn't really do much during a game. Not to mention most games aren't written for dual-core machines.

VRAM matters because it allows more textures to loaded into memory. But the most important part is the GPU.

If WoW was as GPU-intensive as you say, it wouldn't run so well on machines with integrated graphics.

Some games are more CPU-intensive, some are more GPU-intensive and rarely both. With first, you can get away with a weaker GPU and with second, a weaker CPU, in order to run the game decently. WoW is CPU-intensive.

[K0uhija]

I am not saying there would not be a beta released. I meant that blizzard doesn't have a habit of releasing games as whole games in their alpha/beta-stages as many game-software programming houses.

[CJM]

I am not saying there would not be a beta released. I meant that blizzard doesn't have a habit of releasing games as whole games in their alpha/beta-stages as many game-software programming houses.

Oh I getcha, you mean that some developers are forced into release dates when the game isn't ready yet?

Yeah, it sucks when that happens. Blizz just likes to put a lot of polish into their games.

[tYsopz]

I'm just in the process of buying a new computer for school, WoW & SC2, and having no clue whatsoever what the system req would be for SC2 I almost bought an extremely expensive PC with top speccs only for gaming (god i hate windows) and a MB for school, but now I'm thinking I should simply get a MBP to cover all my needs.

Lucky I stumbled upon this thread today and not 3 days later! :)

[naventus]

rbarris - I was wondering if you could add any details about the difference in performance between the 8600 and 8800 (MBP vs MP). I am guessing that the 8600 will have dial down some settings, if not a lot, to medium. Will the 8800 be able to handle everything maxed?

[rbarris]

rbarris - I was wondering if you could add any details about the difference in performance between the 8600 and 8800 (MBP vs MP). I am guessing that the 8600 will have dial down some settings, if not a lot, to medium. Will the 8800 be able to handle everything maxed?

It's really too soon to say, since development is ongoing which includes things like driver improvements from the GPU vendors that we are working with.

Here's the thing though, the next generation of cards are now coming out, (NV GTX2xx and AMD R48xx) - you should note that what we put in the game as the "max / ultra" setting level may be scaled to that level of hardware or beyond, and might not be the setting level of choice for lower-powered cards. But even that is subjective, if you want the max frame rate then you will likely opt to go lower on the settings rather than higher - no matter which system you have.