I don't believe Starcraft 2 uses DX10 so it won't really matter.
Hence, I'm "guessing" that XP will allow you to nudge it up a little because of less overhaed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Starcraft 2 - Will it run? megathread
- Thread starter SilentPanda
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't believe Starcraft 2 uses DX10 so it won't really matter.
Hence, I'm "guessing" that XP will allow you to nudge it up a little because of less overhaed.
I played it a bit on a MacBook Pro 1,1 -- Core Duo (not C2D) 2 GHz, 2 GB, Radeon X1600 (128 MB). Seemed to be quite decent at the default (low) settings.
Doubtful. Windows 7 (64-bit) might have a slight edge because it can see more RAM than Windows XP. Would only matter if you have over 3GB RAM.
In my experience, Windows 7 feels faster than Windows XP on the same machine (MBP, 2.4GHz C2D, 4GB RAM). But this is due to Windows 7 utilizing the 64-bit processor and full amount of system memory. SC2 probably wouldn't be much different since it's a 32-bit game.
Windows 7 is not the resource hog you would assume by being the next generation of Windows. It's actually quite snappy.
Well one technique introduced since Vista is highly utilized RAM caching. Therefore if you have a lot of RAM, it should "inteligently" cache the right stuff so it doesn't need to access the HD that much, hence speeding up overall performance in some situations...notably those that require a lot of file access.
Mac Model: iMac early 2006
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.1GHz
RAM: 2.5GB
Video card: 128MB NVidia 7300GT
Screen resolution: Game playing on external monitor at 1080p
Settings: 1600x1024
Everything to low
Playability: really good, average of 40 fps in combat, not lower than 25 fps in massive units combat.
I made a video just in case you didn't believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skbyGpIkzBw
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.1GHz
RAM: 2.5GB
Video card: 128MB NVidia 7300GT
Screen resolution: Game playing on external monitor at 1080p
Settings: 1600x1024
Everything to low
Playability: really good, average of 40 fps in combat, not lower than 25 fps in massive units combat.
I made a video just in case you didn't believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skbyGpIkzBw
StarCraft 2 to me seems to be more CPU-bound than anything else due to the sheer amount of things going on as well as the physics engine.
Taking my Core i7 from 3.6GHz to 4GHz got me about 8-9 FPS extra.
Taking my Core i7 from 3.6GHz to 4GHz got me about 8-9 FPS extra.
Mac Model: iMac 27"
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.8 ghz i7
RAM: 16
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 4850m 512mb VRAM
Screen resolution: 2560x1440
Default settings: high
Modifications to default settings: none so far
Playability: awesome
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.8 ghz i7
RAM: 16
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 4850m 512mb VRAM
Screen resolution: 2560x1440
Default settings: high
Modifications to default settings: none so far
Playability: awesome
I have the same machine and there is nothing awesome about playing it at 2560x1440 with high settings.
Can you guys show at least say something about the average FPS that you are getting?
I bet no more than 20 - 25 in battle...
Awesome can't be less than 40
Mac Model: imac 21.5" 2010
Operating System:10.6.4
Processor Speed:3.06
RAM:4GB
Video card:ATI HD 4670 256MB
Screen resolution:1920 x 1080
Default settings:Everything Medium
Modifications to default settings:
Playability:Very, 45 fps
Would it be better under windows 7 ( bootcamp ) ?
Operating System:10.6.4
Processor Speed:3.06
RAM:4GB
Video card:ATI HD 4670 256MB
Screen resolution:1920 x 1080
Default settings:Everything Medium
Modifications to default settings:
Playability:Very, 45 fps
Would it be better under windows 7 ( bootcamp ) ?
Mac Model: 2008 Aluminum Macbook
Operating System: OS 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
RAM: 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Video card: Nvidia GeForce 9400M 256MB shared memory
Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050 Samsung SyncMaster 2233
Default settings: Low
Modifications to default settings: Low
Playability: Runs very well
The HDD is 320GB 7200RPM.
I am playing the digital downloaded SCII on my MacBook with an external display. The game runs well on the lowest setting. Loading time is average. When there's a lot happening in the game, there can be a slight lag.
I would imagine the game would run a bit better on the MacBook screen than on the external display. Enjoy.
Operating System: OS 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
RAM: 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Video card: Nvidia GeForce 9400M 256MB shared memory
Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050 Samsung SyncMaster 2233
Default settings: Low
Modifications to default settings: Low
Playability: Runs very well
The HDD is 320GB 7200RPM.
I am playing the digital downloaded SCII on my MacBook with an external display. The game runs well on the lowest setting. Loading time is average. When there's a lot happening in the game, there can be a slight lag.
I would imagine the game would run a bit better on the MacBook screen than on the external display. Enjoy.
Seems quite good in windows 7
Thanks
What do people use for controlling fans in windows 7 ?
The imac gets hot for sure
For those that my specs apply to:
Mac Model: Macbook Pro SR 2007
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.4ghz
RAM: 4gb
Video card: Nvidia GT 8600m
Playability: Because of the Nvidia driver problem, performance could be worse.
