Starcraft 2 System Requirements

[austin316]

first off, apologies if this should have been in the video card section. if so, I can delete and move this post.

I wanted to get the board's thoughts on if I should just buy a new video card for my computer or go ahead, bite the bullet and get a new one. Basically, the only two games I'm interested in for the next two years are Starcraft II and Diablo III.

My rig:

Inter Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHZ
4 Gigs Ram
I have a PCI Express x16 expansion slot



Moved from PC Gaming

Anandtech PC Gaming Moderator
KeithTalent

 

[TecHNooB]

you haven't posted your video card. i've been running starcraft 2 just fine with a 4850 i got for $100.

 

[shortylickens]

Posting in another Starcraft 2 System Requirements thread.

 

[austin316]

Posting in another Starcraft 2 System Requirements thread.

can you point me in the right direction to the system reqs thread? TIA

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Just get a 1GB 4850 from newegg or something in that range.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Just letting you know, I have the Beta and it runs pretty good with the system exactly stated in sig, except for the GPU OC. I am keeping it GPU at stock in the heat. I see it dropping via fraps to 45 during a massive zergling attack and sometimes down to 30 when I have EVERYTHING on one screen. Typically i'm at about 50-65. Even on low my FPS will hover from 70 to 110 with dips to 50 with tons of action.

I am on a 22" 1680x1050 LCD, All settings on High. The game is probably single threaded as if it were multithreaded my CPU would blast through it. My GPU is decent enough (4830 512mb = 9800GTX 512mb Equivalent for nVidia) and my CPU is faster than the norm. This game is playable at 30-40fps.

 

[mav451]

The game may only be dual-core optimized, but it still sees a boost from clock speed, especially at resolutions below 19x12 (i.e. 16x10 and lower). That said, if you consider that a Nehalem still sees gains from 3.2 to 3.7GHz, chances are that you will see good gains OCing your Conroe.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,7.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/

So yeah, IPC will be a factor here.

*a note on the LHW numbers. True - there is not much gain in the avg FPS after 3.2Ghz (which makes sense, since a Nehalem at 3.2GHz+ has excellent IPC as it is). However, pay special attention to the _minimum_ FPS numbers, which are still showing gains. They are jumping by over 20% with each 500Mhz increase, except from 3.2Ghz to 3.7Ghz (only 16% increase). Yeah "only'.

 

[Malladine]

System in my sig runs SC2 @ auto detect ultra across the board, 1680x1050

 

[borisvodofsky]

System in my sig runs SC2 @ auto detect ultra across the board, 1680x1050

Even the most power CPUs will drop to 45fps during intense moments, so anything LESS than i7 4.0ghz + go down much further, higher 20s upper 30s.

It's really disappointing. I'm radically pissed off that Many of us will have to buy entirely new TOP of the line systems to play this game.

It even requires us to overclock in many cases if we want solid 60fps.

wtf happened to playability on all systems. That was certainly a selling point for starcraft and warcraft 3.

Fuckckckk :thumbsdown:

 

[imaheadcase]

huh?

If you ran SC1, you can run SC2. Its not a graphically intensive game.

 

[Ika]

huh?

If you ran SC1, you can run SC2. Its not a graphically intensive game.

my netbook runs SC1, you think it can run sc2?

that said, SC2 requirements are very low. I'm pretty sure it would run just perfectly (on very low settings, albeit) on my P4 2.8ghz/6800NU if the machine had 2gb RAM (which is holding me back right now). Any kind of modern-day computer with a discrete graphics card will run it just fine.

Even the most power CPUs will drop to 45fps during intense moments, so anything LESS than i7 4.0ghz + go down much further, higher 20s upper 30s.

It's really disappointing. I'm radically pissed off that Many of us will have to buy entirely new TOP of the line systems to play this game.

It even requires us to overclock in many cases if we want solid 60fps.

wtf happened to playability on all systems. That was certainly a selling point for starcraft and warcraft 3.

Fuckckckk :thumbsdown:

you're doing it wrong.

My E6420 at 2.8ghz and 5770 runs everything perfectly at max every setting and 1920x1080, so it is by no means an intensive game,CPU or GPU.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Even the most power CPUs will drop to 45fps during intense moments, so anything LESS than i7 4.0ghz + go down much further, higher 20s upper 30s.

It's really disappointing. I'm radically pissed off that Many of us will have to buy entirely new TOP of the line systems to play this game.

It even requires us to overclock in many cases if we want solid 60fps.

wtf happened to playability on all systems. That was certainly a selling point for starcraft and warcraft 3.

Fuckckckk :thumbsdown:

Run it on a lower setting? Are you seriously whining that the option for better graphics exists? I run it on a i7 860 @ 3.2 ghz 4 gigs of ram and a 9800GT (13x7 resolution ultra on all settings), and it runs flawlessly at all times (granted it's a low resolution).

I'm sure you could up the resolution and drop the settings and have it still run flawlessly on a good c2d. When people talk about playability for all systems, they're not talking about max settings 25x16 (unless they're retards).

 

[lupi]

who cares, by the time the actual starcraft 2 games is released sometime after the suckers by it in three full charged chunks, it will be easy enough to get a decent system to play it.

