|
On February 23 2010 05:35 Jlab wrote:
This is what i have (from blizzard site beta opt-in thing)
Operating system:Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type:Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):2.019
System memory (GB):0.992
Graphics card model:Intel(R) 82945G Express Chipset Family
Graphics card driver:igxprd32.dll
Desktop resolution:1024x768
Hard disk size (GB):74.52
Hard disk free space (GB):44.533
This is what i am getting:
Case: Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Mobo: ASRock M3A770DE AM3 AMD 770 ATX AMD Motherboard
GPU: ATi 5770
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core
PSU: Antec NEO ECO 520C 520W Continuous Power ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply
Memory: CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory
Keeping the hard drive and OS for money reasons, may add a slave eventually.
you are awesome!!!
ok well here my pc:
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz 38 °C
Conroe 65nm Technology
RAM
4.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 399MHz 5-5-5-18
Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. P35-DS3 (Socket 775)
Graphics
PnP-Monitor (Standard) on NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
2304MB GeForce 8800 GT (nVidia) 78 °C
solution would be 1650x1080
I used ctrl+alt+f for ingame fps
searched for a replay with the very most action, 4-5 collosi, some thorse and a shitlot of units in between and fps dropped to 23.
23 is the very extreme low, usually it is around 40-50 and can drop to 33 fights, but that is for 1v1.
I think in 2v2 or more with big ass monster armies you could get into troubles.
Fortunately since there is really no noticeable difference from ultra to high settings i am going with high settings.
For 1v1 high settings should never drop below 30 frames ( i guess they could for a second in a 200vs200 supply fight, still need to find a bigger fight ^^)
All in all i guess the 8800gt is the minimum to enjoy sc2 1v1 in all its beauty. I wonder what kind of card you ened to enjoy 4v4 for all ultra.
|
CPU: Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200 @ 2.5GHz (2 core)
GPU: ATI Radeon 4350 HD
Resolution: 1280x1024 (Windowed Mode)
RAM: 4GB DDR2
Setting: Low
I'm using a Dell Slim PC (Insprion 530s)...the videocard is my bottleneck and I can't replace it because I would need a better power supply (This one maxes out at 300W...heh)
To get a better power supply...it wouldn't fit in my slim tower...
I actually don't really mind playing under low...as long as I can tab out really fast under windowed mode.
|
Medium configuration, just because I like it. I tried all ultra and it ran good except for maxed armies, but I like the look of medium better.
High textures, 1920x1080x32
Laptop
Intel Core 2 Duo P9700 @ 2.80GHz
2GB RAM
GeForce GTX 260M 1024MB
Perfect smooth play all day long, except for when you spawn then you get a small lagspike.
I will switch to Win7 and 4GB RAM for retail, it works fine right now but alt+tab and apps in the bg are pretty slow with SC2 running at over 1GB.
|
OS: Windows Server 2008 R2
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T5250 @ 1.50 GHz
3 GB RAM
Graphics Card: Mobile Intel 965 Express Chipset
1280 x 800
I can run SC2 on mostly low settings with a few medium with decent results. Low runs it somewhat smoothly, although my mouse lags with it which makes it pretty annoying (boxing and clicking units is a pain).
Also was wondering since I'm not very good with computers, how well do you all expect a MacBook Pro to run SC2? I'm looking into buying a new laptop for college and that's my top choice as of now. It'd have:
RAM- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 2x2
250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
Not sure the resolution, but whatever the 13-inch runs.
Thanks in advanced for any replies.
|
OS - MS Windows XP Home 32-bit SP3
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53 GHz
RAM - 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 @ 398 MHz
Motherboard - ASUSTeK Computer Inc. M50Vm
Graphics - NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GS 1GB
Hard Drive - 320 GB
Resolution - 1280x800 OR 1440x900 / Just tried it on 1280x768 and still lag 
I get 2-3 minute choppy periods when running it on "Low". I have all my drivers updated, all my Windows updates complete, and nothing else running in the background. My firewalls are off and Antivirus programs are turned off as well.
Not sure why a laptop like this is lagging when I play StarCraft II, especially when everything has been updated
|
Ati Mobility 5870 runs it @ max settings, max resolution with average of 80+ fps, at 6x speed in high action areas the lowest it went for me is the low 40's.
|
United States11539 Posts
Thanks to all the people who posted their specs! Some pretty surprising results already with an Intel Chipset running the game on medium Low at 1280x800!!!! Impressive performance 
Movmou, the 9400M happens to come below the minimum specs that Blizzard recommends, but it might be able to play the game. However, I suggest avoiding that laptop if you want to be able to play SC2 comfortably!
|
On February 23 2010 08:52 FragKrag wrote:Thanks to all the people who posted their specs! Some pretty surprising results already with an Intel Chipset running the game on medium Low at 1280x800!!!! Impressive performance Movmou, the 9400M happens to come below the minimum specs that Blizzard recommends, but it might be able to play the game. However, I suggest avoiding that laptop if you want to be able to play SC2 comfortably!
Yeah I was personally surprised to see my intel integrated run it medium-low.
