|
I want to compile some data for people that are looking at buying a new laptop. I'm looking around for good laptops that can run SC2 as well.
As you post your specs here, I'll add them to this post so we can have a good compilation of what laptops can run SC2 at what settings.
EDIT:
Thanks for the posts guys. I hope this is useful to you guys shopping for laptops. Just compare your specs to a known set here. Thanks a lot for your input guys.
I just want to note that it seems from these results:
---------------------------------------------------TRENDS------------------------------------------------------
Running on Ultra:
i7, Nvidia GTX 280M+ / ATI equivalent (probably around a Mobility 5850), 4 GB of RAM
Someone is running on Ultra with an i5/330M setup.
Note that a SSD will help you here.
High:
Good Core 2 Duo (2.5 GHz+, 8600+) / i5, Nvidia 330M / ATI Equivalent or Nvidia 9800M GT+, 4 GB of RAM
Medium:
Not so good Core 2 Duo, Nvidia 9600M GT, still want around 4 GB of RAM
Low:
Apparently someone here on TL is using an Intel GMA (impressive O_o). I really don't recommend shooting for a system that runs it on Low.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please follow this format or you won't be added to the OP.
Sony Vaio
CPU: Core 2 Duo P8800
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD4650 (1GB)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 7200 RPM / 350 GB
Runs SC2 on -High- settings. Ultra not playable.
My friend's:
Alienware M11x
CPU: Core 2 Duo SU7300
Graphics: Nvidia GT 335M (1GB)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: ?
Runs SC2 on -High- settings at full FPS. Ultra is a bit laggy.
EDIT: Full FPS => ~60 fps. (The refresh rate of old CRT monitors =P )
Samsung R580
Intel Core i5 dual core 2.26ghz
Nvidia G310m
4gb ddr3 ram
HDD: 350 gb
I run SC2 at medium settings, physics off, and 3D portraits off.
Dell Inspiron 1720
256MB NVidia GeForce 8600M GT
4 Gigs RAM
Vista 32-bit
1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo
Runs the game at medium settings just fine (FPS in the 40s).
Inspiron 1520
Intel core 2 due 2,2ghz
Nvidia gf 8600 M GT
2 GB ram
hdd 5400 rpm
Running n low settings:
Brand/product name - HP Pavilion dv6-2155eo
CPU Core - Intel® Core™ i5-processor i5-430M 2,26 GHz
Graphics card - NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 230M
Harddisk - 640 GB SATA
Ram - 4 GB DDR3
Run games in Low/ medium even there i have no problem (3v3,4v4 200 food)
Sony Vaio
Core i5 520
ATI 5650
320gb 7200rpm drive
4gb 1033 ddr3
Smooth as silk on High (at least against the AI while I wait for beta to come out). Didn't try on Ultra since I don't notice a difference between High and Ultra on my PC
Sony Vaio
Intel core 2 due 1.83 ghz
Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator Driver
hdd-5400 rpm
Ram-3 GB
Runs games on lowest settings
HP Pavilion DV6000
CPU: Intel Core 2 CPU t7200 @ 2.00GHz
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce Go 7600
RAM: 2 GB
HD: 7200 RPM / 130 GB
Runs SC2 on Low, well 30-40 FPS can run medium at about 10-15 FPS
sony vaio
CPU: intel core 2 duo T6500 @ 2.1GHz
Graphics: ATI mobility radeon HD 4570, 512 mb
RAM: 4GB
HD: 300GB
OS: win 7 premium 64 bit
Resolution: 1366 x 768
on medium runs decently, around 50-60 fps at start then starts to dip during mid-late game at around 24 fps.
Asus UL30VT-X1
CPU: Intel SU7300 Core 2 Duo 1.3GHz(1.7GHz O.C.)
