|
Sony VAIO CW Series
Processor: Intel Core i5 520M / 2.4 GHz (Dual-Core with Hyper-Threading support)
Max Turbo Speed: 2.93 GHz
64-bit Computing: Yes
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit
RAM: 4 GB @ 1066 MHz
Video Card: NVIDIA GT 330M 512MB Dedicated
Hard Drive: 456GB, 7200rpm
Screen Size: 14 inches, 1600x900 display
Weight: 5.4 lbs
Runs quite very smooth on default medium settings and textures, maintaining a near constant 50-60 fps. It can run default high settings and textures around 40 fps. (as long as no 4v4, or big defense map) All of these at 1600x900.
Also, I didn't buy it specifically for games. It had to have certain specs for college, I'm an information systems major. I probably would have upgraded the graphics card if for gaming alone. And I needed a light computer, mostly people don't realize how heavy 7 or 8 pounds is to carry and unpack several times a day compared to this 5.4 lbs laptop.
EDIT: I found that configuring the texture quality makes an enormous difference when considering ultra. I found that medium or even high textures with almost all ultra settings can still run relatively high(40+ fps) on a smaller map.(I was running a defense game) Still testing needs to be done, I've noticed that ultra textures aren't very apparent on this screen anyways.
I'm sure most people have noticed also, Post-processing had an at least 5 fps difference when it was enabled.
|
On June 29 2010 08:38 Balor wrote:
Planning on getting an Alienware M17X with the following specs, what level do you think I can run SC2 on?
1GB ATI Radeon™ Mobility HD 5870
6GB Memory 1x 2GB, 1x 4GB DDR3
250GB 7,200RPM SATA-II HDD
Should I get:
Intel® Core™ i7 620M 2.66 GHz (3.33GHz Turbo Mode, 4MB Cache
or
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache
(same price)
In case you didn't know 620M is a dual core and 720QM is quad core
Chances are the Dual Core is faster for gaming and the quad is faster for encoding/etc.
|
On June 29 2010 07:37 MonkeyKungFu wrote:
Inspiron 1520
Intel core 2 due 2,2ghz
Nvidia gf 8600 M GT
2 GB ram
hdd 5400 rpm
Running n low settings:
1v1 runs smoothly, 2v2 is unplayable if you reach 200 each, 3v3... unplayable
Kind of wierd that i did not experience any problems playing 2v2 in the beginning of beta.
same for me
Beginning of the beta the game ran way way smoother than from like... patch 11 or sth onwards.(just a very rough guess)
I wasnt sure if that was just me or my laptop getting worse
I'll post specs later
|
can you guys post your resolutions along with the settings you get? also framerates on top of "well it can run high" would be nice (hit ctrl + alt + f while in game to see your framerate)
just you could be talking about finding the game playable at all high 40 fps on 640x480 compared to it running all high at 100 fps on 1680x1050, and you'd never be able to tell it apart fro myour post.
|
On June 29 2010 09:35 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 07:37 MonkeyKungFu wrote:
Inspiron 1520
Intel core 2 due 2,2ghz
Nvidia gf 8600 M GT
2 GB ram
hdd 5400 rpm
Running n low settings:
1v1 runs smoothly, 2v2 is unplayable if you reach 200 each, 3v3... unplayable
Kind of wierd that i did not experience any problems playing 2v2 in the beginning of beta.
same for me Beginning of the beta the game ran way way smoother than from like... patch 11 or sth onwards.(just a very rough guess) I wasnt sure if that was just me or my laptop getting worse I'll post specs later
yeah, especially past patch 13. it seemed to lag for no reason occasionally.
|
Thank you for this thread. I'll probably be buying a cheap laptop and it helps to know if it'll run SC2 on low settings.
|
On June 29 2010 09:29 Vincere wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 08:38 Balor wrote:
Planning on getting an Alienware M17X with the following specs, what level do you think I can run SC2 on?