Also, a friend of mine has a relatively new macbook and we tested the beta on there. It ran surprisingly well on what seemed to be medium, we even tested it on high and it ran. Testing it on ultra caused the program to crash however (we we're running it through parallels, might've had something to do with it).
I'll be interested once the mac client comes out to see how well it can run, as the latest macbooks also run a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. I'm completely sold on the Macbook Pro except for it's ability to run SC2, so I'll wait til the mac beta client is released and check back here with results.
EDIT: Also interesting, a post on SC2 Beta forums shows a macbook pro user running in bootcamp with a few interesting posts (for anyone else hoping to play SC2 on a mac in the near future)
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23307771007&sid=5000
"Hey all,
Here is an update to my original post. It was the Texture setting that was causing my computer to black screen, and be chopping.
so to all those late 2008 MBP'ers out there, you can do ultra settings just fine, as long as the texture quality is set to Medium (256 MB).
E N J O Y
PS - ty for the blue repsonse.
ANkh"
|
System:
Intel Core(TM) 2 CPU 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz
2.0 Gb Ram
Nvidia GForce 8800 GTS
200 GB HD
Recommended settings:
Res: 1280x1024
Texture: Medium
Graphics: Medium
No problems at all.
|
United States11539 Posts
Tell him to run a FPS check.
I really doubt his statement.
|
Alright, I will quote myself here. I just tried the game on both my business laptop and my 2 year old gaming computer.
Business system:
DELL Latitude E6500
Intel Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9800 @ 2.94 Ghz
Nvidia Quadro NVS 160m
4 Gb Ram
120 Gb SSD
Recommended settings:
Res: 1280x800
Texture: Medium
Graphics: Medium
Result:
I had to change my settings to low settings if I want it playable at a competetive level. Otherwise the mouse was unresponsive and laggy.
2 year old game system:
Intel Core(TM) 2 CPU 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz
2.0 Gb Ram
Nvidia GForce 8800 GTS
200 GB HD
Recommended settings:
Res: 1280x1024
Texture: Medium
Graphics: Medium
Result:
No problems at all.
Summary:
My business laptop has much more CPU power and usually fair better with games (Mass Effect 2, HoN, Torchlight, etc...) than my old gaming system. But with Starcraft 2 it is the opposite.
|
United States11539 Posts
That is extremely odd because with just about every game, the CPU load stays constant and as you turn the settings up, the graphics card is the first part to be stressed because it is the actual part of the computer that is doing all the drawing. The CPU just does the logical work for the most part, so I would expect most games to run better on the desktop o_O
Though it could also be the 2gb of RAM that might cause a bit of trouble (highly doubt this).
|
On February 23 2010 10:24 FragKrag wrote:
That is extremely odd because with just about every game, the CPU load stays constant and as you turn the settings up, the graphics card is the first part to be stressed because it is the actual part of the computer that is doing all the drawing. The CPU just does the logical work for the most part, so I would expect most games to run better on the desktop o_O
Though it could also be the 2gb of RAM that might cause a bit of trouble (highly doubt this).
Yeah. I know it is odd, but its the truth. Although I could never play with any high graphic settings to begin with. So if both systems are running with almost minimal graphics the CPU might be the most significant factor in the end. I played Mass Effect with the lowest settings as an example.
|
e8400 3.6ghz
2x1gb 1066 ddr2
512mb 9600gt
1680x1050
ultra 40-45 drops to mid 20s when looking at zerg base
high 60-70 drops to 55 when looking at zerg base
medium ~80ish dropped to around 60 looking at zerg base
low (with medium terrain) never dropped below 60 it's 200+ fps so i'm not even going to bother
using fraps can get more accurate readings later did this in like 5 mins
seems like zerg base takes a huge total on your fps because of the waves in the creep
i got these rough numbers by watching a 2 player replay textures at high always everything else was using the low/med/high/ultra preset.
i did not use the fraps benchmark i'm just eyeing it for now (with fraps fps overlay). might do a full benchmark later no time now.
|
United States11539 Posts
WOW MAHNINI I DID NOT EXPECT THIS FROM YOU!!!!!!!!!
what is your resolution ;_____;
|
|
|
United States11539 Posts
thanks mahnini!
now just need more of you 9600GT users to post how well your card plays. I doubt that the 9600GT can reach Ultra at playable settings :/
Updated OP with where to test the GPU for FPS!
|
btw for all of you who think 45 fps is playable switch to a lower setting, it will blow you're mind at how smooth it is.
|
Sorry i dont know much about computers can some one tell me if a GeForce 8600M GT video card fits these requirements??
|
People who have claimed they play the game maxed with a 9600m are simply retarded. There is no way that 32 steam processor 128bit card will run anything on more than 1024x768 medium if you dont want to watch a slideshow.
Here are my results from watching reps:
Game runs flawlessly on my laptop at all times/all bases on 1920x1200, Ultra. Might do an FPS check if I can be bothered to download fraps.
Windows 7 x64
CPU: QX9300 @ 2.93ghz
GPU: GTX280M @ 585/1500/1020
SSD: Intel x25m-G1
RAM: 4GB @ 1066, 6-6-6-16
Hopefully performance will stay that way when I get to actually play the game instead of just watching it ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
