EPTMy other system specs are
Hard disk free space (GB)9.44
CPU type:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7700 @ 2.40GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):2.421
System memory (GB):1.998
[Guideline] SC2 Computers - Page 4
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Nick_54
United States2230 Posts
My other system specs are Hard disk free space (GB)9.44 CPU type:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7700 @ 2.40GHz CPU Speed (GHz):2.421 System memory (GB):1.998 | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
That graphics card will not run SC2 based on the information Blizzard has given. Consider upgrading. Everything else is fine. | ||
|
N3rV[Green]
United States1935 Posts
| ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote: do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. 40 fps is completely playable and is amazing for these lower end cards. Drop a few settings and you'll be at 60 easy. I'll say again - it's 1920x1200 on ultra settings. How can you not be impressed with how well this game runs? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
| ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
OPERATING SYSTEM:WINDOWS 2.6.0.6000 () CPU TYPE:AMD ATHLON(TM) 64 X2 DUAL CORE PROCESSOR 5000 CPU SPEED (GHZ):2.62 SYSTEM MEMORY (GB):1.873GRAPHICS CARD MODEL:NVIDIA GEFORCE 6150SE NFORCE 430 GRAPHICS CARD DRIVER:NVD3DUM.DLL DESKTOP RESOLUTION:1680X1050 HARD DISK SIZE (GB):455.94 HARD DISK FREE SPACE (GB):273.487 Besides my grahpics card, that i plan to update, everything else seems to be fine here to run at mid-high level yes? *Just confirming* thanks yo | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
I think my next update will be CPUs + reevaluation of Nvidia cards o_o | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:11 faseman wrote: 40 fps is completely playable and is amazing for these lower end cards. Drop a few settings and you'll be at 60 easy. I'll say again - it's 1920x1200 on ultra settings. How can you not be impressed with how well this game runs? it's not that impressive on ultra settings at least, quite average if not below but it is beta so it will probably see some improvement before release. it would be interesting to see how fps scales when you drop some settings. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
I think it might be the sc2 texture rendering that is causing this weird situation | ||
|
PGHammer
United States132 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:04 mahnini wrote: do you really want to play a high speed rts at 40 fps? competitive players should be aiming for a minimum fps of 60. Competitive players usually play with the details cranked down to the floor, too (if the game allows you to do so) so as to NOT be distracted by flashy FX. (Read the "Graphics vs, Gameplay" article in the SC2 section here to find out what I'm referring to.) I play campaign/skirmish with the detail cranked as tall as I can get away with in other RTS games (but that is generally because the AI doesn't take advantage of detail-induced lag when set to easy or medium difficulty); a competent pro player would wax my silly butt if I tried that. Besides, SC2 will let you go back and watch the replay with a higher level of detail than you actually played at (that is, from my experience, unique). | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:56 FragKrag wrote: I'm guessing it's a Phenom II X2 550? It would help you got CPU-z and identified your processor  That definitely rings a bell, pretty sure that's it | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:21 PGHammer wrote: Competitive players usually play with the details cranked down to the floor, too (if the game allows you to do so) so as to NOT be distracted by flashy FX. (Read the "Graphics vs, Gameplay" article in the SC2 section here to find out what I'm referring to.) I play campaign/skirmish with the detail cranked as tall as I can get away with in other RTS games (but that is generally because the AI doesn't take advantage of detail-induced lag when set to easy or medium difficulty); a competent pro player would wax my silly butt if I tried that. Besides, SC2 will let you go back and watch the replay with a higher level of detail than you actually played at (that is, from my experience, unique). yep. i actually posted in that thread multiple times because i prefer low settings. all i'm saying is to play competitively at ultra requires a lot more than most people think. of course, if you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps then whatever, but im guessing most competitive players will. | ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:19 mahnini wrote: it's not that impressive on ultra settings at least, quite average if not below but it is beta so it will probably see some improvement before release. it would be interesting to see how fps scales when you drop some settings. I can't even make sense of this. I have no idea how you reach your conclusions. | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
By hot, I mean 5-10 degrees hotter than when I run crysis (on highest settings [no AA] on 2048 x 1152). This would support the idea that the game uses alot of VRam (in one theory at least). To be clear, sys specs - i7 920 @ 3.6ghz HT on 6 GB @ 1500ish GTX 280 @ 650/1400/1100 All thats on AIR (the gpu is just stock cooled). The GPU is hitting ~75-80 during SC2. Also i get a constant 60 fps no matter what is going on (everything on ultra and shaders on "extreme") | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
Anyways 75-80C doesn't seem unreasonable for a game. Did you force the card to only get your 60FPS? | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:31 faseman wrote: I can't even make sense of this. I have no idea how you reach your conclusions. i reached my conclusions by comparing the results of this benchmark with other benchmarks which show similar, if not better, fps for other games. how did you reach yours? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11539 Posts
Do any of you 4870, 5750, 5770, 4890, GTX 260 users want to install Fraps and try to give us an FPS at Ultra with a resolution of at least 1680x1050? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:07 Nick_54 wrote: Posted this on the last page, but I think u guys missed it. Is my graphics card good enough? I appreciate the help. For a guy thats a bit of an idiot with computers. I think I meet all the minimum requirements besides have a NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS graphics card? Does this meet the minimum requirement. It is below the "minimum system requirements," and you will want to upgrade, but I'm almost certain that it will run the game. | ||
|
PGHammer
United States132 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:26 mahnini wrote: yep. i actually posted in that thread multiple times because i prefer low settings. all i'm saying is to play competitively at ultra requires a lot more than most people think. of course, if you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps then whatever, but im guessing most competitive players will. True, and a lot of those requirements aren't in the computer, but between the ears. (I'm not going to say that I have that sort of capability, because I don't.) Also, for all any of us know, SC2 may be frame-rate locked at the upper end at 60 fps. (This is as far from silly as it sounds, as this has, in fact, become commonplace with not just RTS titles, but shooters as well.) If you have the capability, but the game itself has the north end of capability walled off, why is the capability there? (Because of the growing amount of frame-rate locking, I have no interest in overbuying as far as GPU capabilities go. SC2 may actually be the most visually demanding RTS I play over the next two years, and, with a 23" LCD display, an HD5750 (I only need one) is quite enough; that goes double if anything above 60 fps is walled off.) | ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
On February 21 2010 14:37 mahnini wrote: i reached my conclusions by comparing the results of this benchmark with other benchmarks which show similar, if not better, fps for other games. how did you reach yours? Wait, what? Where did other games come into this? The way you type is really confusing to me. I feel like i'm getting half the information that you intend. I'll restate AGAIN. At 1920x1200 - very much an enthusiast's resolution - low-mid range cards can attain 40+ fps on ultra settings. You're paring a $250+ monitor with a ~$100 card and getting amazing results. Once you go up a tier, to a card such as the 5770, the fps goes to 70+. | ||
| ||