1GB ATI Radeon™ Mobility HD 5870
6GB Memory 1x 2GB, 1x 4GB DDR3
250GB 7,200RPM SATA-II HDD
Should I get:
Intel® Core™ i7 620M 2.66 GHz (3.33GHz Turbo Mode, 4MB Cache
or
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache
(same price) In case you didn't know 620M is a dual core and 720QM is quad core Chances are the Dual Core is faster for gaming and the quad is faster for encoding/etc.
You sure about that? I think the Quad would be faster in general. Especially since SC2 is written with tons of threads (30+).
Why would the Dual Core run 30+ threads faster? It seems like the 720 QM is the better choice overall. I'm not sure about this though... just seems that way.
Note that back in the old days before things were written multi-threaded, a dual-core processor could actually slow down performance because the game wasn't written with multi-threading in mind. Nowadays everything is threaded. =P
|
On June 29 2010 12:09 theDreamStick wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 09:29 Vincere wrote:On June 29 2010 08:38 Balor wrote:
Planning on getting an Alienware M17X with the following specs, what level do you think I can run SC2 on?
1GB ATI Radeon™ Mobility HD 5870
6GB Memory 1x 2GB, 1x 4GB DDR3
250GB 7,200RPM SATA-II HDD
Should I get:
Intel® Core™ i7 620M 2.66 GHz (3.33GHz Turbo Mode, 4MB Cache
or
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache
(same price) In case you didn't know 620M is a dual core and 720QM is quad core Chances are the Dual Core is faster for gaming and the quad is faster for encoding/etc. You sure about that? I think the Quad would be faster in general. Especially since SC2 is written with tons of threads (30+). Why would the Dual Core run 30+ threads faster? It seems like the 720 QM is the better choice overall. I'm not sure about this though... just seems that way. Note that back in the old days before things were written multi-threaded, a dual-core processor could actually slow down performance because the game wasn't written with multi-threading in mind. Nowadays everything is threaded. =P
That is true for well optimized multithreaded applications but if you look at benchmarks for dual vs quad-core you will see in SC2 quad-cores offer only a slight increase in fps. Clock speeds matter much more and the quad-core laptop CPUs have much lower clock speeds than the dual-cores. Even with turbo active for 2 cores the 720QM can't match the default clock speed of the 620M.
|
Sager NP8662 (15'')
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53 GHz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 260m (1 GB)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 300 GB / 7200 RPM
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Can run SC2 on Medium Settings at 60 fps on native res. Higher settings will result in fps drop to about 15-20 (unless I overclock.)
Note: More people should post resolutions, cause it has a huge impact on how smooth the game will run.
|
Canada11398 Posts
Acer Aspire 5534
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 processor TF-20 (1.6 GHz)
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD3200 Graphics Up to 1408MB HyperMemory
RAM: 3GB
HD 250GB
Screen Resolution: 1366*768
I play on the lowest settings always. 1v1 works. 2v2 usually lag makes it unplayable after 15-20 min- sometimes less. 3v3 it becomes unplayable after 10 min (3v3 always switch to shared unit control, once I spent a full minute clicking on the screen trying to make it move.)
|
Dell Inspiron N5010
CPU: Intel i5 i5 2.27ghz
Graphics: ATI 5470 1GB
RAM: 4GB
Desktop Resolution: 1366 x 768
Runs perfectly at medium. High will cause some noticable drop in FPS. Currently using a custom setting so I'm able to set CPU intensive settings to higher than medium and leave the rest at medium.
|
On June 29 2010 12:23 Dr. Tran wrote:
Sager NP8662 (15'')
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53 GHz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 260m (1 GB)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 300 GB / 7200 RPM
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Can run SC2 on Medium Settings at 60 fps on native res. Higher settings will result in fps drop to about 15-20 (unless I overclock.)
Note: More people should post resolutions, cause it has a huge impact on how smooth the game will run.
