Can this system run StarCraft 2 at its full speed?

[Light1]

Hi guys! I am planning on buying a new desktop and my primary reason for buying a new one is to be able to play StarCraft 2.

I am on a very very limited budget and could only buy the following based on their current price

I am just a bit concerned about the specifications if these can run StarCraft 2 at its full speed on high settings under, say 1280 x 768 or 1280 x 1024 resolution.

Athlon II X2 250 3ghz.
ECS MCP61M-M3 GF6100 Vpcie/S/GL - motherboard
2 GB DDR3 RAM
Gefore 9400GT 1GB 128bit (or Geforce 210)

With the specification above I think it is a bit better than the recommended settings Blizzard has:

PC: Windows Vista/Windows 7
Dual Core 2.4Ghz Processor
2 GB RAM
512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX or ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better

 

[Nebor]

Should be able to run it at "its full speed." You won't be able to hit ludicrous speed with a rig like that though.

 

[Barfo]

I'd save a little bit more money for a better video card and another 2 GB of RAM.
What's your definition of "full speed" though? maxing out IQ settings, FPS or what?

 

[I4AT]

No, your CPU and RAM are fine, but a 9400gt will not max out SC2 at any resolution. You need to upgrade your video card for high settings, but everything will be playable at mostly medium with a few settings at low in 1280x720. Don't run 1280x1024, it's the worst aspect ratio possible for this game, let your video card scale the image to 1280x720 if you have a 5:4 monitor.

 

[Nebor]

I'd save a little bit more money for a better video card and another 2 GB of RAM.
What's your definition of "full speed" though? maxing out IQ settings, FPS or what?

It's not his definition of "full speed." It's Starcraft's. He very clearly states "StarCraft 2 at its full speed."

 

[RavenSEAL]

If by fullspeed you mean 30FPS ultra low settings running @ 1024*768, then yes.

 

[Light1]

Hi guys! thanks for the replies! what I mean by full speed is at its playable speed like 30fps on high setting (probably some in medium but not ultra high settings) and no slow downs because of hardware limitations.

I am now checking other video cards but I am having difficulties on what is better for example I saw the comparison from passmark that the 8800 is better than the 9400gt and the 210 is newer.

So the athlon x2 250 should be ok except for the video card? i am a bit surprised its way cheaper than core 2 duo's! I am just wndering if its better than the Pentium d's or the core 2 duo's of the same speed.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Hi guys! thanks for the replies! what I mean by full speed is at its playable speed like 30fps on high setting (probably some in medium but not ultra high settings) and no slow downs because of hardware limitations.

No

I am now checking other video cards but I am having difficulties on what is better for example I saw the comparison from passmark that the 8800 is better than the 9400gt and the 210 is newer.

Age only matters on high end cards, the 8800GT will be better than the GT210 and the 9400GT for as long as this planet exist

So the athlon x2 250 should be ok except for the video card? i am a bit surprised its way cheaper than core 2 duo's! I am just wndering if its better than the Pentium d's or the core 2 duo's of the same speed.

That athlon will bottleneck even a 8800GT.

Point i'm trying to make, and not trying to be rude...but you system is bad and won't run any games beyond those made in the year 2004 unless you upgrade your video card to atleast GTS250/450 HD5670/5750, I know the truth hurts but there really is no other way to break the ice, people here are trying to be nice.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Even entry level laptop GPUs like 5470 are better than a desktop 9400GT, and those cannot even run SC2 on medium @ 1366x768 at a reasonable frame rate. For ultra you are going to need a 5770 minimum.

And trust me 60 fps in SC2 makes it a totally different game than it on 30 fps.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

There is no computer in the world that can run everything in starcraft at full speed. Some custom maps will probably never have computers in the foreseeable future that can fun it at ultra settings solid 60 fps.

 

[eLiu]

I play* on an athlon xp 2600+, 2gb ram, 6800gt. Lowest resolution (i think that's 1024x768 in sc2), lowest details.

*Things lag to death in big battles/I drop frames like crazy. Near 200 food v 200 food battles in 1v1 are bad. Larger engagements in 2v2 are bad. 3v3 is not really an option.

I am severely CPU limited here. That athlon X2 is leaps and bounds ahead of my athlon xp... but the 6800gt is much better than the 9400gt. If you turned all the details to min, you could probably play just fine would be my guess. I believe this b/c a friend of mine plays just fine on an i5 with intel integrated graphics (min settings still)--so better cpu than you, but waaaaaay worse graphics.

