|
I REALLY need to upgrade my computer to play, I get a whole 10 FPS right now! hah.
I bought a new video card, a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB, so that should help a lot, since my video card was the main issue (256mb ONBOARD card haha).. but I want to know how much ram most people are running SC2 at. I just want to run it smoothly on the lowest settings possible so I can play competitively =[
I have 2GB right now, but since im significantly broke I dont know if I can afford more, unless its absolutely necessary.
How many of you are running SC2 with just 2GB of ram? Does it run smoothly for you?
|
Im currently running it at 2GB RAM (1GB broke t.t) but it runs smoothly anyway : )
only time it lags is when my computer has been on for like 2 weeks
|
its running smoothly for me on lowest graphics and resolution. Got a laptop with only 2GB ram and a GForce 6400.
|
I am using 2GB of ram myself, and I can run the game perfectly fine on high settings. (8800 GTS as my video card). Assuming the rest of your cpu is fine and dandy, you should be good.
|
i run on 2gb of ram, it's fine.
|
I'm using one gig of ram and it lags like crazy :/
gonna get some ram tomorrow
|
2 gb here as well works fine on med settings.
|
I'm on a lappy with pentium M 1.86GHz, 2 gigs of ram and geforce 6600 go and I get about 25FPS lowest settings 1680x1050. If you're running at 10FPS on lowest settings with that kind of a vid card something else is wrong. I can't imagine your CPU being worse than mine either..
|
I don't think you'd notice a lack of ram in the overall framerate during the game. Unless you are super concerned about loading times (and even then 2gb are enough if you don't have lots of other applications loaded), ram shouldn't be a big concern for you.
I can run max settings smoothly on 2gb.
If you are concerned about your framerate, there is a big thread here with guidelines. As long as your graphics card is not very old, you are fine. My HD 4800 series does about 40-60fps depending on the game situation.
|
2 gig ram should run SC2 fine i think ? Im just using 2
|
i have 8GB of ram... works pretty good  maybe a little overkill, but i use up to 75% of it when commentating/processing because of all the crap i have open.
i have an 8800GT (512mb) that i'm hopefully upgrading to a 4870x2 (waiting to hear back from guy selling it) and the 8800GT does a good job of playing it with everything near-max (some things not on ultra tho) but the 4870x2 will allow me to go full AND fraps it.
ram is really cheap these days, i'd say its worth picking some up. sounds like your system is probably DDR2 so you could pick it up for as low as maybe 30 bucks a stick. you should look for it used on a hardware forum if you're especially broke since you'll get some sick deals that way.
|
I have 4GB, with a few minor programs open in the back, and my RAM always shoots up to 75%+ mid game.
|
2GB ram works fine for me. I play on lowest settings anyway.
|
I went from 2GB to 4GB. After buying 5770 it felt like I was bottlenecked by the RAM. Definitely good call.
|
I run it with 2GB of ram. Of course all my settings are on low but I almost never lag.
|
1GB - Middle settings , working fine just loading semi long
|
On March 22 2010 04:05 Skyze wrote:
I REALLY need to upgrade my computer to play, I get a whole 10 FPS right now! hah.
I bought a new video card, a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB, so that should help a lot, since my video card was the main issue (256mb ONBOARD card haha).. but I want to know how much ram most people are running SC2 at. I just want to run it smoothly on the lowest settings possible so I can play competitively =[
I have 2GB right now, but since im significantly broke I dont know if I can afford more, unless its absolutely necessary.
How many of you are running SC2 with just 2GB of ram? Does it run smoothly for you?
You have a whole gig graph memory? Normally it seem as though its better buying a earlier series then buying a low end card of a series. Could of spent money for graph memory for better card in series.
|
I have 6GB RAM and the game runs very smoothly. I can run everything on Ultra without much issues (>60 FPS), as a reference, after I double click the Starcraft-shortcut it only takes 5 seconds until the game is fully loaded, which includes the time the game takes to initialize and the loading bar.
|
ram isn't the most important thing for sc2 (when compared with other games) the GPU and CPU are.
|
ram won't be a problem for games unless you have like 512mb ram.
|
On March 22 2010 04:50 Chairman Ray wrote:
ram won't be a problem for games unless you have like 512mb ram.
well the speed might matter ? not sure if it changed much from ddr to ddr3 . but anyways if you have 1 or 2 gig you most likely have next gen ram anyway
|
i got a 2g stick but im looking to buy another, 4g's imo would kick some ass
|
anything more than 2gb is overkill right now, for any game and not just for SC2.
