|
United States7166 Posts
and holy jeezes they are Low Requirements indeed:
The minimum system requirements for the Starcraft II Beta are as follows:
PC Minimum Requirements:
• Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1/Windows 7
• 2.2 Ghz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
• 1 GB system RAM/1.5 GB for Vista and Windows 7
• 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card
• 1024x768 minimum display resolution
• 4 GB free hard space (Beta)
• Broadband connection
*Note* the final requirements for Starcraft II have not yet been determined. Due to ongoing development the minimum requirements listed above are subject to change at any time. During this phase a Mac version will NOT be available, please check back.
-----
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=26242&parentCategoryId&pageNumber=1&categoryId=3633
note: a couple weeks ago, there was a similar but incorrect System Requirements page that went up seemingly for SC2 beta but it did not specify. It was a mistake as confirmed by Blizz rep. These requirements seem real, they specify SC2 beta and it's right around the corner
|
hey, my lame laptop can run it if the requirements are similar to this.
|
Yay, we are one half an inch closer to beta!
And I am assuming that this is the minimum requirements and not the recommended. Keep in mind that the minimum tends to be unplayable yet functional.
|
United States7166 Posts
Pentium 4!! Amd athlon, who would have expected such low requirements?
those video cards are really old and low end as well, low ram.. just wow :o
|
The requirements are still impressively low in my opinion, seems like I have two computers able to run the game here. 
Does "1024x768 minimum display resolution" mean that we can't go down to 800x600 res? That was my plan as I play WC3 and many other games with that resolution so the mouse works as similar as possible.
Well I guess its time to move on.
|
Last time fake specs were posted, Blizzard CM said they would post specs when beta started
|
On February 18 2010 04:05 Tsagacity wrote:Last time fake specs were posted, Blizzard CM said they would post specs when beta started
Link please.
If this is true ewqfuihrvqw98u J9P8AW0UCAWPOAW FINALLYAFTEROVER1000GODDAMNDAYS
|
Those are quite low but seems in line with Blizzard's original idea to make it available to a large portion of the public. Playing it on max settings will probably require quite the boss of a computer.
|
United States7166 Posts
yeah but last time it didnt specify SC2 beta, it was just copy pasted from WoW sys reqs page.
this leads me to believe the beta is actually, finally, just about ready to come out. they're probably finishing up everything right now as we speak
|
I'm gonna max this shit out lol
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
I'm pretty sure SC2 is still gonna suck on a PC like that tho
|
|
|
this is great
|
I currently have Windows 7 Release Candidate 7100. Currently, Microsoft is trying to phase out these RC versions floating around by imposing an expiration date starting March 1, 2010.
As of right now, the system specs uploaded to my battle.net beta profile contain this OS version. I'm planning on upgrading to the released version, but do you guys think it would be beneficial to update quickly and then reload my new system specs? Will they skip over me entirely for Beta if they see I have a release candidate version?
|
|
|
I played WC3 at the min reqs and it was pretty much unplayable so keep that in mind
|
On February 18 2010 04:12 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
I currently have Windows 7 Release Candidate 7100. Currently, Microsoft is trying to phase out these RC versions floating around by imposing an expiration date starting March 1, 2010.
As of right now, the system specs uploaded to my battle.net beta profile contain this OS version. I'm planning on upgrading to the released version, but do you guys think it would be beneficial to update quickly and then reload my new system specs? Will they skip over me entirely for Beta if they see I have a release candidate version?
I doubt they will go more in depth than just check if its XP, vista or 7 as its kinda pointless as you can just very easily update it at any point.
|
United States7166 Posts
On February 18 2010 04:12 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
I currently have Windows 7 Release Candidate 7100. Currently, Microsoft is trying to phase out these RC versions floating around by imposing an expiration date starting March 1, 2010.
As of right now, the system specs uploaded to my battle.net beta profile contain this OS version. I'm planning on upgrading to the released version, but do you guys think it would be beneficial to update quickly and then reload my new system specs? Will they skip over me entirely for Beta if they see I have a release candidate version?
how are they going to impose an expiration date? if i avoid any windows updates can I circumvent this?
|
On February 18 2010 04:12 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
I currently have Windows 7 Release Candidate 7100. Currently, Microsoft is trying to phase out these RC versions floating around by imposing an expiration date starting March 1, 2010.
