|
On September 06 2009 00:48 Dalmation wrote:
Can my old PC run Starcraft II ? thank u ^^
Intel Pentium 4 3.00 Ghz
XP 64-bit
Mobo:GA-8I945GZME-RH
RAM: 512MB (intend to upgrade 1GB)
Intel® Graphic Media Accelerator 950 (stupid onboard)
Hardrive: 80 GB Seagate and a lotttt of free space
Guess may problem is graphic card and RAM, I think CPU is barely enough for low settings
Nope.
That's a budget board, so while you could pair it with a Q6600 (nothing much better, sadly, as Chipset 945 only supports 1st generation Conroe chips) and 8Gb of RAM, the PCI-Express slot is only rated for x4. Half as fast as an AGP port. Many boards with an integrated video had a crippled PCI-E slot.
The problem? Many newer video cards won't even WORK, and even the nVidia 7000 series or the X700 - X800 ATi series (last series to be 100% compatible with x4 PCI-E) will run at about 50% of their maximum speed.
So, for 3D acceleration, you're shot. No upgrade possible.
The processor will also seriously struggle. AMD was really pwnz0ring P4s, and I'd be hardpressed to see anyone try to run a new game on an old A64 3000+ (your processor's equivalent). Maybe an A64 X2 3800+, and even then.
You're going to need an across the board up grade. You can build a very decent C2D or a Phenom II box for a really low price nowadays though.
|
About to order this one, waiting for your approval:
HP HDX16-1300EO
Intel C2D P7350
4 GB RAM DDR2
320 GB SATA (some sites (even HP) say 5400 rpm and some say 7200 rpm... highly confusing)
nVIDIA GF GT130M 1000/2815
HDMI, VGA
Screen: 16"
VISTA Home Premium
|
Merph. I hadn't considered my laptop for SC2 when I ordered it in order to go to college. I had thought "oh, the desktop will run it just fine!" But now that I'm here, I begin to realize the desktop is three hours away =x.
So, will I run SC2?
Will I run it well?
What's the first thing to upgrade?
Yes, these stats are from blizzard's beta-checker thingy.
# Operating system: Windows 2.6.0.6001 (SP 1)
# CPU type: AMD Turion(tm) X2 Dual-Core Mobile RM-74
# CPU Speed (GHz): 2.22
# System memory (GB): 1.997
# Graphics card model: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4500 Series
# Graphics card driver: atiumdag.dll
# Desktop resolution: 1366x768
# Hard disk size (GB): 221.469
# Hard disk free space (GB): 168.673
Keep in mind, I'm not hardcore. I just want to run this without too much lag.
|
According to this article
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4570.13885.0.html
The 4570M is roughly equivalent to a desktop 4550. The core looks fine, although the memory is a bit slow (1600mhz). You should be able to play, definitely, but don't expect high resolutions. I would recommend 1024x768 with 2x antialiasing and higher details.
Processor and RAM is fine, so i wouldn't worry about it.
|
On September 03 2009 17:58 lazz wrote:
windows xp
intel core duo 1.66ghz
1gb ram
ati x1400
i have faith in blizzard that this little toaster will be able to run it at an acceptable frame rate
You won't even be able to start up Starcraft 2 let alone play it at acceptable frame rates.
|
hi, i'm new here
i'm thinking about buying an Asus K50IN laptop:
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T6500 2.1 GHz - 2.0 GHz, FSB 800Hz, 2MB L2 Cache
4GB RAM
NVidia G102M (512MB DDR2 VRAM)
15.6 Inch HD LED BL LCD
i'm on a budget and i can't go back to using desktops.
i can get this laptop for just USD 700.
will this be enough to run SC2? or do i NEED to shell out USD 200 more for a laptop with an ATI Radeon HD4570?
i did a lot of research just to get to this point.
PLEASE HELP. i need my SC2! v_v
|
Has there been any word from blizz about what range of resolutions will be supported in SC2, specifically what the max resolution in the game will be? I assume that the higher a resolution you can smoothly run the more of an advantage youd have since youd be able to see more of the map?
I just built my new machine recently and assumed my spec would be more than adequate for sc2 (only game I intend to play on it) but it just occurred to me if sc2 resolutions run high then I may not be able to support the max res. My primary monitor goes up to 2560x1600. I have:
-Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz (FSB 1333MHz)
-8gb DDR2 800MHz ram
-XFX HD 4850 1GB DDR3 PCI-E Graphics Card
So just to reiterate im not worried about running sc2 on reasonable settings but I suppose the max settings will be beyond my rig?
|
I...feel really sorry for anyone with a Core 2 Quad that got their build done recently. At that I almost feel sorry for my own 920.
Nothing is about to go wider than 2560*1600, and you can do that handily.
Wait, 8gig ddr2 800? 4x2?
|
|
|
On September 10 2009 00:59 Ket wrote:
why's that?
yeah 4x 2gb
what?
|
Well, i5 does things at equivalent or better power at a cheaper price, Core 2 Quad was phasing out, and this is before any prices changes have shown to reflect the value of the new line and how it compares to the old. The better turbo boost than my 920 and the relative lack of use for HT for everyday tasks also makes the price to performance of the i5 look a lot better in comparison.
|
i5? i didnt even know about any i5, i thought my choices were core2 or i7, nobody mentioned this i5 business to me when I was deciding. My loss I guess, I'll prob upgrade in 2-3 years when i7 becomes more the standard and prices become reasonable. Glad to hear what I have currently is okay for my res though, cheers.
