StarCraft2 Specs

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by capoeirista, May 22, 2008.

  1. capoeirista macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    #1
    I've never played the first one, and I don't plan on getting this, but I remember a big thread a while ago with people asking what the system reqs for this game would be. I found this article on a British gaming website, and thought it might be of use to some of you... Apparently these are taken from a Spanish gaming magazine. I guess these are PeeCee though...

    http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189528

    Minimum Requirements:

    GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 25Mb RAM
    CPU: Pentium 4
    RAM: 1Gb
    Internet: ADSL 1 MBit

    Recommend Requirements:

    GFX: GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512Mb RAM
    CPU: Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2
    RAM: 2Gb
    Internet: ADSL 3 Mbit

    Optimal Requirements:

    GFX: Geforce 9000er or Radeon 3000er Series
    CPU: Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz or Athlon X2
    RAM: 2Gb with DualChannel mode.

    NB: "Blizzard has yet to confirm the specs, so far only confirming that the game will require Pixel Shader 2.0."
     
  2. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    I was addicted to the first one, and I expect to be so to the second one.

    I just hope when the Mac specs come out, my iMac can cut it.
     
  3. ninjapenguinart macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    #3
    This game is one of the reasons why I bought the highest end iMac and upgraded it to 4 gigs "3rd party retailer memory"
     
  4. ruinfx macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    #4
    sounds made up to be honest, i will believe it when i see it.
     
  5. haiggy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #5
    I think my MBP would run it fine.. or I hope so.. with ATLEAST 30+ fps. The only thing that is holding me back would be my VRAM I guess with 256 instead of the 512. I just got my logic board replaced but I haven't picked it up yet... let's hope they got one with the 512 MB graphics chip on it! Haha that would be sweeet
     
  6. aidanpendragon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #6
    How do you think my 1.42 eMac will handle it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  7. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #7
    This is probably some of the worst news I've heard in ages.

    I won't be able to play SC2 on my 1 year old MBP.
    My friend in the navy won't be able to play SC2.

    Actually, I don't know anyone who will be able to play SC2 with these sort of requirements! (all my friends have laptops)

    If this is the truth, I might as well as sell my Macbook Pro for an Airbook and build a desktop... Ha! Like I could afford to:mad:
     
  8. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #8

    What are you talking about? The minimum requirements are really low. The Radeon X1600 will definitely be able to run this game, even if you only have 128MB of VRAM. Although it might not "meet" the minimum requirements, all you need to do is run at a lower resolution if it lags. Blizzard is just doing a great job of making the game scalable so that almost anyone will be able to play it.
     
  9. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
  10. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  11. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #11
    sounds like the new imacs will do beautifully. :)
     
  12. Antares macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #12
    I'm pretty sure it will be Intel Mac only. So you'll probably be out of luck... Time to upgrade, anyway, right?. :)
     
  13. Sijmen macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
  14. nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #14
    I was hoping for lower specs, for an RTS game... but my iMac can handle these specs if true.

    My MacBook Air... no.
     
  15. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #15
    How do you have 182MB? Do you mean 128MB?
     
  16. Help! macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #16
    http://pc.ign.com/articles/876/876096p1.html


    "Blizzard has not released final, official system requirements for StarCraft II. The numbers you're seeing are a result of independent speculation from a Spanish game magazine."
     
  17. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #17
    VRAM means $h!t. When will people realize it?
     
  18. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18
    agreed. if your video card is in the named series, you'll be fine. VRAM would only matter if you were running it on a very high resolution.

    Of course, since these specs are just speculation anyway, this whole discussion is pretty pointless.
     
  19. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #19
    Blizzard is very good about letting their games play on every computer that they can. Look at wow if you want an example of how low they can go.
     
  20. mauroespartan11 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    #20
    :D
     
  21. haiggy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #21
    Well, that's not totally true...
    I just got my MBP repaired and they gave me a 2.6GHz CPU instead of 2.2GHz logic board with 256 MB instead of 128 MB VRAM... and I get 25% more framerates... I'm sure most of it is because of the processor but VRAM has to be a part of it too...
     
  22. Shlokda macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    #22
    thats a bunch of bull. The game has been in development for the past 4 years or so. Also they'll do like war 3 where you can scale all the specs and shading and textures. I'd say if you can run war 3 on full specs really well, you probably have a very good chance of running sc2 AT LEAST with sc2 specs scaled down a little bit. sc2 looks reallygood but i dont think graphically its insanely beyond war 3. Besides, they dont want to pull a crysis and alienate 3/4'ths of their faithful customers.
     
  23. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #23
    Its very likely due to faster CPU. Some games benefit more from faster CPU, than GPU. Extra VRAM doesn't add any significant amount of FPS, especially on laptop video cards with *****ty memory buses.

    Although its true that extra 128 MB can improve performance under curtain circumstances, but definitely not by 25%.
     
  24. Tom B. macrumors 65816

    Tom B.

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #24
    I'll be happy if I can get 20fps at minimum settings on my MacBook.

    If not, my brother is building a PC for Age of Conan, so I supose I can just use that. :)
     
  25. haiggy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #25
    Yeah, currently with WC3 in an area with fog of war and no units... I've seen as high as 275 fps. In battles and following your army it's always 80-150 fps :) So I'm hoping SC2 will be ATLEAST 30. Anything below 30 will disappoint me :(
     

Share This Page