What are the realistic computer requirements of Warcraft III?

[Dragnov]

I wasn't too impressed with Warcraft III during the beta phase, but nevertheless it still seems like it has a great potential if not the best game available right now. I need a new game to replace Starcraft finally, but I'm not willing to pay out $50+ just yet. I'm wondering what are the realistic computer requirements to run Warcraft III... that meaning 1024x768 with medium detail/quality and all the settings and such with anywhere up to the maximum number of players poassible. During the beta phase (in which the game was unoptimized of course) but it LAGGED on my system especially whenever 2 armies clashed with each other even at 800x600 and music off. Yes I know Blizzard has system specs on their site, but we all know those are not realistic ever. Since many of you have been playing it, I shoudl be able to get a good accurate answer.

My system...

1.2ghz Athlon
384mb PC133
Radeon 64DDR

I know my video card was the limiting factor, but I'm not willing to shell out $100+ for a new video card just for this game which I would have to pay an additonal $50+ for (especially one that I wasn't too impressed with). So how does it look? Will the game well on my system, or will I need to get a new video card if I ever want to really enjoy this game? Thanks.

 

[LOLyourFace]

u should be able to handle 1024x768 @ 16 bit color.
With Low textures, Low unit detail and everything else high.

or 800x600.. if that's SDRAM.. Keep in mind that they increased performance issues since the Beta.. (around 1.11 beta patch and more)

With my old system, Tbird 750Mhz with GF2GTS + 320SDRAM, It ran fine on 800x600 with everything set to low. And that was before Beta.

Now with my new PC, I run it on 1024x768x16 with everything high. Because my GF2GTS is the bottleneck on my AthlonXP 1700 with 768mb PC2100 DDR Can't quite handle 32 bits.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

So what are the minimum requirements?

 

[ed21x]

a pentium 3 1000 with 256 mb sdram, a geforce 3ti200 should be able to run it fine at 800x600 with medium detail. and everything else set to high.

 

[ultimatebob]

Odd. Are we even playing the same game? I'm playing Warcraft III on a 700Mhz AMD Athlon with 256MB of RAM and a TNT2 Ultra, and it's butter smooth at 800x600.

Now, Grand Theft Auto III is a different story. That game plays like a damn slide show in this system.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
u should be able to handle 1024x768 @ 16 bit color. With Low textures, Low unit detail and everything else high. or 800x600.. if that's SDRAM.. Keep in mind that they increased performance issues since the Beta.. (around 1.11 beta patch and more) With my old system, Tbird 750Mhz with GF2GTS + 320SDRAM, It ran fine on 800x600 with everything set to low. And that was before Beta. Now with my new PC, I run it on 1024x768x16 with everything high. Because my GF2GTS is the bottleneck on my AthlonXP 1700 with 768mb PC2100 DDR Can't quite handle 32 bits.

So with my 1.6a Northwood @ 2.5HGz, 512MB PC2100, and GeForce4 Ti4600, I should be able to play it at 1600x1200x32 with everything jacked way up

nik

 

[ed21x]

oh sorry, i was making an assumption =P actually the game runs smoothly on my rig at 1024x768 with everything turned up high, but that's cuz my rig looks a bit more like nik's

 

[Hubris]

Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Hubris
Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

Okay, so i'll play it 1234871928374x124358719823749809345 @ 32bit color w/ everything jacked up

nik

 

[arod]

Im playing it at 1280x1024 with all detailes maxed...

AMD 1333
256 DDR
GeForce 2 Ultra

 

[Hubris]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Hubris
Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

Okay, so i'll play it 1234871928374x124358719823749809345 @ 32bit color w/ everything jacked up

nik

That a proper 4:3 ratio, nik?

 

[kami]

I run in 1280x960x32...1600x1200x32 is just as smooth but when there is huge battles it slows down a bit. I have all the settings maxed.. (see my rig in the sig)

Oh and give my map a shot

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Hubris
Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

Okay, so i'll play it 1234871928374x124358719823749809345 @ 32bit color w/ everything jacked up

nik

That a proper 4:3 ratio, nik?

Well, looking at the number it looks like 9:16. Them's some odd numbers you's got there, them's some odd numbers.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Hubris Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

Okay, so i'll play it 1234871928374x124358719823749809345 @ 32bit color w/ everything jacked up nik

That a proper 4:3 ratio, nik?

Eh... who cares? It's gonna take 600 monitors to display it or just all the characters be so small on my 21" that all I see is a big bright solid-color on my monitor for the world.

nik

 

[YaKuZa]

Like with Diablo2, ram plays a big part.

 

[Justin218]

Epox 8k7A, Duron 750, Radeon VIVO 64MB DDR, 384MB DDR, 1024x768, medium everything. It plays smooth for me.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: YaKuZa
Like with Diablo2, ram plays a big part.

Yup. Like with most real-time strats.

nik

 

[notfred]

Athlon XP 1700+
256mb DDR 2100
Matrox G450

Is it gonna look half decent on that? I'm only really worried about the vid card.

 

[hans007]

my friend plays war3 on a p3-500,512mb ram, and a gf2 ultra. seems pretty fast at 800x600 or so.


right now i'm playing it on a p4 1.6A @ 1600 (it can do 2133 makes no difference), 256mb ram and sis 650 integrated video (thats the kicker) its decent at 800x600 doesnt slow down much at all, but its on medium everything. just got a gf2 gts to make it work at 1024x768 and then i should be gold.


i'm still trying to see if it'll run on my p3-500 , 192mb 4mb rage pro laptop at the absolute lowest settings so i can play it at work.

 

[tk149]

On the lowest settings on a Pentium 450, TNT, 128MB SDRAM (the minimum requirements are a Pentium 400, TNT), it works fine, except for slowdowns sometimes.

 

[tk149]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Nefrodite]

if you play online to win, u need atleast 1ghz... atleast.. with 4+ players and tons of units, slow down will kick your @ss. its not like starcraft where u can just fire and forget troops, u gotta micromanage. if your mouse jumps or slows.. u get screwed

 

[Danman]

Originally posted by: Hubris
Are you people kidding? I'm playing it at 1600X1200X32 with everything on high with a 1.1 Thunderbird, 384MB PC133 RAM and a GF3 Ti200, and it's smooth as silk....

Werd up!

 

[Instan00dles]

What is micormanage... no one will answer me

 

[Nefrodite]

spells? troop control of your few units. well compared to sc where u could just toss hoards of hydras and sh*t at people even if your pc choked a little.