On September 10 2009 01:23 StorrZerg wrote:what?
what do you mean 'what'. what on earth is so strange about my memory setup, i bought two 4gb corsair memory kits (where with each kit you get a pair of 2GB DIMM sticks) and slotted the four sticks into the four slots on the motherboard, thus having 8gb of ram over 4x 2gb sticks. SAY WHAT AGAIN
|
Out of curiosity, exactly how recent was "recently"?
8gig is a kind of strange option I guess? Most people are still sticking to 4 or 6.
Considering how SC2 is supposed to be low spec, I wonder if Blizzard would even let it go beyond 1920*1080?
|
recently as in a few days ago. i was told 8 gig would be useful for my uses (online poker over several sites with support progs - heavy windows multitasking pretty much, thread here where ppl said gogogo 8gig). If sc2 is a low spec game that'll make me happy=] really wouldn't want it to be one of those games where you're advantaged or disadvantaged by the quality of your hardware like modern pc fps i guess
|
On September 10 2009 00:24 Ket wrote:
Has there been any word from blizz about what range of resolutions will be supported in SC2, specifically what the max resolution in the game will be? I assume that the higher a resolution you can smoothly run the more of an advantage youd have since youd be able to see more of the map? Higher resolutions won't allow you to see more map area. The camera will still be the same distance from the ground, its just that there will be more DPI (Dots per inch) so all objects and units will appear more clearly (less blocky).
The only thing that effects how much map you can see is the aspect ratio you use. If you have a widescreen monitor you will see extra map area to the left and right of the screen and have a small advantage. This is confirmed. Technically you could set your resolution to a 16 aspect with a 4:3 monitor, and you would theh have the same 'advantage' as someone with a widescreen.. but you would be sacrificing both visual resolution and size, as the entire game would appear relatively smaller on your screen.
|
On September 10 2009 02:08 Ecael wrote:
Well, i5 does things at equivalent or better power at a cheaper price, Core 2 Quad was phasing out, and this is before any prices changes have shown to reflect the value of the new line and how it compares to the old. The better turbo boost than my 920 and the relative lack of use for HT for everyday tasks also makes the price to performance of the i5 look a lot better in comparison.
lololol.
The i5 is supposed to be a midrange processor. They will also be releasing i3's and i9's (confirmed) as low end and super high range processor. You will NOT get better performance out of an i5 than out of an i7, end of story. Thats like saying you'd rather have a celeron e2100 than an e7600 or similiar high end dual-core.
|
On September 10 2009 10:36 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 02:08 Ecael wrote:
Well, i5 does things at equivalent or better power at a cheaper price, Core 2 Quad was phasing out, and this is before any prices changes have shown to reflect the value of the new line and how it compares to the old. The better turbo boost than my 920 and the relative lack of use for HT for everyday tasks also makes the price to performance of the i5 look a lot better in comparison. lololol. The i5 is supposed to be a midrange processor. They will also be releasing i3's and i9's (confirmed) as low end and super high range processor. You will NOT get better performance out of an i5 than out of an i7, end of story. Thats like saying you'd rather have a celeron e2100 than an e7600 or similiar high end dual-core.
Do try reading more carefully, that first line is talking about Core 2 Quad. I didn't say that I would get better performance out of an i5 than out of i7, I said that the "price to performance" of the i5 looks much, much better. Turbo boost at stock for i5 is much more significant than what we saw for i7, and few things actually can utilize the fact that you get 8 threads to play around with for the i7 line.
|
On September 10 2009 09:49 DeCoup wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 00:24 Ket wrote:
Has there been any word from blizz about what range of resolutions will be supported in SC2, specifically what the max resolution in the game will be? I assume that the higher a resolution you can smoothly run the more of an advantage youd have since youd be able to see more of the map? Higher resolutions won't allow you to see more map area. The camera will still be the same distance from the ground, its just that there will be more DPI (Dots per inch) so all objects and units will appear more clearly (less blocky). The only thing that effects how much map you can see is the aspect ratio you use. If you have a widescreen monitor you will see extra map area to the left and right of the screen and have a small advantage. This is confirmed. Technically you could set your resolution to a 16 aspect with a 4:3 monitor, and you would theh have the same 'advantage' as someone with a widescreen.. but you would be sacrificing both visual resolution and size, as the entire game would appear relatively smaller on your screen.
ah, solid info exactly what i was looking for, ty
|
Canada5155 Posts
lol brace yourself for this beast of a machine:
2.4 GHz Pentium 4
2 GB RAM
ATi Radeon 9600XT 128 MB
80 GB HDD
XP Home SP3
My laptop is a core 2 duo though, so i'll be set there. I entered the beta with the above in hopes that they might want to test on really old machines
|
On September 10 2009 13:27 HawaiianPig wrote:
lol brace yourself for this beast of a machine:
2.4 GHz Pentium 4
2 GB RAM
ATi Radeon 9600XT 128 MB
80 GB HDD
XP Home SP3
My laptop is a core 2 duo though, so i'll be set there. I entered the beta with the above in hopes that they might want to test on really old machines
What are your laptop specs btw? I'm pretty sure that most laptops are a bit lacking when it comes to all those graphical goodies that are around nowadays. Also that computer probably chokes a bit on graphically intense parts of WC3, let alone SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