As of right now, the system specs uploaded to my battle.net beta profile contain this OS version. I'm planning on upgrading to the released version, but do you guys think it would be beneficial to update quickly and then reload my new system specs? Will they skip over me entirely for Beta if they see I have a release candidate version?
Yeah, I would get that taken care of.
|
On February 18 2010 04:12 Undisputed- wrote:
I played WC3 at the min reqs and it was pretty much unplayable so keep that in mind
Weird as I had the pleasure of playing WoW at a computer that just barely went over the min reqs and with constant 20 fps I was able to enjoy the game quite a bit, although peak times at big cities was a no-no.
I guess rts games as they're that much faster will require more fps than constant 20 fps though.
|
On February 18 2010 04:14 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 04:12 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
I currently have Windows 7 Release Candidate 7100. Currently, Microsoft is trying to phase out these RC versions floating around by imposing an expiration date starting March 1, 2010.
As of right now, the system specs uploaded to my battle.net beta profile contain this OS version. I'm planning on upgrading to the released version, but do you guys think it would be beneficial to update quickly and then reload my new system specs? Will they skip over me entirely for Beta if they see I have a release candidate version? how are they going to impose an expiration date? if i avoid any windows updates can I circumvent this? Seems not 
http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-7-rc-expiration-prompts-begin-in-two-weeks
|
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=22749569947&postId=227466945491&sid=3000#68
Hey folks,
I just wanted to drop in to clarify the situation a bit. As has been mentioned above, some websites have posted system requirements for the StarCraft II beta that were not accurate. The page where this information was found was a placeholder that should not have gone up. We will have more information about the system requirements once the beta starts.
Sorry about any confusion this may have caused. We did not intend to troll you. =)
[ Post edited by Avarius ]
Beta today confirmed?
|
On February 18 2010 04:15 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 04:12 Undisputed- wrote:
I played WC3 at the min reqs and it was pretty much unplayable so keep that in mind Weird as I had the pleasure of playing WoW at a computer that just barely went over the min reqs and with constant 20 fps I was able to enjoy the game quite a bit, although peak times at big cities was a no-no. I guess rts games as they're that much faster will require more fps than constant 20 fps though.
That and playing 2v2+ is almost impossible due to the amount of units.
|
|
|
United States7166 Posts
On February 18 2010 04:16 Undisputed- wrote:http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=22749569947&postId=227466945491&sid=3000#68Hey folks,
I just wanted to drop in to clarify the situation a bit. As has been mentioned above, some websites have posted system requirements for the StarCraft II beta that were not accurate. The page where this information was found was a placeholder that should not have gone up. We will have more information about the system requirements once the beta starts.
Sorry about any confusion this may have caused. We did not intend to troll you. =)
[ Post edited by Avarius ]Beta today confirmed?
you may want to clarify that this is regarding the OLD posting of sys reqs, NOT the one I just posted in OP
|
On February 18 2010 04:21 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 04:16 Undisputed- wrote:http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=22749569947&postId=227466945491&sid=3000#68Hey folks,
I just wanted to drop in to clarify the situation a bit. As has been mentioned above, some websites have posted system requirements for the StarCraft II beta that were not accurate. The page where this information was found was a placeholder that should not have gone up. We will have more information about the system requirements once the beta starts.
Sorry about any confusion this may have caused. We did not intend to troll you. =)
[ Post edited by Avarius ]Beta today confirmed? you may want to clarify that this is regarding the OLD posting of sys reqs, NOT the one I just posted in OP
Yes, true. You should add it to the OP if you would like to.
|
On February 18 2010 04:04 Mohdoo wrote:
unplayable yet functional.
That's an oxymoron. If they're functional, they're by definition, playable (Although it will probably suck on my MacBook). =(
|
I would have to imagine that these are the minimum requirements for the game to basically load, and not a decent frame rate, however if blizzard did truly get them this low, congrats to them I guess.
Being on an 8400m graphics card and 2.2ghz dual core processor, I'm lucky to have 20ish fps at 800x600 resolution with newer games, the fps tends to crash if I turn the resolution up, so I have a hard time believing sc2 will be playable at those specs at 1024x768. We'll have to wait and see I guess.
|
United States3824 Posts
Do they have a video of a machine running this? Does it look like shit?
|
Waaaaa! My (298e) computer can run SC2 : D
|
Im good I can run SC2 on High settings
|
I would play SC2 beta on the original cathode ray tube prototype if I got in.
|
Well, that settles it.