Having additional ram only benefits you when you want to have several programs opened like winamp, fraps, some image viewer, etc... and play sc2 on top of that.
Most important thing is your graphic card. 9400GT isn't really good, though its still much better than onboard graphics.
|
1.5 gig ram T_T Lags a bit during huge battles, but runs smoothly for most of the time
|
I have 2gb RAM and run on Ultra settings. No fps issues except maybe the first 5 seconds of the game. 40-60 fps.
|
On March 22 2010 04:08 Ideas wrote:
i run on 2gb of ram, it's fine.
this 
|
On March 22 2010 04:53 Marradron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 04:50 Chairman Ray wrote:
ram won't be a problem for games unless you have like 512mb ram. well the speed might matter ? not sure if it changed much from ddr to ddr3 . but anyways if you have 1 or 2 gig you most likely have next gen ram anyway
Having extra RAM will not increase your speed. It's your CPU that determines processing speed, and GPU that determines display speed. RAM is for storing temporary data, and as long as your RAM is more than enough, having 8gb instead of 4gb will not make a difference. You only need to worry about RAM if you plan on running a dozen other things at the same time as sc2.
|
RAM doesn't matter
get a better graphics card. Your 9400GT has 1GB of VRAM, but the problem is that VRAM doesn't matter if your card can't even saturate it. The 9400GT has a pathetic amount of processors, a low clock speed, and a low shader count.
Your GPU was the main issue and it still is. (Unless your CPU is really bad)
|
This thread might benefit from a poll in the OP.
|
sc2 is 32-bit from what I've been told... so more than 2gb ram won't really help you nearly as much as a new cpu or video card.
Also sc2 only uses two cores, and rather ineffectively at that.
|
I have never heard of a 32bit application that only uses up to 2gb of RAM. It also seems like SC2 scales well with extra cores.
|
|
|
On March 22 2010 05:21 FragKrag wrote:
I have never heard of a 32bit application that only uses up to 2gb of RAM. It also seems like SC2 scales well with extra cores.
32-bit is limited to using 2 gigs of ram for the most part, then it starts using pagefile I believe. I've never seen sc2 using more than 1.6gig after a day-long gaming session though.
Some games, like Sins of a Solar Empire, will just flat out crash when you go over the 2gb limit.
That is what programmers are telling me anyways, and the 32-bit limit is a big crutch with SoaSE. I doubt sc2 to run into similar issues but it could become a problem with very large mods that add a lot of custom textures.
/e
This is my CPU usage with a big FFA replay going on.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4382/5454o.jpg
It seems sc2 has separated a handful of threads onto some other cores but for the most part the majority of the game is lumped onto the one core. Some cores it doesn't even touch. And this is with all of that shit I have running in the background.
'Course, they may improve it for release, but I kind of doubt it this far along the line.
What this means is that if we have server-side physics for maps/mods they could be real performance killers unless they are one of the threads on another core.
sc2 is more GPU intensive than anything else right now.
|
2 GB ram for me as well.
Runs smothly until I get like lets say 180+ or smt in supply, then it seems to lag a bit. Dunno if its because of the ram though, I have a laptop with a quite weak processor.
|
I believe with 32bit there is a way to allow a program to access more than the limit of 2GB of RAM inside windows, but I guess that is another reason to throw 32bit out of the window if the stupid 3GB barrier wasn't bad enough :|
Well, all I have are those legionhardware benches, and it seemed like SC2 got a decent FPS boost with extra cores.
|
Well, it does support multicore, it's just not very efficient with it. I can't say I've seen many games that are, though. The only things that use my i7 properly are 3ds max and megui.
Having 8 cores like that is great for mass multitasking, though. :D
|
i use 1gig on my laptop and it runs perfect in all situations, but then again i have a heavily edited version of windows xp 64bit. Fastest OP ^^
4 gigs on my desktop and same thing
|
using 4 gig ram on my pc
when starcraft 2 is fully loaded it uses up to about 1,4 gig of my memory
so loading times etc should be quite ok with 2 gig when you have ~ 600 mb free for other stuff
|
2GB here as well (ddr2, 800mhz). Athlon 4850e, ATI 4770, 512mb. Win 7 x32.
Resolution: 1440x900. Recommended settings: Ultra. FPS at the recommended settings: ~22-24 average.
