Starcraft 2 and nVidia 320m

seong said:
ooops, forgot to mention that clearly.

the new 13" MBP. Mine gets 30fps at start. However, the newer ones are able to stay on 35+fps constantly, whereas mine drops to 26~28 during the battle.
Click to expand...

With which settings ?

Can you play it with ultra fantastachic highest details :D

Anyway, could you send a screenshot of the new ones settings
 
seong said:
Damn it, Apple genius is so skeptical about my issue, and she wouldn't believe me (i didn't misspell it, it's 'she'). I left without a single hope of asking another genius to get the newer one.

Back to the point, there are some issues with my friend, which are mainly caused by the bootcamp drivers for the nVidia. Works fine, fps 35+ with medium settings.

@bigmanathome24, Doesn't matter if you have higher specs or not. Friendly neighbor (15 years old) got into beta, and he can't apply medium settings. It's all randomn (and some are not).
Click to expand...

Is there a way to invite people to it? If someone did I couldn't be grateful enough, I'd drive round house and give them a hug :p
 
To the OP:
Yes, I think a new 13" MBP w/ 320M will run SC2 at low to medium-ish settings comfortably. When the graphics are low, the game really knows how to chop itself down. Blizzard has always been good at incorporating lower end computers with lower graphics possibilities.

I'd just like to contribute my experiences with SC2.

I'm running it on
17" MBP
2.8 GHz
9600M GT
4 GB
On Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (32 GB partition)

At 1920x1200x32 with all graphics options set to the highest possibility except shaders, lighting, and shadows (those three being set to "low"), I get extremely smooth game play without a single drop in frames.

Once I turn on any of those three, the game will be choppy albeit playable. The higher you go, it'll eventually become not playable.

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know how the 9600M GT would compare to the new 330M in performance? I'd imagine the change would be pretty small, but anyone fill me in?

Thanks
 
Plasmastrike said:
To the OP:
Yes, I think a new 13" MBP w/ 320M will run SC2 at low to medium-ish settings comfortably. When the graphics are low, the game really knows how to chop itself down. Blizzard has always been good at incorporating lower end computers with lower graphics possibilities.

I'd just like to contribute my experiences with SC2.

I'm running it on
17" MBP
2.8 GHz
9600M GT
4 GB
On Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (32 GB partition)

At 1920x1200x32 with all graphics options set to the highest possibility except shaders, lighting, and shadows (those three being set to "low"), I get extremely smooth game play without a single drop in frames.

Once I turn on any of those three, the game will be choppy albeit playable. The higher you go, it'll eventually become not playable.

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know how the 9600M GT would compare to the new 330M in performance? I'd imagine the change would be pretty small, but anyone fill me in?

Thanks
Click to expand...

They say 320M is just slightly slower than your 9600M GT

About 330M, it is almost 2 times faster than your 9600M GT

If you played that game with that settings on a resolution like 1920x1200 ,13 inch macbook pro 320M 1280 X 800 can run it faster than yours..

Good news then, I cannot wait SC2
 
Plasmastrike said:
At 1920x1200x32 with all graphics options set to the highest possibility except shaders, lighting, and shadows (those three being set to "low"), I get extremely smooth game play without a single drop in frames.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much as good as running the game on low.

BeastialityOnly said:
They say 320M is just slightly slower than your 9600M GT

About 330M, it is almost 2 times faster than your 9600M GT

If you played that game with that settings on a resolution like 1920x1200 ,13 inch macbook pro 320M 1280 X 800 can run it faster than yours..

Good news then, I cannot wait SC2
Click to expand...

The 9600M GT is about 30% faster than the 320M.

The GT 330M is about 50% faster than the 9600M GT.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/897409/
 
iLog.Genius said:
Agreed. The resolution doesn't play that big of a part. It's the effects/textures that bog down the GPU. It's great that you can run at that resolution but if you're not using the textures/effects, then it doesn't really tell you anything.
Click to expand...

Textures is all about memory though. Resolution definitely plays a big part, but shaders, lighting and shadows are the main stuff.
 
Hi everyone,

As promised I have fired up the StarCraft 2 beta on my new 13" MBP with 320M graphics. BTW I got my beta key by attending BlizzCon 2008.

First I tried the game with the default settings it came up with, which were all the medium settings. On medium, the game plays 100% smooth at a seemingly high frame rate. I just played a short game against an easy computer so I did not mass tons of units on screen, but for what I did play it was very smooth. I would estimate the frame rate was between 40 and 50 fps.