My crummy old laptop is too crummy to run SC2.
I should check and see if any of the college computers could do it... I want that chance of a beta opt-in!
|
Will this be a closed or open beta?
|
On February 18 2010 04:42 Shuray wrote:
Will this be a closed or open beta? Closed.
|
Damn, I need to get a new comp.
|
one of the biggest reasons starcraft was so big in south korea was because every computer could run starcraft, and lots of people could play with LAN and one cd key
they took out LAN
the least they can do it have low requirements
koreans aren't rich white kids who have lots of time on their hands
|
holy shit those r sexy low requirements.
|
On February 18 2010 04:50 Nal_rAwr wrote:
one of the biggest reasons starcraft was so big in south korea was because every computer could run starcraft, and lots of people could play with LAN and one cd key
they took out LAN
the least they can do it have low requirements
koreans aren't rich white kids who have lots of time on their hands
Less racism and bitterness please thanks!
|
Keep in mind these are minimum for 1024x768
|
Well not just Korea... but to have access to more people in the global market, they have to keep these specs down as low as possible. Electronics are higher than balls on a giraffe in some countries.
|
These are the MINIMUM requirements people.
|
United States7166 Posts
|
that kinda kills the point of LAN no?
|
On February 18 2010 05:01 FragKrag wrote:
that kinda kills the point of LAN no?
lol
|
United States7166 Posts
thought the point of LAN was mostly for latency purposes
although i guess for lan parties it helps to have only lan but no internet
|
I still play a game with these minimum requirements
* Windows 95 or NT or superior
* Pentium processor at 90 MHz or higher
* 16 MB RAM
* 80 MB available in the hard disk
* CD-ROM, 2x or higher
* DirectX 3.0 or higher
I think I'll be OK with whatever specs blizzard decides to release. Pretty games are fun and all, but it is not the end all, be all.
|
haha I just realized this means my old computer can run SC2 :D
AMD Athlon 64
1 GB DDR RAM
Nvidia 7600
LOL
|
I kinda feel like a noob asking this, but how important is it to have the "recommended" operating system? It says Windows XP SP3 but I have SP2, will that be a problem?
And btw, my computer is quite far above the other requirements.
|
On February 18 2010 05:05 FragKrag wrote:
haha I just realized this means my old computer can run SC2 :D
AMD Athlon 64
1 GB DDR RAM
Nvidia 7600
LOL
Yeah my 6 year old computer will be able to run it above min specs lol
|
On February 18 2010 05:06 Zexion wrote:
I kinda feel like a noob asking this, but how important is it to have the "recommended" operating system? It says Windows XP SP3 but I have SP2, will that be a problem?
And btw, my computer is quite far above the other requirements.
You should update it, its free.
But no it wont matter in the performance of the game, afaik SP3 is a lot about security fixes and not as much about performance.
|
On February 18 2010 05:01 FragKrag wrote:
that kinda kills the point of LAN no? Probably depends on where you live? I haven't been to a LAN party that doesn't have internet in my entire life =/ (and yes, I LAN regularly)
I would just LAN for the social experience + latency, both of which will apply for SC2.
|
5399 Posts
On February 18 2010 04:10 Carnac wrote:
I'm pretty sure SC2 is still gonna suck on a PC like that tho
Yeah. These requirements are to RUN. They never said anything about PLAY...
|
nice it's not too big. but this game will be pretty big xD 4 gb only for beta
|
United States11393 Posts
So, if I have a nvidia geforce fx 5200 then what would be a good recommendation for a decent video card to actually be able to run/play sc2 with?
|
how much money u wanna spend harem
|
On February 18 2010 05:08 pheer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 04:10 Carnac wrote:
I'm pretty sure SC2 is still gonna suck on a PC like that tho Yeah. These requirements are to RUN. They never said anything about PLAY...
lol seriously?
obviously you would be able to play the game, but with pretty much all the settings turned to minimum.
|
Hey admins, that thread about beta out now might be real.