It was very playable on medium to low settings. A few slow downs in intense, high unit populated areas that soon would speed back up. Some cut scenes were slow. Small maps worked very well
It will be interesting to see performance on the new drivers. Campaign was amazing and loved the last level! I have one Co-Op multi player mission with no slow downs at all. I would highly suggest this game.
Mac Model: Macbook Pro SR 2007
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.4ghz
RAM: 4gb
Video card: Nvidia GT 8600m
Playability: Because of the Nvidia driver problem, performance could be worse.
It was very playable on medium to low settings. A few slow downs in intense, high unit populated areas that soon would speed back up. Some cut scenes were slow. Small maps worked very well
It will be interesting to see performance on the new drivers. Campaign was amazing and loved the last level! I have one Co-Op multi player mission with no slow downs at all. I would highly suggest this game.
Reagarding "loading", note that Windows 7 has "Superfetch" (intelligent caching). It stores file files you will use in extra RAM determined by some sort of statistical AI algorithms. Therefore, if you have a lot of RAM, that might also conribute a bit to overall performance. I don't think this affects the "graphics" unless it access the HD during certian periods, but worth a note, perhaps.
Just an FYI for everyone. I know this has been said before but I noticed a HUGE framerate increase when I reinstalled Snow Leopard and updated to just 10.6.3. I highly recommend either downgrading or reinstalling. It's seriously night and day. I'm getting better framerates on Ultra/Ultra than I did on Low/Low. This is with an i5-750, 8GB, GTX260.
Mac Model: iMac 27 (Late 2009)
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.8 Ghz Intel Core i7
RAM: 8 GB
Video card: ATI Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB VRAM)
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1080 (Fullscreen)
Default settings: High
Modifications to default settings: None
Playability: In-game frame rate counter (Ctrl+Opt+F) shows (on average) 30 FPS in Campaigns and 45 FPS in the Verses A.I. maps. Game play seems smooth to me, but then I'm usually too busy defeating Zerg on Verses maps to notice any game lags
Operating System: 10.6.4
Processor Speed: 2.8 Ghz Intel Core i7
RAM: 8 GB
Video card: ATI Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB VRAM)
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1080 (Fullscreen)
Default settings: High
Modifications to default settings: None
Playability: In-game frame rate counter (Ctrl+Opt+F) shows (on average) 30 FPS in Campaigns and 45 FPS in the Verses A.I. maps. Game play seems smooth to me, but then I'm usually too busy defeating Zerg on Verses maps to notice any game lags
I decided to downgrade to 10.6.3. The performance increase was incredible. Multiplayer used to be very slow and almost unplayable with my specs. After downgrading, everything is very smooth even in high populated areas. Campaign probably plays the same now. If you are on 10.6.4, downgrade to .3.
I find it utterly pathetic that Apple screwed up the drivers this bad on 10.6.4 and has yet to fix this...sad really that we have to downgrade back to point 3. Even if they aren't ready to launch .5 yet they should update the drivers w/ a quick patch.
I have a 5 year old MacPro Quad Core 4gig ram and an Radeon HD 4870 running the latest version of OSX at my office and it runs SC2 default on High settings across the board. It plays absolutely fantastic for a 5 year old computer.
Wow, never would have expected that. I have that machine, and didn't even think it was worth a try
24-inch iMac
3.06Ghz C2D
4GB RAM
NVIDIA 8800GS 512MB
Snow Leopard 10.6.4
When loaded from within Mac OS X, the best I can do is medium graphics settings at 1280x720, and even then I get a lot of slowing and choppy framerate
If I bootcamp directly into Windows 7 and load from there, I can play on Ultra graphics settings, everything fully maxed out, at max resolution 1920x1200
At the time, my iMac was the highest end iMac available. I paid extra to get the NVIDIA 512MB graphics card over the ATI 256MB graphics card, and at the moment I'm getting pooped on by Apple. It makes me very angry. The NVIDIA drivers have been borked for a long time and Apple seems to be in no hurry to fix them. Apple wants the Mac to be seen as a viable gaming platform, but when the graphics drivers are this screwed up...
3.06Ghz C2D
4GB RAM
NVIDIA 8800GS 512MB
Snow Leopard 10.6.4
When loaded from within Mac OS X, the best I can do is medium graphics settings at 1280x720, and even then I get a lot of slowing and choppy framerate
If I bootcamp directly into Windows 7 and load from there, I can play on Ultra graphics settings, everything fully maxed out, at max resolution 1920x1200
At the time, my iMac was the highest end iMac available. I paid extra to get the NVIDIA 512MB graphics card over the ATI 256MB graphics card, and at the moment I'm getting pooped on by Apple. It makes me very angry. The NVIDIA drivers have been borked for a long time and Apple seems to be in no hurry to fix them. Apple wants the Mac to be seen as a viable gaming platform, but when the graphics drivers are this screwed up...