EPTRan fine.
Let me define fine: playable for me. I am much less picky than most people. So.. here's some rough 'benchmark' figures (me running a few unit test maps & replays while looking at the FPS display).
Hardware:
Pentium g850 processor
Asrock H61M-GE motherboard (for those from the CBRT, I decided to get this one because it had a controllable case fan header, unlike the biostar)
2x2gb 1333mhz ram
Intel HD graphics (I don't think it's technically HD 2000, but essentially the same performance just missing some esoteric features).
All 'tests' were done at 1680x1050 resolution, with 'Reduce Mouse Lag' on & Vsync off. Unit portraits always set to 2D, regardless of preset tested.
I started with the texture quality low and the low graphics preset - keep everything as low as it can go, since that's the way I'll probably be playing the game.
----
Low
----
First I loaded a replay of a reasonably long macro game - the final fight was 150 vs 190 supply, roach/ling/bane vs marine/tank/thor. It wasn't the toughest possible test - the armies were large but not designed to make the CPU cry. But it felt like realistic late game.
Game opening = 60 FPS (yeah, but who knows how long that will last)
Scrolling around the map at unreasonably high speeds (40ish FPS - supposedly scrolling the map taxes graphics rather than CPU)
Mid-game standard: 40FPS
Mid-game battles: 30-35 FPS.
Final battles - a steady 20-22 FPS (enough to macro).
Ok, but what about 'bad' late game scenarios for 1v1? I loaded up a unit testing map and created two armies of 162 zerglings each. (Unit tester didn't let me make more, but I may have needed to build overlords. oops.) For kicks, I gave them three armor upgrades, speed, and the adrenal glands upgrade. Then I marched them onto a plateau and fought it out. FPS hovered around 19, dropping occasionally to 17.
Not bad. Not bad at all. Given the lower FPS results in late game scenarios were almost certainly the result of an inferior CPU, I decided to hereby deem HD 2000 graphics 'playable,' at least for 1680x1050 resolution with low(est) graphics settings.
---
Med
---
Ok, but what about medium texture quality & medium graphics settings preset? Immediately the map itself looked different. Big change from low. Big reduction in FPS due to graphics.
Game opening = 20 FPS (and at the Zerg base, with its bizzarely writhing creep, 15FPS)
Scrolling around the map at unreasonably high speeds (10-12 FPS)
Mid-game standard play: about 15 FPS
Mid-game battles (taking place on creep): 10-12FPS
Final battle (half the screen creep): 9-10 FPS
Zergling Apocalypse (no creep): 11 FPS
Game start to game end, limited by graphics.. well gotta say that was expected.
---
High
---
Ok, now we're just getting ridiculous
Game opening = 15 FPS (10 in the Zerg base w/creep)
Mid-game standard = 10 FPS
Mid-game battle (on creep) = 7-8 FPS
Final Battle = 6-8 FPS
Zergling Apocalypse: 9 FPS
Creep hurts.
---
Ultra (preset did not turn on indirect shadows)
---
lolz
Zergling Apocalypse: 8 FPS
---
Ok, but what about a custom setup mixing low and med graphics options?
---
First lesson - don't touch shaders. Shaders are also required for lighting and shadows options. Shaders on anything but low CRUSH HD 2000 graphics. Let's not touch any of the 'CPU' affecting settings for now. So...
Texture Quality & Terrain set to Ultra
Models set to High (highest setting available)
Everything else on lowest settings
Game opening = 55 FPS (in the Zerg base, with lifeless not-moving creep, 45 FPS)
Mid-game standard = 35-40 FPS
Mid-game battle = a low of 25 FPS
Final battle = 17-20 FPS
Zergling Apocalypse: 16-17 FPS
---
Interesting, continuing custom setup
---
Same as before, but this time with post-processing set to medium (as high as it goes without turning up shaders)
Game opening = 58 FPS (in the Zerg base, 45 FPS)
Mid-game standard = 37-40 FPS
Mid-game battle = 25-27 FPS
Final battle = 19-20 FPS, with a flash dip to 18.
Zergling Apocalypse: 22-23
Um, ok, what the hell? Post-processing actually increased FPS. Probably in some way it reduced resources needed by the CPU. I dunno, let's just call it good. The Zergling apocalypse was actually better than the lowest settings we started out on. Perhaps I mis-read it.
---
If you can't tell, I'm typing this as I test settings
---
Of the 'CPU dependent' settings, Physics and Reflections had minimal or no impact on the final battle test (with shaders off). Effects did reduce FPS.
Turning everything back to lowest, but adding medium post-processing
Mid-game battle = 29-33 FPS
End-game battle = low 20s, spike down to 20.
Zergling Apocalypse = low 20s, spike down to 17.
---
Well, finishing up these pointless tests with the setting I'll probably run the game at unless something bugs me (or I just go back to all lowest since I'm used to it):
Texture Quality: Ultra
Shaders, Lighting, Shadows: Low
Terrain: Ultra
Reflections: On
Effects: Low
Post-processing: Medium
Physics: Ultra
Models: High
Unit Portraits: 2D
Game start = 58 FPS (43 FPS in the zerg base)
Mid-game standard = 39 FPS
Mid-game battle = 24-26 FPS
Final battle = 18-20 FPS
Zergling Apocalypse = 17-19 FPS
Conclusion: Obviously, many of the late game FPS figures are tests of the g850 CPU rather than the HD 2000 graphics. For those about to say 'but 20 FPS isn't playable!', I'd probably get 20 FPS in late game scenarios with any graphics card on the market.
A whole big bunch of SC2 'graphics' settings have very little effect on actual in-game FPS. (truth be told, a relatively small change in the actual images, too) The big exceptions are, of course, resolution (I'm guessing), shaders (and associated settings), and to a lesser extent unit portraits and effects. Out of game, movie quality has a surprisingly large effect. Most importantly, HD 2000 is a viable graphics choice for low-quality settings SC2.
P.S. Not that you'd ever need it, but the replay I used for most of the 'tests' can be found at:
http://www.battlereports.com/viewreplays.php?replaynum=34330
The 'mid-game battle' begins at 17:40.