Then just to check it out I set everything to High (not Ultra). At these settings it is completely playable, but perceptibly slower and a little laggy when moving the screen around. In my estimation it is not worth the graphics improvement for the tradeoff in framerate. I like to play an RTS with a maximally responsive UI and fluid scrolling, and you get that on the 13" MBP at medium settings.

The only detriment involved was that the laptop seems to get pretty hot and the fan is going at maximum speed on both Medium and High settings. I am not a laptop gamer so maybe this is just par for the course but it will take a little getting used to. I basically won't be playing games on my lap anymore.

Hope this helps everyone looking to SC2 on MBP 13"
 
hypermog said:
Hi everyone,

As promised I have fired up the StarCraft 2 beta on my new 13" MBP with 320M graphics. BTW I got my beta key by attending BlizzCon 2008.

First I tried the game with the default settings it came up with, which were all the medium settings. On medium, the game plays 100% smooth at a seemingly high frame rate. I just played a short game against an easy computer so I did not mass tons of units on screen, but for what I did play it was very smooth. I would estimate the frame rate was between 40 and 50 fps.

Then just to check it out I set everything to High (not Ultra). At these settings it is completely playable, but perceptibly slower and a little laggy when moving the screen around. In my estimation it is not worth the graphics improvement for the tradeoff in framerate. I like to play an RTS with a maximally responsive UI and fluid scrolling, and you get that on the 13" MBP at medium settings.

The only detriment involved was that the laptop seems to get pretty hot and the fan is going at maximum speed on both Medium and High settings. I am not a laptop gamer so maybe this is just par for the course but it will take a little getting used to. I basically won't be playing games on my lap anymore.

Hope this helps everyone looking to SC2 on MBP 13"
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your results with us. :) I guess my initial estimate on page 1 was right after all. Now all we need is someone to test it out on the 330M. :p

cathyy said:
It will run smoothly on medium. However I don't believe it's powerful enough to run it at a good frame rate on high.
Click to expand...
 
hypermog said:
Hi everyone,

As promised I have fired up the StarCraft 2 beta on my new 13" MBP with 320M graphics. BTW I got my beta key by attending BlizzCon 2008.

First I tried the game with the default settings it came up with, which were all the medium settings. On medium, the game plays 100% smooth at a seemingly high frame rate. I just played a short game against an easy computer so I did not mass tons of units on screen, but for what I did play it was very smooth. I would estimate the frame rate was between 40 and 50 fps.

Then just to check it out I set everything to High (not Ultra). At these settings it is completely playable, but perceptibly slower and a little laggy when moving the screen around. In my estimation it is not worth the graphics improvement for the tradeoff in framerate. I like to play an RTS with a maximally responsive UI and fluid scrolling, and you get that on the 13" MBP at medium settings.

The only detriment involved was that the laptop seems to get pretty hot and the fan is going at maximum speed on both Medium and High settings. I am not a laptop gamer so maybe this is just par for the course but it will take a little getting used to. I basically won't be playing games on my lap anymore.

Hope this helps everyone looking to SC2 on MBP 13"
Click to expand...

Like I said, med-high or high-low will be optimal settings...
 
btw when I said I won't be playing it on my lap, I mean with the laptop actually sitting on my lap. I'd still play StarCraft 2 on the 13" MBP as long as it's on a desk, since it plays great on medium settings.
 
hypermog said:
Hi everyone,

As promised I have fired up the StarCraft 2 beta on my new 13" MBP with 320M graphics. BTW I got my beta key by attending BlizzCon 2008.

First I tried the game with the default settings it came up with, which were all the medium settings. On medium, the game plays 100% smooth at a seemingly high frame rate. I just played a short game against an easy computer so I did not mass tons of units on screen, but for what I did play it was very smooth. I would estimate the frame rate was between 40 and 50 fps.

Then just to check it out I set everything to High (not Ultra). At these settings it is completely playable, but perceptibly slower and a little laggy when moving the screen around. In my estimation it is not worth the graphics improvement for the tradeoff in framerate. I like to play an RTS with a maximally responsive UI and fluid scrolling, and you get that on the 13" MBP at medium settings.