Graphics: Nvidia Geforce G210M (512MB)
RAM: 4 GB DDR3
HD: 5400 RPM / 500 GB
1.3ghz = Low 25-30fps
1.3ghz = Medium 15fps
1.7ghz = Low 80-90fps
1.7ghz = Medium 60-70fps
1.7ghz = High 20-30fps
1.7ghz = Ultra 5-10fps
Dell XPS M1330
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20 GHz
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS
RAM: 4.00 GB (3.5 usable)
Medium
HP Pavilion dv6
CPU: Intel Core i7 720QM 1.6Ghz
GPU: Nvidia Geforge 320M
RAM: 3GB
HDD: 320GB 7200rmp
High
Operating System: MacOS 10.6.3
CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 2.42
System Memory (GB): 4
Video Card Model: NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Video Card Driver: -
Desktop Resolution: 1280x800
Low/Medium
|
Samsung R580
Intel Core i5 dual core 2.26ghz
Nvidia G310m
4gb ddr3 ram
HDD: 350 gb
I run SC2 at medium settings, physics off, and 3D portraits off. I could run high, although medium performs far better.
|
Dell Inspiron 1720
256MB NVidia GeForce 8600M GT
4 Gigs RAM
Vista 32-bit
1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo
Runs the game at medium settings just fine (FPS in the 40s).
|
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.
|
Brand/product name - HP Pavilion dv6-2155eo
CPU Core - Intel® Core™ i5-processor i5-430M 2,26 GHz
Graphics card - NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 230M
Harddisk - 640 GB SATA
Ram - 4 GB DDR3
Run games in Low/ medium even there i have no problem (3v3,4v4 200 food)
|
Sony Vaio
Core i5 520
ATI 5650
320gb 7200rpm drive
4gb 1033 ddr3
Smooth as silk on High (at least against the AI while I wait for beta to come out). Didn't try on Ultra since I don't notice a difference between High and Ultra on my PC
|
Sony Vaio
Intel core 2 due 1.83 ghz
Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator Driver
hdd-5400 rpm
Ram-3 GB
Runs games on lowest settings....i'd recommend a real graphics card but i'm sure you already knew that without me telling you.....
|
HP Pavilion DV6000
CPU: Intel Core 2 CPU t7200 @ 2.00GHz
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce Go 7600
RAM: 2 GB
HD: 7200 RPM / 130 GB
Runs SC2 on Low, well 30-40 FPS can run medium at about 10-15 FPS a lot lower on big maps lots of units
|
sony vaio
CPU: intel core 2 duo T6500 @ 2.1GHz
Graphics: ATI mobility radeon HD 4570, 512 mb
RAM: 4GB
HD: 300GB
OS: win 7 premium 64 bit
Resolution: 1366 x 768
on medium runs decently, around 50-60 fps at start then starts to dip during mid-late game at around 24 fps. my fps also depends on map, on metalopolis the fps starts at around 40.
i usually play with all settings on medium except shaders on low and fps is 80-90 at start then dips to 60-70 fps during mid-late game.
|
On June 29 2010 07:20 theDreamStick wrote:
Runs SC2 on -High- settings at full FPS. Ultra is a bit laggy.
What do you mean full fps? 30 fps?
|
Asus UL30VT-X1
CPU: Intel SU7300 Core 2 Duo 1.3GHz(1.7GHz O.C.)
Graphics: Nvidia Geforce G210M (512MB)
RAM: 4 GB DDR3
HD: 5400 RPM / 500 GB
+ Show Spoiler +Display: 1280x720res, 13.3'' LED screen
Battery-life: 11 hours
Price: $689.99 on amazon
Using FRAPS
1.3ghz = Low 25-30fps
1.3ghz = Medium 15fps
1.7ghz = Low 80-90fps
1.7ghz = Medium 60-70fps
1.7ghz = High 20-30fps
1.7ghz = Ultra 5-10fps
This laptop comes with built-in software to overclock your cpu, so it's safe and easy. I never knew how much better it was with it overclocked until I just tested it right now.
|
I think medium does fine on my machine, but if someone could verify by looking at the hardware, I would be appreciative.
