RA3 Graphics Vs. SC2 for MBP

[MyDesktopBroke]

Okay, here's a video of somebody using a late 2008 MBP, 2.4ghz, 9600 w/ 256MB to play Red Alert at what appears to be max graphics on a 3 player map. There is a fare amount of action going on (battles on the sea, air, and land at the same time) with very little noticeable slow down or break up.

My questions is: based on that video and RA3 graphics quality and requirements, do you think it would be fair to assume that the MBP should be able to run Starcraft 2 at pretty good quality also? From what I've seen, the graphics are comparable (RA3 water looks more demanding, actually), but I've never actually played SC2.

 

[Eidorian]

I think you'd be better off waiting for Starcraft 2 benchmarks first.

 

[MyDesktopBroke]

Well, yes, that would be much more informative, but I was just wondering if anyone would have an educated guess on the matter.

I already bought a MBP refurb. Gaming had little to do with my purchase, so the performance isn't something I was holding out for.

Hopefully, once the SC2 beta starts, at least one person here will be able to tell us.

 

[kar1181]

Had the same question myself. The only game I can see myself playing in the coming year is SC 2 (something to do with how many years of my life I lost in my teens with the first game!).

Really do wonder how the 13" mbp will hold up with it.

 

[MyDesktopBroke]

The 9400 isn't great for gaming, but it can run Halo and Age of Empires 3 (which still has the best water effect I've ever seen) at max settings (except AA for Halo).

I doubt it will run Starcraft 2 at max, but, knowing Blizzard, you will be able to scale the graphics down to a playable speed.