Starcraft 2 requirements theorycrafting

[soccerballtux]

My guess it's going to use a LOT of CPU power-- seeing some of the videos of 200 broodlings running...that's a lot of physics to calculate.

I had a similar problem in wow, graphics card was great but my CPU couldn't keep up in Shattrath, until I upgraded to my current rig.

I'm certain my graphics card will be able to handle this, not so sure about my CPU. But by then I'll probably be on a Penryn quad so I should be good.



Moved to PC Gaming.

Video Mod BFG10K.

 

[Bateluer]

Neither my current desktop nor my current laptop will have any problems running SC2. Desktop is an E8500 w/ 4GB of RAM and a Radeon 4870, and my current notebook is a 2.1Ghz Dothan w/ 2GB of RAM and a 7800 GTX Go. The notebook will be replaced by the end of the year, and its likely that my desktop will get multiple upgrades before the release of SC2.

 

[Seggybop]

I read somewhere that they wanted it playable on a GMA950 as to not pose a problem for the gargantuan Korean audience, but I have no source for that.

 

[IlllI]

blizzard always designs games for the casual person in mind, so as to appeal to a larger group of people. so i bet lowly, weak systems wont have any problems playing it.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: clandren
blizzard always designs games for the casual person in mind, so as to appeal to a larger group of people. so i bet lowly, weak systems wont have any problems playing it.

Blizzard is smart. They know that a LARGE portion of "gamers" don't have anything near what people on this forum talk about. Making the game playable on lower end systems enables many more people to enjoy it (and put money in their pocket).

edit: Can't wait to play it on my system! X2@2.85 and 8800GT should blast it out of the park.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I hope both of my systems can play it. My lappy has a horrible integrated GPU.

 

[ed21x]

I'm assuming that a Radeon x1800xt or Geforce 7900GS should be able to handle it no problem.

 

[irishScott]

My laptop has a core duo t2500 (2 Ghz) with a mobility Radeon X1600 256 MB dedicated, 512 integrated. It can run C&C3 and CoH fine on medium settings, SC2 should be cake.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I'd wager a system consisting entirely of hardware up to 2 generations removed will still be able to play SC2 like butter (ie s939 X2 / Pentium D and Radeon X18xx and GeForce 7800) and would also wager it will still run relatively well on the absolute basic requirements.

That being said, considering all the new budget hardware pouring in (or will be available by the time SC2 hits retail) it'll be incredibly cheap to upgrade your computer or even build one from the ground up (or even a retail hot deal) that can absolute demolish the game's needs.

Granted, I'm really only considering the gameplay experience via the campaign or basic multiplayer, I wouldn't be surprised if someone can cook up something or some situation that would challenge an otherwise worthy system - I remember fooling around with some friends playing Brood War where we were both Protoss and I was set up to keep pumping out Carriers while he built up a bunch of Dark Archons so that he could mind control them (and thus have the ability to break the control limit) as they came out of my Stargates. Needless to say, once he had a few dozen Carriers - each with 8 interceptors - his eventual attack caused quite a bit of slowdown on otherwise awesome computers (by SC/BW standards).

 

[IEC]

Blizzard goes for playability on most systems.

There's no point in making a game for the masses if it won't run well except on the top 5% of PC hardware. Which most of us on AT would seem to fall under.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Blizzard goes for playability on most systems.

There's no point in making a game for the masses if it won't run well except on the top 5% of PC hardware. Which most of us on AT would seem to fall under.

This.

It's one of the many reasons Blizzard is the gold standard for gaming companies in my opinion.

 

[Aikouka]

I shouldn't have trouble playing it on at least 3 out of 5 of my PCs.... My older HP laptop can play WoW, albeit it's kind of slow on its integrated Radeon M300. My ASUS Eee-PC... not really meant for gaming, although it could probably play it since the screen/resolution is so small .

My main PCs are:
Main Desktop - Q6600 / 4GB RAM / HD4870
Desktop/Server - E6600 / 2GB RAM / 8800GT
Laptop - Some C2D / 3GB RAM / 8600GT

I remember when we'd have LAN parties at my friend's house and one of my friends could barely play WC3 on his laptop... half the stuff was white because it couldn't load all the textures .