 

[StinkyPinky]

The graphics look basic to me. Blizzard will want the game to have mass appeal so I would think something like a 5750 will run it at high settings with a bit to spare.

 

[crisium]

Many people play on all Low for the gameplay advantage it gives you, so any video card will handle it.

 

[soccerballtux]

The game may only be dual-core optimized, but it still sees a boost from clock speed, especially at resolutions below 19x12 (i.e. 16x10 and lower). That said, if you consider that a Nehalem still sees gains from 3.2 to 3.7GHz, chances are that you will see good gains OCing your Conroe.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,7.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/

So yeah, IPC will be a factor here.

*a note on the LHW numbers. True - there is not much gain in the avg FPS after 3.2Ghz (which makes sense, since a Nehalem at 3.2GHz+ has excellent IPC as it is). However, pay special attention to the _minimum_ FPS numbers, which are still showing gains. They are jumping by over 20% with each 500Mhz increase, except from 3.2Ghz to 3.7Ghz (only 16% increase). Yeah "only'.

Proof of a poorly designed engine. It's basically the WoW engine, the color hues and tones show us this much. One main thread for the logic, and a second for the audio. They started SC2 too far back to have built in true multi-threading.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Run it on a lower setting? Are you seriously whining that the option for better graphics exists? I run it on a i7 860 @ 3.2 ghz 4 gigs of ram and a 9800GT (13x7 resolution ultra on all settings), and it runs flawlessly at all times (granted it's a low resolution).

I'm sure you could up the resolution and drop the settings and have it still run flawlessly on a good c2d. When people talk about playability for all systems, they're not talking about max settings 25x16 (unless they're retards).

I'm talking about CPU limitations.. I do infact have a wfp3007, but that's besides the point..

On ANY resolution, when it gets busy, Bam-frame rates drop.

If this were the case on a dual core pentium, FINE.... No, this happens even on top of the line processors.

The engine needs "serious" cpu optimizations.

Or we just need 5ghz cores, you can blame whoever you like.

I blame blizzard.

You own a mid-range system. DON"T even pretend it runs flawlessly. You've clearly bent the definition of "flaw-less."

Your computer has hope though, get that i7 to 4ghz+, and use turbo. PERhaps then you can have flawless.

Not before you get something like a 5850/70 though.

 

[beginner99]

minimum requirements will be a joke anway. Remember SC1? I think it was a pentium 90 mhz.
But for like 12+ carriers you needed at least a pentium 2 to make it playable. I used to play it on a 200 mhz pentium and it was unplayable with carriers or in general with tons of units.

basically if you want to play it on bnet flawlessly config should probably be better than the recommended settings.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

minimum requirements will be a joke anway. Remember SC1? I think it was a pentium 90 mhz.
But for like 12+ carriers you needed at least a pentium 2 to make it playable. I used to play it on a 200 mhz pentium and it was unplayable with carriers or in general with tons of units.

basically if you want to play it on bnet flawlessly config should probably be better than the recommended settings.

I DID play it on my pentium 1 90mhz. My first 586+ computer. It had literally the minimum requirements. It was playable at the time until it started getting patches. I never played it online with that computer. I had a Pentium 2 333mhz that ran it beautifully for battle.net matches.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I'm talking about CPU limitations.. I do infact have a wfp3007, but that's besides the point..

On ANY resolution, when it gets busy, Bam-frame rates drop.

If this were the case on a dual core pentium, FINE.... No, this happens even on top of the line processors.

The engine needs "serious" cpu optimizations.

Or we just need 5ghz cores, you can blame whoever you like.

I blame blizzard.

You own a mid-range system. DON"T even pretend it runs flawlessly. You've clearly bent the definition of "flaw-less."

Your computer has hope though, get that i7 to 4ghz+, and use turbo. PERhaps then you can have flawless.

Not before you get something like a 5850/70 though.

Flawless is flawless. Animation is always smooth; there's never any slowdowns even in big fights. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but don't assume everyone has your problems and that it's a matter of raw ghz that will fix it.

 

[yhelothar]

huh?

If you ran SC1, you can run SC2. Its not a graphically intensive game.

lolol SC1 runs on a 66MHz 486.
GTFO.

SC2 on my quad core with 5770 barely runs ultra settings smoothly.

 

[bullbert]

... snip ...

On ANY resolution, when it gets busy, Bam-frame rates drop.

If this were the case on a dual core pentium, FINE.... No, this happens even on top of the line processors.

The engine needs "serious" cpu optimizations.

... snip ...

There are two major problems that most players think is a single problem. FPS drops *AND* AI algorithm loops. Hit Cntrl-Alt-F to display your FPS and to verify that your FPS have not dropped and it is actually an AI problem causing the studder. This studder is not a "busy" problem and will happen late-game when the AI is finally figuring out that it is starting to lose and often has a lot less units left that the "busy" period of the mid-game. The AI just can not decide what to do next. It is an algorithm problem. Simply put: the spec/code bug is such that the AI gets confused and burns up CPU and server time "thinking about doing the impossible". Blizzard is aware of the problem, and is finally starting to look at the problem. One week until retail sales start. Never too late to debug and respec and redesign.