StarCraft 2 System Reqs

[ja1484]

UPDATE:

Blizzard isn't confirming these specs (nor denying them), so take them with the appropriate amount of salt.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/876/876096p1.html

=========================================

I already searched a number of strings, so if this is a repost, blame the AT search function.

Anyway, here they are:

Minimum Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 256Mb 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.

Source


What the hell do they need with all that graphics power? The screenshots don't have anything in them that comes CLOSE to justifying that kind of grunt.

Not that I care. I exceed the recommended specs. I'm just sayin.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

No way those can be the reqs with the screens that are out.

 

[Maleficus]

Agreed, those specs seem REALLY high, especially for how the game looks visually coupled with Blizzard's track history of lower reqs

 

[Calculator83]

who cares, this is probably the only game that justifies any upgrades just so we can play 25x16 with 12xTAA and 32xAF .

 

[Skunkwourk]

Damn, 6800Gt isn't good enough but a Pentium 4 is? CPU/GPU requirements seem a little off balance.

 

[imported_sushicide]

The information is from a magazine, maybe people misread it.

 

[Dumac]

Well are they raising the population cap? I haven't been following SC2 as much as I should, but maybe it's due to the large amount of units coupled with the new battle effects they are adding.

 

[sanzen07]

Those do seem high. SC2 looks pretty much like Warcraft III with higher res textures etc. Even if they are actually this high, people WILL upgrade for it. No questioning that.

 

[Kromis]

WTF? They said that it should be able to scale very well, even able to run on your grandma's computer!

 

[potato28]

Maybe they just released that and will amend it later? Like some RTS's can be hardware intensive, but maybe this has to do with Zerg Rushes?

 

[Molondo]

Blizzard didn't mention confirm those specs, you can lay of the panic button.

 

[Kromis]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/876/876096p1.html

Let all your fears come to rest

 

[Zenoth]

I smell a not so subtle promotional campaign...

Think at how SC2 will sell? Alright, now that the idea is built now try to think about how much would the CPU/GPU companies and/or the specific GPU/CPU models being mentioned in the Requirements will be in the "I-want-upgrade-for-SC2" consumers' buy list? That's where money is, that's where false information is given. Say that SC2 needs 'x' card and you've pretty much assured to sell that card in much higher quantities than "usual". That game is a cash cow and the first arrived on the Requirements list is the first served.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
I smell a not so subtle promotional campaign...

Think at how SC2 will sell? Alright, now that the idea is built now try to think about how much would the CPU/GPU companies and/or the specific GPU/CPU models being mentioned in the Requirements will be in the "I-want-upgrade-for-SC2" consumers' buy list? That's where money is, that's where false information is given. Say that SC2 needs 'x' card and you've pretty much assured to sell that card in much higher quantities than "usual". That game is a cash cow and the first arrived on the Requirements list is the first served.

better yet, I wonder what would happen if SC2 made use of DirectX 10.1.

 

[40sTheme]

I agree with the people who said these are a bit high.
None of the screenshots merit these specs, unless they're assuming everyone is going to use 8xQ AA or something.

 

[Fenixgoon]

can't imagine that happening - blizzard's specs have ALWAYS been reasonable. i would not expect them to change the way they made their games as far as playability/scalability goes. it simply doesn't make sense given how many people play their current games and will want to get their hands on SC2

 

[Fox5]

Saying the generation of card doesn't mean much either. There are cards in the radeon x1000 generation that are slower than the radeon 9600.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't think the requirements will be any higher than they are for Warcraft 3 or WoW.

The requirements above look more in line with what I?d expect for Crysis.

 

[Xavier434]

After playing SC2 at BlizzCon, there is no doubt in my mind that these specs are too high. While I realize a lot can change between when BlizzCon occurred and when SC2 goes gold, I can't imagine it changing that drastically. I don't believe that people will be able to run it at max settings with a machine that is 4+ years old, but it's not going to be another Crysis either. Far from it.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Those requirements are higher than Supreme Commander! (Although SupCom runs like shit at the min requirements anyway)

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
After playing SC2 at BlizzCon, there is no doubt in my mind that these specs are too high. While I realize a lot can change between when BlizzCon occurred and when SC2 goes gold, I can't imagine it changing that drastically. I don't believe that people will be able to run it at max settings with a machine that is 4+ years old, but it's not going to be another Crysis either. Far from it.

any idea what the specs were on the rigs at blizzcon? i don't suppose you're allowed to say how SC2 ran for a very premature build?

regardless i'm getting SC2. i suspect (and expect as well) that blizzard will continue its tradition/policy of making very flexible system requirements

 

[LumbergTech]

need you be reminded..that

A: this is an RTS. when you have a lot of stuff on the screen, the fps can dip down to zilch if you dont have a good pc...even warcraft 3 was hard to run for a while (no not in comparison to crysis)

B: the game employs a lot more gameplay elements than warcraft 3 ..such as physics..

it sort of blows me away that ANYONE is surprised that it would require a pentium 4..

 

[Sumguy]

Considering its an RTS, that doesn't look too bad.

Now...are those zerg rush specs or what?

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Saying the generation of card doesn't mean much either. There are cards in the radeon x1000 generation that are slower than the radeon 9600.

Like the X1050, which is more or less an X300 SE (and the X1550, which is a sort of detuned X1300 Pro, although in that case, it would take the Radeon 9600 XT - the only truly good Radeon 9600). But both the HD 2400 Pro and the 8400 GS cards are really quite crummy cards for modern games, especially the HD 2400 (although the HD 2400 XT is nowhere near as bad, although I wouldn't call it "good" by any meaning of that word).

 

[Modelworks]

Bandwidth requirements are a bit high for an RTS.
I wish they had used the world in conflict engine for SC2.
It would have been amazing.