That said, I would strongly urge you to get a better video card. I wouldn't be surprised if you could pick up used (probably hard to find new ones now) 6800gts or 7800gts for less than the 9400gt. They're like... i dunno, 4+ generations out of date now? Look in our FS/FT forum.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Point i'm trying to make, and not trying to be rude...but you system is bad and won't run any games beyond those made in the year 2004 unless you upgrade your video card to atleast GTS250/450 HD5670/5750, I know the truth hurts but there really is no other way to break the ice, people here are trying to be nice.

Uh, no, that Athlon is totally fine. Its not some old Athlon 64, its a newer one with the regor core. Its faster or comparable to the high end CPUs that were out when the 8800gt 512 was new, and definitely much faster than the CPUs that were available when the 8800gt 320/640 were king. Suitable for GTS 250/4830/4850/4870/4890.

OP just needs to upgrade his videocard and go up to 4GB of ram and he will be golden. I used to run SC2 with a GTS 250 512 and most settings at high or max at 1920x1080 and locked at 30 fps. I'm not using it anymore, and I got it for cheap a year ago and am prepared to sell it for cheap. . . *hint* *hint*

So the athlon x2 250 should be ok except for the video card? i am a bit surprised its way cheaper than core 2 duo's! I am just wndering if its better than the Pentium d's or the core 2 duo's of the same speed.

Its similar to Core 2 duos of similar frequency and much better than single-core Pentium Ds.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

There is no computer in the world that can run everything in starcraft at full speed. Some custom maps will probably never have computers in the foreseeable future that can fun it at ultra settings solid 60 fps.

I think we should define a "good speed" as constant 30 FPS or above with most or nearly most settings maxed out, on a normal map, during normal gameplay. No 1 million baneling explosions, etc.

Basically playable and enjoyable at high settings.

 

[beginner99]

There is no computer in the world that can run everything in starcraft at full speed. Some custom maps will probably never have computers in the foreseeable future that can fun it at ultra settings solid 60 fps.

this. because it also get's cpu bound pretty quickly. Just remember certain maps in SC1 min. spec. was a p1 60 ghz but, as example fastest 3v3 and guy with like 20 carriers. I think you alomst needed a p3 to run that.

So it depends what modes OP wants to play. League 1v1 should not eb an issue. but 2v2 or 3v3 and bigger maps...

 

[Rezist]

I have a similar set up with more ram and a way better video card and don't have any issues. But I also set most the details to low so I can hold 50-60ish FPS for online games to be competitive. For just the SP I could crank pretty much everything to high and get 30ish FPS. That's at 1920x1080.

I'd get a 5770, GTS450, or GTX460 -768, video card and more ram if I was you.

 

[borisvodofsky]

If by fullspeed you mean 30FPS ultra low settings running @ 1024*768, then yes.

Don't act all high and mighty, with ur sig,, u can view a gorgeous slide show mid game...

 

[BD231]

Just find yourself a used HD 4850 for 50 to 60 bucks, that 9400 is garbage.

 

[Light1]

Uh, no, that Athlon is totally fine. Its not some old Athlon 64, its a newer one with the regor core. Its faster or comparable to the high end CPUs that were out when the 8800gt 512 was new, and definitely much faster than the CPUs that were available when the 8800gt 320/640 were king. Suitable for GTS 250/4830/4850/4870/4890.

OP just needs to upgrade his videocard and go up to 4GB of ram and he will be golden. I used to run SC2 with a GTS 250 512 and most settings at high or max at 1920x1080 and locked at 30 fps. I'm not using it anymore, and I got it for cheap a year ago and am prepared to sell it for cheap. . . *hint* *hint*



Its similar to Core 2 duos of similar frequency and much better than single-core Pentium Ds.

Thanks for the informative reply!

Based on your comments guys it seems SC2 needs so much hardware power way contrary to what Blizzard's recommended system requirements. Why is that?

As you have suggested I am now looking for a more powerful video card but again I have my budget in mind, hopefully I will be able to get a new cpu built this week but my question is what is the cheapest video card there that can run SC2 this time in medium setting and with multiple players (of course I don't want anything running in less than 30fps)

The only problem would be the money as I have very limited budget, from your suggestions I think the minimum card I should take is at least GeForce 250GTS is that correct? I will check the benchmark comparison again and inform you.

Also I will be making a decision on the processor, is the Athlon X2 250 really good enough? it is already at 3.0ghz dual core and I read it is relatively new. Right now I think that is the only processor that fits the budget perfectly. I was looking into those Pentium D dual cores running at 2.8ghz and the Core 2 Duo E7400, they are a bit more expensive even if they are already used.