Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Starcraft 2 and nVidia 320m

For now, people who have SC2 on Bootcamp and SC2 on Mac reported that the Mac client should be optimized. While the medium settings work well with 9600m GT and above in Bootcamp, Mac client runs smooth with all low settings.
Blizzard is currently fixing this problem (it's obvious), and they are tweaking some graphics (Open GL) so that it will run better on Mac.
Smooth FPS:
2009 MPB 13": All low settings with terrain and physics to medium. Don't forget 3D portrait! 60fps+ at start
2009 MBP 15" or higher: All medium settings will do fine. 55fps+ at start

2010 MBP 13": All low settings with Shaders to medium and 3D portrait. All medium settings runs fine, but laggy when battle occurs. 40fps+ at start
2010 MPB 15" or higher: All Medium settings runs VERY SMOOTH. Might want to have everything else besides Shaders to "High". Looks gorgeous. 60fps+ at start with All Medium. 45~50fps+ for second Graphic settings.
2010 MPB 17" highest end: All high is exceptionally crazy.

Just to let you know, these were all tested under Bootcamp. Thanks to my friends who spent 5 hours with me to install Win 7 on Bootcamp and test this.
 
^ thanks for that information..

reading on the blizzard forums it looks like the OS X version is pretty bad. A lot of FPS drops in mid to late game. Didn't want to boot into windows every time I do SC2 but looks like I may have to.
 
I'm using a 5 year old celeron laptop since mine died back in december and since then waiting to buy a MBP. I really want to be able to play this game with ULTRA settings (transparent shadows, etc look really gorgeous on my friend's Alienware 17") and this is what's holding me back at the minute. I really hope they'll be able to optimise the game a little bit more before they release it so that it runs smooth with ULTRA settings on MBP 15".
 
Really looking forward to the game but I do not want to have to go onto bootcamp to play it, please don't tell me it's going the be poor on the 13" 2010 MBP?!

I haven't even got a copy of Windows and won't buy one so bootcamp is a no no.
 
i have run the beta on my system on ultra without problems @ 1280x800

2.66 / 8gb ram / vertex 2 / 750gb optibay / 320m

it never drops frames for me.
 
MBHockey said:
to say that you play it on Ultra without any dropped frames and then adding that you get 10-12 fps is laughable
Click to expand...

To some people 10-12 is tolerable. I personally need 20 min to find a game acceptable but most people are talking about and expecting much higher frame rates.

Cheers,
 
MacModMachine said:
i dont get it, do you manufacture video cards and have some info that i dont ?

please elaborate
Click to expand...

When you talk about 'dropped frames' it's generally referring to low frames per second (low relative to the refresh rate of your screen or relative to the maximum your brain can perceive.) And you generally want to have 30+ frames per second for smooth gameplay. So if you're getting 10 to 12 fps you're 'dropping' 18 to 20 frames each second.

so it's funny to hear you say, "i play it on ultra with no dropped frames at 10-12 fps"

:)
 
MBHockey said:
When you talk about 'dropped frames' it's generally referring to low frames per second (low relative to the refresh rate of your screen or relative to the maximum your brain can perceive.) And you generally want to have 30+ frames per second for smooth gameplay. So if you're getting 10 to 12 fps you're 'dropping' 18 to 20 frames each second.

so it's funny to hear you say, "i play it on ultra with no dropped frames at 10-12 fps"

:)
Click to expand...

I lol'ed at his post

Anyways supposedly 10.6.4 has extreme performance (as steam described) issues when it comes to games. On any source game I get an FPS boost on windows ranging from 50~100+. Hopefully they fix it, I'm too lazy to go into bootcamp sometimes lol
 
panzer06 said:
To some people 10-12 is tolerable. I personally need 20 min to find a game acceptable but most people are talking about and expecting much higher frame rates.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

How is 10-12 even tolerable? It's a slideshow. 30 or even 40 at minimum I have to say.
 
Rithem said:
How is 10-12 even tolerable? It's a slideshow. 30 or even 40 at minimum I have to say.
Click to expand...

Not to me but I've see my grandkids play on less capable systems with jerky performance just to have the setting higher. When I don't have my gaming system, I've tolerated 20-30fps.

Cheers,
 
now that beta is back up.. any more thoughts and responses with the 320m? I don't have my MBP yet..and sold my M11x so waiting in between time.
 
panzer06 said:
Not to me but I've see my grandkids play on less capable systems with jerky performance just to have the setting higher. When I don't have my gaming system, I've tolerated 20-30fps.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Just hard to understand I suppose. FPS > looking pretty
 
UKBeast said:
RPG's are time wasters..
Click to expand...

Enjoying an immersive story, unique characters, and deep character customization is more of a waste of time than repeatedly clicking units to kill other players units over and over?

I like both genres of games, but RPGs are certainly not time wasters : p
 
aznguyen316 said:
now that beta is back up.. any more thoughts and responses with the 320m? I don't have my MBP yet..and sold my M11x so waiting in between time.
Click to expand...

I just started playing again and was surprised at how horrible the performance is under osx, the game will only run smooth if the settings are set on low. however, under bootcamp, i can play with medium gpu setting and ultra cpu settings. the game just runs so much better under windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back