|
laptop
intel core2duo t5470 1.6 ghz
nvidia geforce 8600m GT 256mbs
2 gbs ram
runs good on low graphics, 1440x900 res.
game recommends medium graphics and lower res, but i like to max my res.
i tried it on my school's internet so it was kinda laggy. i don't know if it was the internet or my laptop that was causing the lag. at one point, a message popped up saying my laptop was making the game lag. i found out that multiple windows of firefox opened up. i don't why. once i closed them, it stopped lagging, except the internet. i still dont know if my comp will lag or overheat. i would have to try it at my friends house cuz this is his key. i'm thinking it shouldn't lag with low graphics.......
|
laptop
Windows 7 Professional 32-bit
Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 @ 2.66 GHz
3 GB DDR3 RAM @ 1066 MHz
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700, 512 MB DDR3 RAM
+ Show Spoiler +Graphics card is in the workstation line and is the mobile version, so drivers are especially dubious for gaming purposes. The card is based off of the Radeon HD 3650 (DDR3 version), and DirectX performance as seen by benchmarks are pretty similar.
For reference, the CPU benchmarks around the E7400 and E7500 level. I'm not sure how much worse the mobility version graphics cards are though, hm.
Running at 1280x800, medium settings. FPS with not much going on is 45, and typical FPS is 35-45. Maxed supply banelings moving/fighting over Zerg creep goes more like 25, with 20 being the lowest.
edit: For giggles, I turned off the graphics card above and switched to the integrated X4500. I ran it at 1280x800, low settings. I got some 20-25 FPS with not much action, but it would go down to about 10 FPS under stressful conditions.
|
Operating system:Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type:Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2140 @ 1.60GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):1.618
System memory (GB):3.247
Graphics card model:ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Graphics card driver:ati2dvag.dll
Desktop resolution:1440x900
I can only run on low.
I would love to be able to run on high, would i be able to improve my specs to run on high?
If so what do i need to upgrade? Estimate on the cost please.
|
Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
Intel Core i7-920 @ stock
6GB DDR3 1600 RAM
3x ATI Radeon HD 5770 (using single card; not running in CrossFireX)
OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD
Running at 1920x1080, everything set to ultra (except for Shaders, which is set to Extreme). I'm getting about 40-50 frames per second, down to 30-35 frames when looking at a crowded Zerg base. I haven't noticed any lag or slowdowns whatsoever during battles.
As an additional side-note, Starcraft II does not support SLI or CrossFireX. Neither does WoW, and that's been out for years, so I'd expect that this won't change.
|
On February 25 2010 12:53 shtdisturbance wrote:
Operating system:Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type:Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2140 @ 1.60GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):1.618
System memory (GB):3.247
Graphics card model:ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Graphics card driver:ati2dvag.dll
Desktop resolution:1440x900
I can only run on low.
I would love to be able to run on high, would i be able to improve my specs to run on high?
If so what do i need to upgrade? Estimate on the cost please.
The two problems with that are the Pentium D and the HD 2400. What is your motherboard? I would think about $200-240 to run at high at that resolution.
|
PC 1:
Core 2 Quad Q9550 overclocked @ 3,11 Ghz
Gainward Geforce 9600GT Golden Sample (overclocked out of the box, but even more overclocked by me)
3,25 GB DDR2-950 RAM
Win XP SP3
1280x1024 32 Bit
Everything @ ultra, Shaders @ extreme
graphics drivers @ very high quality
around 45-65 fps.
Runs really fine, perfect.
PC 2: (and this is the real SHIT)
I did this for testing purposes, to see in what shitty environment SC2 is able to run - and I really got surprised!
Pentium 4 HT 3,0 Ghz
-> !!! 5-6 years old Onboard graphics chip by S3, 128 MB shared memory
~ 900 MB (-> shared vid memory) DDR1-400 RAM
1024x768 32 Bit
Everything on low except the options which need CPU (physics, effect and reflections) on ULTRA.
The fucking game starts and even seriously gets 10-15 FPS! Old games from 2003 or so lag like hell, new games dont even start. It is a miracle that SC2 of 2010 runs with this. So good/so old engine!
And another interesting observation: It doesn't matter what I use for the CPU demanding settings, if low or ultra, it makes no FPS difference!
So as you can see, a P4 3 Ghz is all you might want CPU-wise in SC2. SC2 doesn't use multicore, so a good singlecore-CPU is enough.
And last but not least: The minimum specs by Blizzard are not the real minimum specs, as you can see. PC2 has neither 1 GB RAM nor a Geforce 6600 or higher. In fact this graphics chip is more like Geforce 4 MX performance, so you get an idea!
I wouldn't play on this, BUT - it runs! oO And that is a miracle.
|
If you wouldn't want to play on it why would it matter that it runs? \
Oh, and SC2 should be multithreaded (dual core support)
|
Wow, how the hell did he get it to run on that oldie.
|
It is just interesting testing this. This means SC2 can virtually run on almost every computer of the last years.
Remember back when SC1 came out... it hadn't the best graphics but it could run on any computer. And in fact this was one of the factors why it became so popular.
Many people, especially in Asia and poorer areas, don't have high end hardware. But even they can run SC2 when they run on low settings! This could be important on whether SC2 will have success or it has HUGE success.
|
It should run easily since it should meet all of the requirements. 10-15 FPS might as well be unplayable.
|
Well, I doubt they'll lower requirements, but I do hope they make optimizations. I can see alot of people playing this on laptops.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2 GHz)
2 GB DDR2 Ram
Radeon 3650
1280x800, game recommended medium, but I set everything to low, runs flawlessly
|
Graphics Quality: Low
256 MB video card
1024x768
1920x1080
Most others turned the screen black.
Everything on low except the options which need CPU (physics, effect and reflections) on ULTRA.
|
Wait
Are you running at 1920x1080 or 1024x768?
|
|
|
The 8500GT looks like it can run SC2 at higher than low at 1024x768, yet I don't think it could run SC2 very well at 1920x1080 :|
|
uhm do u have the video card to proove it cus ill go stream right now for you if youd like?
|
Core2Duo 8400@3ghz
4GB DDR2
ATI 4850 512MB
Everything on Ultra except texture they are on high
Edit: Resolution 1680x1050
Runs perfectly smooth except for one crazy 2on2 where everyone was maxed. The battle kind of lagged. But in my experience you can't see whats going on anyway in SC 2 with maxed armies balls in 2on2.
|
Can anyone confirm if the HD integrated graphics card from Intel's i3/i5/i7 works or not? Blizzard's comment is a bit sketchy. I just need to be able to play it on all low settings without my laptop having to heat up
|
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=5830&x=0&y=0
YES THE 5830 is out!
edit: Holy fuck these benchmarks are depressing. 5830 performing on par with the 5770 ;_;
Kodancer: None of us can confirm at the moment. If however, you have the money for an i5 system, you should get a dedicated card anyways. It is known that even the fastest i5 integrated GPU cannot run Left 4 Dead, a game that is generally considered very soft on the GPU. However, it will run WoW at lowest settings 1024x768 resolution at around 30 fps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1924/myspecs2.png)