Multiple people have posted screenshots on the Battle.net forum from different parts of the download
edit: actually on the pics it only shows up as 1.64gb .. that sounds far too little. And yup far too little people talking about it too, probably just one troll posting on multiple accounts. oh well.
|
On February 18 2010 04:59 Skaff wrote:
Well not just Korea... but to have access to more people in the global market, they have to keep these specs down as low as possible. Electronics are higher than balls on a giraffe in some countries.
Brazil
|
United States7166 Posts
if they're fake, theyre good ones
|
|
|
On February 18 2010 05:19 Zelniq wrote:if they're fake, theyre good ones
.....
|
|
|
|
|
United States7166 Posts
what it says offline for me
|
On February 18 2010 05:28 Zelniq wrote:what it says offline for me
He turned it off because it slowed the download apparently
|
United States7166 Posts
i think this is probably real, probably those who got picked from Opt'ing In are able to start downloading it. it's all tied to the battle.net account already for them
|
They deleted the thread off the battle.net forums ...
|
Stream is UP again ... I see the guy downloading the beta client!!!
|
On February 18 2010 05:32 Chillz wrote:
Stream is UP again ... I see the guy downloading the beta client!!!
Down again There were 83 other people watching with me for about a minute there.
|
Ahh... gotta love people watching a stream of a download I will admit... I tuned in.
|
Who cares about min reqs? No game lately has been remotely playable at minimum specs, many times required ain't enough for reasonable framerates. Fact is these reqs are nothing special at all, many good looking games running like shit has the same reqs. However blizzard is usually good at optimizing so most likely the game will run decent at these specs.
|
alright i think i am the only one on this forum using a computer that does not meet the minimum requirements. WOW.
hahah one of the reasons my favorite pc games are SC and CS1.6 is that they are literally the only good games i can play.
|
I know all you guys here at TL have beta access ... so where are the streams of you downloading the client 
|
Anyone know if my ATI Mobility Radeon X700 can run it??
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 18 2010 05:53 diskborste wrote:
Anyone know if my ATI Mobility Radeon X700 can run it??
probably not, but if you don't have beta then there's no point in asking - and if you do, then all you can do is try it ^^
|
so, when we will play in CRACK-VERSION of SC2?
or some SERVER for cracked version?! plzzz
|
On February 18 2010 06:05 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 05:53 diskborste wrote:
Anyone know if my ATI Mobility Radeon X700 can run it?? probably not, but if you don't have beta then there's no point in asking - and if you do, then all you can do is try it ^^
I do have the beta. Just gonna hope for the best...
|
NEVERMIND I looked at it wrong T_T
|
heh i cant run sc2 on this pos rig...<2ghz and pos gfx card
|
Operating system: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type: Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 1.848 System memory (GB): 0.998
Graphics card model: ATI Mobility Radeon X1400
Graphics card driver: ati2dvag.dll Desktop resolution: 1280x720
Hard disk size (GB): 88.049
Hard disk free space (GB): 44.662
My processor is a dual core and this is what is coming up on my system snapshot. Does this mean I am a little bit short on processing power? If so wth should I do. I am a poor college kid.
|
that's a hell of a low requiriment . I'm so happy for that
|
On February 18 2010 07:19 Marine0945x wrote:
Operating system: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type: Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 1.848 System memory (GB): 0.998
Graphics card model: ATI Mobility Radeon X1400
Graphics card driver: ati2dvag.dll Desktop resolution: 1280x720
Hard disk size (GB): 88.049
Hard disk free space (GB): 44.662
My processor is a dual core and this is what is coming up on my system snapshot. Does this mean I am a little bit short on processing power? If so wth should I do. I am a poor college kid.
You have two ~1.848 cores, meaning ~3.9ghz combined. I'd be shocked if SC2 doesn't properly support multi-threading.
|
On February 18 2010 21:25 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 07:19 Marine0945x wrote:
Operating system: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type: Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 1.848 System memory (GB): 0.998
Graphics card model: ATI Mobility Radeon X1400
Graphics card driver: ati2dvag.dll Desktop resolution: 1280x720
Hard disk size (GB): 88.049
Hard disk free space (GB): 44.662
My processor is a dual core and this is what is coming up on my system snapshot. Does this mean I am a little bit short on processing power? If so wth should I do. I am a poor college kid. You have two ~1.848 cores, meaning ~3.9ghz combined. I'd be shocked if SC2 doesn't properly support multi-threading.
