There has been a lot of talk about how the Intel 3000 HD graphics included on Sandy Bridge systems can play Starcraft 2. But what hasn't really been seen is what level the graphics can comfortably play at least 30 fps (playable).
Also if you look at the bit-tech article below the benchmarking can vary greatly depending on what type of Sandy Bridge and Intel HD 3000 system you have (some have 12 EU and some only 6 EU).
Anyway, it would be nice to hear how the new Sandy Bridge machines are ACTUALLY handling graphics from players (so we can get out of the Intel spin zone). So if you have a machine with only the onboard Intel graphics let us know how the game is playing and how high you can set the graphics before there are playability problems.
EDIT: For those of you using Sandy Bridge laptops who are willing to share your graphics state, please include some basic specs on your machine (Processor, gb RAM, Additional graphics card, etc ...)
I have an i5, but its not SB, but the earlier (Westmere it's called?) with HD 2000. You can find my cry for help in a thread in Tech Support. In short, SC2 is playable for me at lowest settings with some additional tweaks from the helpfull TL people applied @ 1368x768 but I do experience pefrormance gliteches with some particularly big 3v3/4v4 armies and a different kind of issues (in any bracket) but only on some specific places of the maps (I haven't been able to completely solve them, but it got better after the tweaks).
Any Sandy HD 3000 should be better than my setup, so it should be playable. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect a smooth play on anything but lowest settings, but all the shininess its unnecessary anyway, you should focus on the gameplay instead.
From what i can see on the video demo with SC2 it actually looks pretty fluid and decent. Obviously for someone that takes gaming seriously then opting for a proper graphics card is a must (laptop or desktop).
Doest mean the new Intel 3000 HD doesnt look good (at least on that demo it does) but still imo any gamer willing to take SC2 or any other upcoming game needs to consider more powerfull graphics hardware than whats shown on this demo.
On March 09 2011 22:03 viletomato wrote: Funny how the lady doesn't know what she is talking about. SC2 is not an MMO.
Massive yes, Multiplayer yes, Online yes, but not MMO ahha.
I didn't really mind her asking that, I thought she asked so the guy could say "no actually starcraft 2 is a real time strategy game where there's a lot going on all the time as we can see on the screen", just to let the audience know what type of game it is. But instead he just cofirms that it is indeed an mmo game. I honestly cringed when he did that.
Supposedly some Sandy Bridge systems will be able to play without skipping at medium settings and even have some room for slight improvement beyond that ... but that was only specifically shown on desktop systems with the 12 EU version of the HD 3000 and quad-core i7 2600K chips.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that most Sandy Bridge machines will at best be playable only at Low Quality.
Guys, any game that ends with the word "Craft" is addictive and is an MMO.
I've been pretty impressed with the Sandy Bridge so far. When Sandy Bridge starts kicking in (in terms of how many people's computers have it), I'll be getting to work on getting people into Starcraft 2.
On March 10 2011 00:54 shell wrote: Got a i5 2300 SB with a HD3000 and i play at 1900x1200 with everything on and in max quality and it works fine without any FPS loss no matter what!
And i tried it with other games and it works fine! i'm very happy with the SB cpu!
That's...not...possible...? Only the K processors (it 2500k, i7 2600k) have the HD3000. You have the HD2000
You have to have some sort of discrete graphics card.
On March 09 2011 22:03 viletomato wrote: Funny how the lady doesn't know what she is talking about. SC2 is not an MMO.
Massive yes, Multiplayer yes, Online yes, but not MMO ahha.
IMHO MMO is not just `in realm' having thousands of players simultaneously like WoW does, but what the community supports (ie. battle.net has 15000 players playing 14000 games of Diablo 2) which is still in essence supporting thousands of players. Another example is 2000 Quakelive servers that occur at a time supporting those (massively) players. I'd like to know why Quakelive is called a MMOFPS then if this is false. I also think the MMO title caught on late and lately catching on to people as a theming convention, that it means something huge. catch me if i'm wrong.
I came here looking to see for my own eyes reliable information and specifications as what the topic asks for.
EDIT: For those of you using Sandy Bridge laptops who are willing to share your graphics state, please include some basic specs on your machine (Processor, gb RAM, Additional graphics card, etc ...)
shell !, please post a `tweak utilities' output of your system specs for our knowledge. I have had a i3 350 nvidia 310m and the HD3000 GPU is supposed to be on par or better. I was doing everything you explained but at 1366x768 with my 310m. I'd like to use that knowledge to base a purchase on a macbook air\mac mini.
EPT