Needless to say, i've downgraded those settings to something between medium and high, and now the FPS counter averages 35-37. I don't have many programs running in the background (yahoo messenger, eset smart security, some other really minor stuff), sc2 load times are good, RAM consumption goes up to 1.6-1.7 gigs (this includes the 650-700 megs the windows & those other background programs use).
Yes, x32 processes can't address more than 2GB of RAM. In XP, i know i was using a /3GB argument in the boot.ini, because, strangely enough, a program was crashing on me shortly after the task manager was showing that process hitting 1.6 gigs.
|
I run everything on mostly Ultra with only 2gb of RAM, granted some of the really big battles, especially in 2v2 do lag me a bit, but it's still playable. I'm also running a Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, GeForce 8800 GTX SLI'd though. I would still like to get another 3-4gb though just so I can play without worry of slow downs in huge battles.
|
Sounds like its the GPU tbh, 9400 isn't that big of a deal :S
|
i use 2gb with an 8600gts, runs smoothly on decent settings
|
i run it with only 1gb ram
its smooth most of the time, only time it lagged was in a test 200 vs 200 fight
|
Nowadays it's very rarely the RAM that is the issue. 2 gigs is more than enough to run any single program right now..and 4 gigs is more than enough that you'd probably never use it all.
Your main issue is your GPU. At this moment the most bang for your buck is probably an 8800. The 8800 is probably the best value card you could possibly buy. More than enough power STILL for any game out there and doesn't break the bank.
|
2 GB is more than enough it seems. I run SC2 perfectly smooth at 1280x800 resolution and everything else at default with the following stats:
# Operating system:Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
# CPU type:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz
# CPU Speed (GHz):2.414
# System memory (GB):1.998
# Graphics card model:ATI Radeon HD 2400
# Graphics card driver:ati2dvag.dll
# Desktop resolution:1680x1050
That's not very good at all. I couldn't play any of the newer games, but I don't really care about any new games aside from D3 and SC2 anyways. :D If you pick a lower resolution it would be even better performance.Just don't have like 3000 programs running with SC2. And keep your spyware scanner updated.
|
What? You would be hard pressed to even find an 8800GT in stock, and even if it is, it's probably retailing around $90-$110, a price point currently dominated by the ATi HD 4850/Nvidia 9800GT/Nvidia GT 240.
|
I have 2 gig ram, gt8800 everything's on full atm.
|
i'm almost smooth with 1.5Go ram and a radeon 9600 (128Mo) .. on low details obv
|
On March 22 2010 04:05 Skyze wrote:
I REALLY need to upgrade my computer to play, I get a whole 10 FPS right now! hah.
I bought a new video card, a GeForce 9400 GT 1GB, so that should help a lot, since my video card was the main issue (256mb ONBOARD card haha).. but I want to know how much ram most people are running SC2 at. I just want to run it smoothly on the lowest settings possible so I can play competitively =[
2GB of ram is not a problem.
That card is horrible, change it if you can don't buy GPU based on how much ram it has it is just a marketing trick to add more ram then the card is able to address so if you can change it to HD4650 512mb DDR3, or HD4650 1GB DDR2(not sure what is better they should be about the same) HD4650 cost only few $ more, and it is much better, or if you can, and you ever plan to play anything else then SC2 on lowest then get a HD4770 or HD4850(if your PSU can support that) for little over 100$.
Don't get hang up with how much ram the card have, there are very diferent speeds of ram, and that is only one of the things that is important for GPU power.
You should also check if you don't have any viruses/spyware, and if nothing overheat in your system, lowest settings have very low requirements.
|
|
|
Only reason I can see is if its with vista it might cause some problems, otherwise 2gb should be plenty for SC2 (possibly even with vista).
|
Dominican Republic825 Posts
i dont know what the point playing a game that look awasome in High setting using low setting lol
|
I got a crap laptop with a graphics card that starcraft doesn't even recognize but it runs well at lowest settings with 2gig ram.
|
I run it on Windows 7 with 1GB and it mostly works OK with everything on lowest.
|
4 Go, ATI Radeon Mobility HD 4650 1 Go, Intel Core Duo 2,00 Ghz
It's a laptop and it works fine : )
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
no 32bit program on 32bit windows can use more than 1.8 gb of ram anyway ;<
ofc if you run a lot of other stuff in the background more than 2 gb will make a difference, but just for sc2 it shouldn't
no need for dozens of more people to confirm that it works. it's your graphics card and there are a couple of threads for this already which you can check. you can also make a blog if you need still need more specific graphics card help as those threads can offer, but I doubt that's even necessary
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