SC2 development started long before multiple cores became mainstream, so I doubt that two cores come close to yielding double performance.
That being said, you should still be fine, because multiplying 1.8 by only 1.3 already gives the minimum requirement. Just don't expect performance on par with a 3.9 GHz single core.
|
I think I'll just have to try it myself when it comes out. I'm a notch above every requirement except the CPU, where I have a 1.87 core 2 duo. Maybe the dual cores will make up for the missing MHz.
Edit: replies above me give me hope
|
I wonder if my laptop with an Intel GMA 4500MHD video card (well it's integrated so not a "card" raelly) could run this.
|
On February 19 2010 05:04 Jonoman92 wrote:
I wonder if my laptop with an Intel GMA 4500MHD video card (well it's integrated so not a "card" raelly) could run this.
It runs pretty well on mine O_O I couldn't believe it lol, but it's at the lowest setting of course.
|
# Operating system:Windows 2.6.0.6001 (SP 1)
# CPU type:Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU T2370 @ 1.73GHz
# CPU Speed (GHz):1.753
# System memory (GB):1.999
# Graphics card model:ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400
# Graphics card driver:atiumdag.dll
# Desktop resolution:1280x800
Will my computer fly? Im expecting that it wont - but what do i have to upgrade in order to play? Im a dumbass with these kinds of things...
|
On February 19 2010 01:00 Commodore wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2010 21:25 Craton wrote:On February 18 2010 07:19 Marine0945x wrote:
Operating system: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type: Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 1.848 System memory (GB): 0.998
Graphics card model: ATI Mobility Radeon X1400
Graphics card driver: ati2dvag.dll Desktop resolution: 1280x720
Hard disk size (GB): 88.049
Hard disk free space (GB): 44.662
My processor is a dual core and this is what is coming up on my system snapshot. Does this mean I am a little bit short on processing power? If so wth should I do. I am a poor college kid. You have two ~1.848 cores, meaning ~3.9ghz combined. I'd be shocked if SC2 doesn't properly support multi-threading. SC2 development started long before multiple cores became mainstream, so I doubt that two cores come close to yielding double performance. That being said, you should still be fine, because multiplying 1.8 by only 1.3 already gives the minimum requirement. Just don't expect performance on par with a 3.9 GHz single core.
i'd like to point out i have t2600 and ati x1400 and sc2 doesn't run. at all. can't even get a menu or nothing.
so yeah.. time to get a lappy with i5-540m n ati 5830 :S, that should run it fine methinks?
|
scratch that, it does run on my w7 (xp is a total no-go though), although there are hugeeeee slowdowns from time to time (from 20+fps to like <5fps), usually caused by fights but not always.
anyway not really playable, but enough to try it out. would be playable without the slowdowns for sure though.
|
Playing without a video card. Works great.
|
how is noone on here dont have the beta yet i got an email yesterday saying i was eligible to dl the beta
|
looks like my piece of crap rig is gonna make it!
|
On February 19 2010 11:37 lilrizalboy wrote:
how is noone on here dont have the beta yet i got an email yesterday saying i was eligible to dl the beta
The opt-ins were random...lucky man, a lot didn't get in.
|
damnit my computer doesn't fit these "low requirements"
why the hell did my dad choose such a fucking crappy computer just because its cheap i mean... -_-
i got the client downloaded but i open the joint and it doesn't even go to any log-in screen it just goes black and exits out to a ErrorReporter saying it crashed
does this mean my comp def can't run it?
apparently some people under the req's can run it, but maybe mine sucks way too much >_<
|
[ 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video cardc] is ati radeon HD 3600 better than that?
|
OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU TYPE:INTEL(R) CORE(TM)2 DUO CPU T8300 @ 2.40GHZ
CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.414
SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):0.99
GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:MOBILE INTEL(R) 965 EXPRESS CHIPSET FAMILY
GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:IGXPRD32.DLL
DESKTOP RESOLUTION:1280X800
HARD DISK SIZE (GB):143.251
HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB):102.375
go ahead and say it. Is there absolutely no way?
|
On February 19 2010 13:58 Waffles wrote:
[ 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video cardc] is ati radeon HD 3600 better than that?