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
My guess it's going to use a LOT of CPU power-- seeing some of the videos of 200 broodlings running...that's a lot of physics to calculate.

I had a similar problem in wow, graphics card was great but my CPU couldn't keep up in Shattrath, until I upgraded to my current rig.

I'm certain my graphics card will be able to handle this, not so sure about my CPU. But by then I'll probably be on a Penryn quad so I should be good.



Moved to PC Gaming.

Video Mod BFG10K.

I agree, CPU power is key here. My 2.4ghz 939 might not be enough but i expect it will be. I'll prolly have a wolfdale by the time it's out though since CPU power is as important as GFX power in PC gaming these days.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Neither my current desktop nor my current laptop will have any problems running SC2. Desktop is an E8500 w/ 4GB of RAM and a Radeon 4870, and my current notebook is a 2.1Ghz Dothan w/ 2GB of RAM and a 7800 GTX Go. The notebook will be replaced by the end of the year, and its likely that my desktop will get multiple upgrades before the release of SC2.

This is my favorite post.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Blizzard never has strict requirements.

I'm sure any PC built in the last year will run at full settings IMO.

I have no doubts that my E4300, Radeon 3850 will play at 1650x1280 at full settings

 

[VashHT]

I'm guessing its going to be somewhat low requirements. If cpu's nowadays can handle supcom well then I'm guessing they'll be able to handle the number of units in SC2 perfectly fine.

 

[Vehemence]

Low requirements of course

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Can't be worse than SupCom, I agree Blizzard goes for a low entry bar.

 

[Ichigo]

I used to be able to play WC3 at the lowest possible settings @640x480 with an 8MB TNT. It ran 2v2's fine.

I'm being completely serious.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Can't be worse than SupCom, I agree Blizzard goes for a low entry bar.

SupCom has quite possibly the most inefficient 3d engine I've ever seen - NOTHING can be worse than it.

I'm positive it'll be playable on somewhat recent integrated graphics at the least - so many systems come with tons of CPU power and really weak graphics, but blizzard knows what theyre doing when it comes to sys reqs - I'm sure itll run like a dream on the cheapest PC you could buy today.

 

[ubercaffeinated]

i'm just excited to be able to play sc2 in os x. wow ran better on my os x configs than any windows box i ever owned.

 

[SonicIce]

I'm going to guess the minimum will be around 9800 Pro and 2.8GHz Pentium 4. Maybe even lower.

 

[sourceninja]

I know without a doubt starcraft 2 will be made to run well on my macbook pro. They target mac, and they will make sure it runs on current gen mac hardware well.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I know without a doubt starcraft 2 will be made to run well on my macbook pro. They target mac, and they will make sure it runs on current gen mac hardware well.

not that blizzard doesn't support gaming on apple machines (obviously they do, or they wouldn't do dual releases) but i don't know that the specifically target apples either. they are, after all, a minority in market share.

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
My guess it's going to use a LOT of CPU power-- seeing some of the videos of 200 broodlings running...that's a lot of physics to calculate.

I had a similar problem in wow, graphics card was great but my CPU couldn't keep up in Shattrath, until I upgraded to my current rig.

I'm certain my graphics card will be able to handle this, not so sure about my CPU. But by then I'll probably be on a Penryn quad so I should be good.



Moved to PC Gaming.

Video Mod BFG10K.

I'm always absolutely baffled by people who enjoy video games but refuse to keep their hardware up to date to the point where they actually have to question their ability to play new games.

Lets face it. This isn't the year 2000 when a topend rig could run you $2500. This is 2008 where prices are so low on highend hardware your entire system (minus the graphics card) can cost less than a topend graphics card and still run anything on the market.

I built someone a FPS rig for $450 that had a 8800GT and he won't have to upgrade for 2 years. Had he doubled the price to $1000 he could have a rig that will run all games maxed for two years.