Starcraft 2 on MBP

[seong]

I know you will be disappointed to see the results for 9400m, but remember that 320m is 1.8x faster than 9400m. The frames per second will be higher for the new one. Here are some informations about what computer, Windows OS, and Game setting I am using.

Computer: MBP 13" late 2009, 2.26GHz, 160GB HDD, 2GB RAM, nVidia 9400m 256MB.
Windows OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (and 64-bit helps frame rate)
Following pictures show different screen shots of gameplay including 'fps' on top left corner just below Menu (F10).

I think you can tell which actions require more power (which brings down the fps).
The game was smooth, playable. Massing Vikings, Thors, and Battlecruisers bring down to 24 fps.
The zerg creep decreases fps by two.

 

[seong]

Here are the game settings (disabling ambient sound increases fps by one or two).

 

[novodigo]

Oh man, this thing is gonna run so nice under my future MBP i5.

 

[seong]

Just to note again; this is low-medium settings, and it looks great.
I can help playing SC2 on Hi-Res, Matte Finished, MBP 17" Core i7.
It's going to be spectacular!

 

[UKBeast]

Just to note again; this is low-medium settings, and it looks great.
I can help playing SC2 on Hi-Res, Matte Finished, MBP 17" Core i7.
It's going to be spectacular!

thanks for your concern, if this is 9400, 320m will do quite fine.

What about diablo 3 ?

 

[seong]

It is noted from Blizzard that Starcraft 2 will require 512MB at minimum for Graphic Card (which is MBP 17") to play the game maxed out: All Ultra settings.

From the same person working at Blizzard, Diablo 3 will require more horsepower from the graphic card, and pointed out 13" MBP with 9400m will get around 25fps and 320m for 30fps at lowest settings. I hope they will make it better for 13" users.

One thing I want to ask Apple: Why are we getting "crap" graphic cards with 256MB when people are buying "pro" laptops? Are we just spending extra money for nothing?

 

[UKBeast]

It is noted from Blizzard that Starcraft 2 will require 512MB at minimum for Graphic Card (which is MBP 17") to play the game maxed out: All Ultra settings.

From the same person working at Blizzard, Diablo 3 will require more horsepower from the graphic card, and pointed out 13" MBP with 9400m will get around 25fps and 320m for 30fps at lowest settings. I hope they will make it better for 13" users.

One thing I want to ask Apple: Why are we getting "crap" graphic cards with 256MB when people are buying "pro" laptops? Are we just spending extra money for nothing?

Many people confirmed it is running smooth on medium details with 320M , are you sure that this blizzard guy knows all about it ?

I do not think that it will that much demanding, and they say there is not much difference between ultra and high.

 

[dlb253]

I know you will be disappointed to see the results for 9400m, but remember that 320m is 1.8x faster than 9400m. The frames per second will be higher for the new one. Here are some informations about what computer, Windows OS, and Game setting I am using.

Just to note again; this is low-medium settings, and it looks great.

I'm confused...he said we'd be disappointed with the results for the 9400m, then later said it looks great on low-med settings. Which is it? What's an acceptable fps so that it doesn't look choppy?

 

[Durandal549]

Just as another piece of info, I tried the Beta on 2 different macs. Don't have specific fps info, sorry. Is there a setting somewhere to get that fps counter?

Both macs were boot camped with Windows 7

Macbook (late 2007): 2.2ghz 4GB ram X3100 32bit windows
Ran fine on all low settings. Only played a few games but no issues and ran smooth. When I tried to bump the graphics to medium then there was lag.

Macbook Pro 13 (2010): 2.4ghz 4GB ram 320M 64bit windows
Runs smooth in a custom configuration between medium and high. I haven't tried increasing the settings yet. The biggest differenceI noticed was the cloak effect on protoss units. On the Macbook they just fade like in Starcraft 1 but on the Pro they have an additional effect.

 

[UKBeast]

Just as another piece of info, I tried the Beta on 2 different macs. Don't have specific fps info, sorry. Is there a setting somewhere to get that fps counter?