Yes, significantly.
On February 19 2010 14:08 gumbum8 wrote:
OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU TYPE:INTEL(R) CORE(TM)2 DUO CPU T8300 @ 2.40GHZ
CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.414
SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):0.99
GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:MOBILE INTEL(R) 965 EXPRESS CHIPSET FAMILY
GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:IGXPRD32.DLL
DESKTOP RESOLUTION:1280X800
HARD DISK SIZE (GB):143.251
HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB):102.375
go ahead and say it. Is there absolutely no way?
There's a chance, IMO. G965 should be comparable to the minimum specs. It's worth giving it a shot.
|
On February 19 2010 14:08 Deux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2010 13:58 Waffles wrote:
[ 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video cardc] is ati radeon HD 3600 better than that? Yes, significantly. Show nested quote +On February 19 2010 14:08 gumbum8 wrote:
OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU TYPE:INTEL(R) CORE(TM)2 DUO CPU T8300 @ 2.40GHZ
CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.414
SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):0.99
GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:MOBILE INTEL(R) 965 EXPRESS CHIPSET FAMILY
GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:IGXPRD32.DLL
DESKTOP RESOLUTION:1280X800
HARD DISK SIZE (GB):143.251
HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB):102.375
go ahead and say it. Is there absolutely no way? There's a chance, IMO. G965 should be comparable to the minimum specs. It's worth giving it a shot.
I'm using G965 in beta and can run it somewhat smoothly on low settings. It really isn't enjoyable though, I'd upgrade (I plan to). After watching streams running the game in high settings, it looks much smoother and enjoyable than my low settings.
|
CPU: Intel Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
RAM: Corsair 4GB DDR2 1066MHz 2.1V
GFX: XFX 9800GTX+ 512MB
M/B: XFX 780i SLI
PSU: OCZ 850W
HDD: 4x WD 500GB @ 7200 w/RAID0+1
OS: Vista Ultimate 64
MOUSE: Logitech G3
LCD: 2x 24" LG Flatron @ 1920x1200
Anybody who has played with specs similar to mine, do you think I will be able to play @ 1920x1200 with all ultra settings? Seems from what I've heard that I'll only be able to handle high-ish if I want big battles to stay smooth
|
Can any1 confirme getting key and playing SC2 beta under Win XP 64 bit.
In required specs say u need Win xp SP3. But SP 3 for Win XP 64 bit doesnt exist only SP2.
|
On February 18 2010 04:10 Carnac wrote:
I'm pretty sure SC2 is still gonna suck on a PC like that tho
That basically defines my old PC, and SC:BW sucks on it.
Luckily my new computer parts are coming in the mail tomorrow.
|
On February 19 2010 14:18 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
CPU: Intel Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
RAM: Corsair 4GB DDR2 1066MHz 2.1V
GFX: XFX 9800GTX+ 512MB
M/B: XFX 780i SLI
PSU: OCZ 850W
HDD: 4x WD 500GB @ 7200 w/RAID0+1
OS: Vista Ultimate 64
MOUSE: Logitech G3
LCD: 2x 24" LG Flatron @ 1920x1200
Anybody who has played with specs similar to mine, do you think I will be able to play @ 1920x1200 with all ultra settings? Seems from what I've heard that I'll only be able to handle high-ish if I want big battles to stay smooth
I doubt you can handle ultra with that GPU
|
Does anyone know if a Nvidia Geforce 8500 will be able to run starcraft 2 on atleast medium settings, based on the minimum spec requirement for the game? Or should I be seeing a foreseeable upgrade in the future, maybe a 9800?
|
These are the requeriments for displaying one baneling into the screen.
|
Since I need a new computer anyways i was going to buy a desktop for starcraft 2. With the set of requirements what is a good price range i should be expecting? I'm not too computer savy so asking the people at best buy was a "whoops". I just want an example of what computer can handle it and its price range .
|
what else are you planning on doing with it?
|
On February 26 2010 01:22 GouraudPalm wrote:
These are the requeriments for displaying one baneling into the screen.
LOL thats like almost true. my sc2 never lagged until there was a billion of those banelings
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5651/sc2beta.jpg )
![[image loading]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/8826/screenshot20100217at308.png)