Dell XPS M1330
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20 GHz
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS
RAM: 4.00 GB (3.5 usable)
HD: ??? RPM / 220 GB
edit:
Resolution is 1280 x 800
|
HP Pavilion dv6
CPU: Intel Core i7 720QM 1.6Ghz
GPU: Nvidia Geforge 320M
RAM: 3GB
HDD: 320GB 7200rmp
Runs well on High. Ultra quite lag
|
Everyone should post resolution, or these stats don't mean much.
|
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)
|
Operating System: MacOS 10.6.3
CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 2.42
System Memory (GB): 4
Video Card Model: NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Video Card Driver: -
Desktop Resolution: 1280x800
This is a new Apple Macbook Pro 13", purchased June 2010.
In OSX it runs Medium pretty well, 45-50fps, but I play on Low which is always well above 80fps. I believe if I ran under Bootcamp performance would be improved.
|
Lenovo T410
CPU: Intel i5-520M 2.4 GHz
Graphics: Nvidia Quadro NVS 3100M 512 MB (Same as 310M)
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 7200 RPM / 250 GB
Get 40-60 fps at 1440x900 with textures on high and everything else on low. Dips down to 30s in big 1v1 battles. Haven't tested 2v2/3v3/4v4 but I'm guessing they're unplayable without lowering res.
|
Operating System: Windows 2.6.1.7600 ()
CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T6500 @ 2.10GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 2.12
System Memory (GB): 2.871
Video Card Model: Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family
Video Card Driver: igdumdx32.dll
Desktop Resolution: 1366x768
Hard Disk Size (GB): 223.415
Hard Disk Free Space (GB): 141.786
Low Settings FPS in 20's
WTF is wrong, I know my graphics card sucks, but is there anything I can do to get my fps higher?
|
Asus N61Jq
Operating System: Windows 7
CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q 720 @ 1.60GHz
System Memory (GB): 4
Video Card Model: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730
Runs smooth as silk on High. On ultra there was a lot more heat and it seemed to bog down a bit but it might have been battlenet. I only used it a couple of games. Happy with high so really didn't try anything.
Edit: I did a couple of test games with AI vs AI at 1360 x 768 resolution. On Ultra it was normally 40-60 fps. It bottomed out in the 20s in big battles. On High it was generally maxed at 60+. Bottomed out in the 40s, a couple of times hit the 30s. This computer was $999 *canadian* a few months ago.
|
Sony Vaio 13" Z Series (VPCZ112GX)
CPU: Intel i5 CPU M520 @~2.4GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
RAM: 4 GB
HD: 128 SSD
Desktop Res: 1600 : 900 (16 : 9)
Tested against Blizz AI with 400 lings testing pathfinding loops in an out of creep. Runs on medium smoother than a babies bottom. On high the framerate drops but remains playable. On Ultra, it starts stuttering with the 400 lings, but remains perfectly playable with smaller armies. Recommend High for casual play, medium for guaranteed smoothness in tournament games or showmatches.
Notes:+ Show Spoiler + This is the new Sony Z series, only two months old. It has a switch allowing you to switch between an onboard card on the motherboard and a dedicated NVIDIA card, for hardcore processing and gaming, and the other for battery power and relaxed word processing. I didn't test the onboard card because its terrible. Surprisingly though, it actually can still play SC2 on ALL MIN settings with a regular framerate with the onboard card. Don't recommend gaming seriously with the onboard card, though. This is a fantastic laptop because its very small, very portable, and VERY powerful. Highly recommended if you're going into college and wanna game in class (like me!). Only downside I've noticed so far the touchpad gets in the way while typing sometimes, moving the mouse and clicking random things. That and the ridiculous $1900 price tag. Still recommended.
Edit: Added resolution, changed notes into spoilers to make it shorter.
|
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.
|
Canada11359 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