Asus G71GX-A1
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.00GHz (4 CPUs)
GPU: Nvidia GTX 260M (1GB)
Memory: 6GB
HD: 600GB / 7200 RPM
Resolution: 1920x1200
I haven't ran sc2 on my laptop yet, but this is what I have. I hope to run on high settings quite comfortably. Do you think I will be able to??
|
On June 29 2010 12:22 Lemure wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 12:09 theDreamStick wrote:On June 29 2010 09:29 Vincere wrote:On June 29 2010 08:38 Balor wrote:
Planning on getting an Alienware M17X with the following specs, what level do you think I can run SC2 on?
1GB ATI Radeon™ Mobility HD 5870
6GB Memory 1x 2GB, 1x 4GB DDR3
250GB 7,200RPM SATA-II HDD
Should I get:
Intel® Core™ i7 620M 2.66 GHz (3.33GHz Turbo Mode, 4MB Cache
or
Intel® Core™ i7 720QM 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache
(same price) In case you didn't know 620M is a dual core and 720QM is quad core Chances are the Dual Core is faster for gaming and the quad is faster for encoding/etc. You sure about that? I think the Quad would be faster in general. Especially since SC2 is written with tons of threads (30+). Why would the Dual Core run 30+ threads faster? It seems like the 720 QM is the better choice overall. I'm not sure about this though... just seems that way. Note that back in the old days before things were written multi-threaded, a dual-core processor could actually slow down performance because the game wasn't written with multi-threading in mind. Nowadays everything is threaded. =P That is true for well optimized multithreaded applications but if you look at benchmarks for dual vs quad-core you will see in SC2 quad-cores offer only a slight increase in fps. Clock speeds matter much more and the quad-core laptop CPUs have much lower clock speeds than the dual-cores. Even with turbo active for 2 cores the 720QM can't match the default clock speed of the 620M.
Interesting. Guess SC2 isn't that streamlined for Quad-core processors.
Although you probably shouldn't be taking the dual-core just to edge out a few more FPS in SC2.
IMHO take the quad-core unless you're that hardcore and it's an SC2 only laptop. =P
I'll update the OP again when I get some time tomorrow. If your system is similar to one already on there, I may not add it. I'll just make a note about it.
|
15" Apple MacBook Pro UniBody Late 2008 model (Removable battery)
OS: Windows 7 Professional x64
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
RAM: 8 GB
HD: WD Black
Resolution: 1440x900
Can play on High fine graphic wise, but will eventually hit temperature threshold and computer will go to sleep. Plays Medium fine.
I want to replace all OEM thermal paste with Arctic Silver 5 to see if there is a difference. Some people say upwards to 5-8 C drop.
|
I think the important thing about buying a laptop is to know what you will be doing the most with it. The worst thing you can do is have a laptop that can play SC2 on ultra, but have it be so heavy you can't move it around easily, or have the battery-life suck so much that you have to be tethered to a wall 24/7.
|
just bought an alienware m11x
intel u7300 DUAL CORE 1.73ghz
4gb ram
nvidia GTM350
which setting do you think I'll be able to run sc2 at? haven't been able to try it since beta was down.
edit resolution is 1366*768
|
13'' MacBook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
4GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics
Will this run Medium comfortably? It's what I'm planning on getting on the 27th if it can run Medium easily.
|
On June 30 2010 09:15 pm_squad wrote:
13'' MacBook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
4GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics
Will this run Medium comfortably? It's what I'm planning on getting on the 27th if it can run Medium easily.
It should run Medium just fine if you use bootcamp to dual-boot into windows.
2009 15" Macbook Pro (Running Windows 7 Pro x64)
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 @ 2.8GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (512 MB)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 7200 RPM / 350 GB
Runs on Medium settings, textures can be set to High but with a significant drop in FPS (from ~60 to ~40). CPU-intensive settings like physics and effects can be set to High/Ultra.
EDIT: I forgot to add that it runs on Medium/Low settings in OSX. Also I'd recommend re-mapping the right Option key to Ctrl for playing on the MBP/Apple keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
