Is StarCraft 2 for a 1.83Ghz Intel MacBook a waste of money?

kellenm

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 20, 2010
4
0
Bought my 1.83 Ghz Intel MacBook in 2006, don't know the specs off-hand. It has 2 GB RAM.

Minimum requirements for the game:

Mac: Mac OS X 10.5.8, 10.6.2 or newer
Intel Processor
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon X1600 or better

Recommended specifications:

Mac: Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4 GB system RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4670 or better
 

Aldaris

macrumors 68000
Sep 7, 2004
1,762
1,164
Salt Lake
I'll argue, that it is worth it if you like Starcraft. Although battle.net will probably be a 'low' settings affair, campaign and single player will be slightly better without having to run back to a server.

I know with my MacBook Pro uni 2.4 with 2Gb I can get by on medium, but go 'low'' just to keep up with the folks with the high settings-

Another point is when you upgrade that MacBook you can put SC2 on it too!
 

Blondie :)

macrumors 6502a
May 12, 2010
698
3
Prescott, AZ
Now that I look at the specifications for your graphics card, I agree with what Aldaris says. It probably will be a constant "low" graphics setting, but if you like starcraft, you can probably go for it :) the GMA 950 is only two steps below the 9400M and three steps below the 320M so you should be alright
 

Chundles

macrumors G4
Jul 4, 2005
11,966
375
The GMA 950 won't have nearly enough grunt to run it. It's asking for a dedicated card in the minimum required specifications so it's unlikely that it will work on the lowliest of lowly Intel GMA 950.

It may even struggle on the 9400M or the 320M.

I wouldn't even bother.
 

darkplanets

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2009
853
0
You should be able to run it on low, but maybe not at a native resolution.

It'll probably look like ****.

320M is plenty to run it, so is a 9400M. My ATI 2600 runs it flawlessly on low, and decently on medium; under windows it runs even better under native resolution and medium settings :)