Both macs were boot camped with Windows 7

Macbook (late 2007): 2.2ghz 4GB ram X3100 32bit windows
Ran fine on all low settings. Only played a few games but no issues and ran smooth. When I tried to bump the graphics to medium then there was lag.

Macbook Pro 13 (2010): 2.4ghz 4GB ram 320M 64bit windows
Runs smooth in a custom configuration between medium and high. I haven't tried increasing the settings yet. The biggest differenceI noticed was the cloak effect on protoss units. On the Macbook they just fade like in Starcraft 1 but on the Pro they have an additional effect.

I wondering if the OS X performance makes difference or not ?

 

[kyleh613]

It is noted from Blizzard that Starcraft 2 will require 512MB at minimum for Graphic Card (which is MBP 17") to play the game maxed out: All Ultra settings.

From the same person working at Blizzard, Diablo 3 will require more horsepower from the graphic card, and pointed out 13" MBP with 9400m will get around 25fps and 320m for 30fps at lowest settings. I hope they will make it better for 13" users.

One thing I want to ask Apple: Why are we getting "crap" graphic cards with 256MB when people are buying "pro" laptops? Are we just spending extra money for nothing?

Don't post ********, you didn't hear this from a Blizzard employee.

 

[alphaod]

As long as this runs maxed out at 2560x1600 on my desktop, I think I'm good!

 

[Kiddo86]

Does anyone know if it's possible to pre-order SC2 for mac and get a beta key for the windows version? I don't want to ultimately have the game for windows, but I'd be perfectly willing to run it in bootcamp until the final release...

 

[zorahk]

the mac beta is coming out next week, just wait a few days.

 

[MBHockey]

Does anyone know if it's possible to pre-order SC2 for mac and get a beta key for the windows version? I don't want to ultimately have the game for windows, but I'd be perfectly willing to run it in bootcamp until the final release...

It's a single DVD installation for both Mac & PC:

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=22748755719&postId=227467415956&sid=3000#4

So go ahead and put in your code before something happens to it! You'll be able to download the Mac or PC client whenever you want after your account is 'upgraded' with the key.

 

[hypermog]

Blizzard is looking to release the Mac beta very soon:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/14/blizzard-hoping-for-starcraft-2-mac-beta-client-in-april/

 

[seong]

On medium settings, it runs little choppy.
On low-medium settings, it runs smooth.
For Mac version of SC2 beta, it should run fairly well on medium settings with 9400m, because Blizzard will tweak a little bit so that it will be suitable for MBPs.
Playing on the Map that is bigger than 2MB decreases the fps.

 

[seong]

I didn't in fact hear about Diablo 3 from the blizzard employee, but go to youtube and check out the demo of the game. You will see that it requires more power than SC2. BTW, SC2 was in progress in 2007 and Diablo in 2009, so it will be different.

 

[ChocoboNL]

First off, great! I was curious about numbers like these. Hope to be getting a new 13" today or somewhere the coming week (stupid vulcano. xD)

But, do I understand from some of the posts up there that you can pre-order the game? And that you get beta-access then? That's quite interesting I must say.

 

[seong]

you can pre-order the game, but the problem is that we all know Blizzard can delay the games. So, you can still pre-order, but might not come in time (maybe Late May or Early June)

 

[ChocoboNL]

Okay, so if you pre-order, can you play the beta already?

 

[wkam]

Can I ask, sorry if it's been answered before, whether it's playable on the mac without bootcamp? Or does it not support it?

 

[Paul B]

I have a 2.26GHz 13" MBP with Windows 7 64-bit. On my 30" monitor, SC2 is too choppy on 2560x1600, so I have to play it in 1280x800.

Hoping to upgrade to a better machine soon.

 

[DesmoPilot]

I have a 2.26GHz 13" MBP with Windows 7 64-bit. On my 30" monitor, SC2 is too choppy on 2560x1600, so I have to play it in 1280x800.

Hoping to upgrade to a better machine soon.

Lol, you didn't actually expect your MBP to make SC2 playable @ 2560 did you?

 

[ChocoboNL]

Lol, you didn't actually expect your MBP to make SC2 playable @ 2560 did you?

1900*1200 would be nice though.