The only detriment involved was that the laptop seems to get pretty hot and the fan is going at maximum speed on both Medium and High settings. I am not a laptop gamer so maybe this is just par for the course but it will take a little getting used to. I basically won't be playing games on my lap anymore.

Hope this helps everyone looking to SC2 on MBP 13"
Click to expand...

alright, now on to the 330M test! any takers?

My take it on the whole SC2 thing is that they've been developing it for a few years now (4?) so it had to be playable on 4 year old technology. I'm sure the specs have bumped up since then, but not enough that brand new MBP's would have any trouble running the game. so don't worry.
 
hypermog said:
The only detriment involved was that the laptop seems to get pretty hot and the fan is going at maximum speed on both Medium and High settings. I am not a laptop gamer so maybe this is just par for the course but it will take a little getting used to. I basically won't be playing games on my lap anymore.
Click to expand...

It sounds like everyone is in agreement that SC2 will run fine on the 320M. My concern now is whether this little laptop will be constantly overheating & how that'll affect its long-term health. I just ugraded from a crappy HP, 14" AMD 2.0 GHz that overheated & died after 10 minutes of playing Starcraft ONE! If for some reason the computer is damaged from excessive heat, is that something that would be covered under AppleCare (which I also just bought).

I know everyone says laptops aren't built for gaming. I understand that. I bought one though so that I could take it on vacations and hopefully play games (like SC2) with my brothers.
 
dlb253 said:
It sounds like everyone is in agreement that SC2 will run fine on the 320M. My concern now is whether this little laptop will be constantly overheating & how that'll affect its long-term health. I just ugraded from a crappy HP, 14" AMD 2.0 GHz that overheated & died after 10 minutes of playing Starcraft ONE! If for some reason the computer is damaged from excessive heat, is that something that would be covered under AppleCare (which I also just bought).

I know everyone says laptops aren't built for gaming. I understand that. I bought one though so that I could take it on vacations and hopefully play games (like SC2) with my brothers.
Click to expand...

You cannot damage your computer with SC 1
 
BeastialityOnly said:
You cannot damage your computer with SC 1
Click to expand...

I know I can't damage it with SC1, but my OLD one would overheat when playing it. I'm worried that my NEW one will overheat constantly playing SC2.

If for some reason this happens and something gets fried in there, would this be covered under AppleCare?
 
iLog.Genius said:
Hardcore gamers on the other hand will look to upgrade their hardware as they see fit to give them the MAX. performance. Also, it doesn't hurt to have everything clear while playing. ;)
Click to expand...

Actual hardcore (progamer) SC2 players play with their graphics setting on low. This is because all of the flashy effects at high levels get in the way of actually playing the game.

If you ever want to be at the top of the Platinum leagues it won't matter what graphics card you have, you're not going to be playing it high-high anyway.
 
vitaflo said:
Actual hardcore (progamer) SC2 players play with their graphics setting on low. This is because all of the flashy effects at high levels get in the way of actually playing the game.

If you ever want to be at the top of the Platinum leagues it won't matter what graphics card you have, you're not going to be playing it high-high anyway.
Click to expand...

hardcore sc2 players should be able to play at any level of detail =)
 
SC2 runs perfectly on my 13", 2.4 GHz, 320m with medium settings (mac client). iStat Pro shows my CPU temp getting up to 80-84 deg C though...is this cause for concern?

Should i back down some of the settings to low-end? Would that help keep it cooler?
 
Using Mac Client and surprised that I had to play around with the video settings on the 9600M GT. Right now I put everything to medium but @ native resolution (1440x900) and it's not as smooth as I had hoped so I guess I'm a little disappointed. With the 9600M GT not being able to provide the ideal settings, I'm afraid to even play this on the 9400M.

Going to play around with the settings more. Will post screenshots later.
 
I've played a few games on low settings, and temps didnt change. Still hanging around 84 C. Is this normal? Im worried things are going to melt in there.

Then again, I do only have base model 13". For those that have arrandale 15"-17", what temps is iStat showing for you?
 
evarian said:
alright, now on to the 330M test! any takers?

My take it on the whole SC2 thing is that they've been developing it for a few years now (4?) so it had to be playable on 4 year old technology. I'm sure the specs have bumped up since then, but not enough that brand new MBP's would have any trouble running the game. so don't worry.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to test on my 15" i7 - 330m with 512mb.

I don't have a beta key though.

PM me if you want to share a beta key with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top