Starcraft 2 gaming requirements

I'm speculating

1.6 Ghz compy, 512 RAM and a Geforce 6


But lets consider games that look similiar....

C&C3 actually looks like it has a more complicated graphics engine than Starcraft 2. C&C 3's actual minimums are

2.0 Ghz CPU, 512 RAM (vista users - 1GB), Geforce 4 shader 1.0 support (vista users Geforce 6!!!!!)
http://www.commandandconquer.com/game_details/faqs/default.aspx#faq3

We'll compare Medieval 2

1.8Ghz, 512 RAM, Geforce 4 Shader 1.0 support

http://sega-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...nMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1

Supreme Commander

3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent
1GB RAM or better
256 MB Video RAM, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader/Pixel Shader 2.0 support
(basically a Geforece 6800gt)

Keep in mind these are all SINGLE core requirements. Supreme commander is probably the beefiest RTS to date.

These requirements are about the same as FPS shooters like Farcry and BF2.

I'd like to see if anyone with an x3100 will run farcry or BF2 and see how high their settings will go before you go under 40 fps? We'll stick with 40, for a good compromise. If you run at 30, i'll drop to like 15 under pressure. And that's when you NEED the game to function: when you are in battle.

 

I would say that Blizzard will be very generous, and let the game run on just about anything. So im hoping to run the game at least at medium with 1280X800.

 

im running that game on High at highest res im sure my D900C can support that game no problem.

 

Your running what game....

 

ohh sorry i meant im hoping to run Starcraft 2 on high. I can run SupCom on high too but thaqt game would crash after a hour because of processor over load =(

 

haha, looks like you got yourself some assurance

 

More like running out of RAM.

 

i have 2 gigs of ram though unless if theres a memory leak issue. I have checked for errors on my ram and fouind none though

 

Yeah, you might want to read the anandtech articles about 32 bit addressing. They use Supreme Commander as a prime example.

 

Also remember Blizzard's games have always been mainstream. Considering integrated graphics dominates 90% of the market, I've already have been $100 it will run well on my 1420. (the 8400gs was an $100 option)

 

it would be cool if SC2 came out for a Console most preferably the Nintendo Wii!

 

Well the original Starcraft was available for N64 so it is possible. Although, after Starcraft Ghost, Blizzard may be a little hesitant before trying consoles again.

In terms of requirements, I wouldn't be surprised if they supported a DX8 (maybe even DX8.1 exclusive like Battlefield 2) codepath. Not really for GeForce3 and 4 or Radeon 8500 users, but mainly to keep the GMA 950 users (probably more common than DX8 GPUs now anyways) in the game. DX8 may also be necessary for GeForceFX users, who might have felt that DX9 should have meant them too.

 

Getting wiimote to go to a spot accurately in a relatively quick motion is like shoving a spoon to a place in your body where sun don't shine.

 

SC2 graphics looks 2002 to me so I yeah I'm not surprised

Oh and, 256MB DX9.0C PS2.0 compliant card is not a 6800GT at all. It could a FX5200 256MB

You can max M2 on a 6600 256MB

And supreme commanders needs a 128MB card, not 256.

Geforce 6800 256MB & 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 is the RECOMMANDED, not minimum

Sorry but this topic and your other post saying a X3100 is better than a 6800GTX just make me laugh at you thinking you know a lot about graphics cards but you don't know anything

 

I think any rts game that ports to console should take a look at the C&C3 console UI. Joysticks aren't meant to emulate mouses.


As far as SC2 requirements, I guess it back to speculation......

 

Sc2!!!!!!!!

 

I'm guessing a 600Mhz Pentium III with 256MB RDRAM and an ATI Radeon 7000.

 

Hope there is SC Dota (Defence of The Alliance?)...

 

I just want the game to come out as soon as possible.

My laptop is arriving tomorrow, and I'm going directly to best buy and purchasing Star Craft Battle Chest.

 

Here at work, we play 2v2 during lunch hours.

At first, when I read that SC2 would have an unlimited unit selection interface, I thought, "Dear God, please don't be like C&C."

So far though, players have said it's a little more like Warcraft3 with more units. That's a relief. C&C like gameplay would definitely require a beefier computer to handle all those tanks and skeeters.........

 

i think DoTA is "Defense of the Ancients"

blizzard has a tendency to release games that work on older hardware..so im assuming any pc from this year will run it rather well..

just look at wow..it runs fairly decent on integrated GPUs.

 

As said above, there's a known issue that on big maps, it hits the 2GB barrier, and crashes. Basically, unless you use specific hacks and tweaks (each with their own downsides and disadvantages), a 32-bit appliction running under Windows can never allocate more than 2GB of memory. And on big maps, SupCom (and CoH and Stalker) end up going beyond this limit (or trying to).

This is mostly a problem on Vista (where memory consumption is up to 500MB higher for the game)

So yeah, if you see semirandom crashes, that's probably the explanation. (In any case, CPU load shouldn't ever cause crashes, unless your system is insufficiently cooled)

 

Yea i know, "Defense of the Ancients" can only be applied to WC series.
You cant call Protoss as Ancients, ... (Would be fun thou if they the Dota creaters create it like a 3 side rumble...)

 

It doesn't run fairly decent on a, let's say, intel GMA 900. A game that can be maxed on a FX5200 will run decent on any other DX9 cards, even if it's integrated

 

yea..i misunderstood what you typed..it would be cool though

i ran WoW on a CD macbook (gma 950), with most settings turned down and i was pulling 30ish FPS..

 

Do you have a graphics card with a lot of VRAM? If you do that's the problem. Vista virtualizes the video memory into system RAM in an attempt to centralize video memory management. However, games not originally designed with Vista's driver model in mind (like all of them) do their own video memory management. The result is that in the worst case, everything can end up duplicated in your system RAM. A single 32-bit application can only allocate up to 2GB to itself. If you have 512MB of VRAM, the worst case scenario is something like 512MB of system RAM reserved by Vista for graphics use, 512MB by the game for graphics use, 512MB for Vista and background tasks, leaving 512MB for the game so it crashes. This is why getting 512MB of VRAM for something like a 8600M isn't really useful, becuase the GPU can't really benefit from more than 256MB of RAM, and you run yourself into Vista's driver model.

Microsoft actually has a hotfix available, but not for the general public since you need to call them and request it. Their solution solution is to disable virtualized memory by default so basically disabling one of the centerpieces of the Vista's new driver model, DX9.0L, and DX10.

 

Alright you guys and girls:

I have found estimates of what they may be.

Also, for you mac users, it is compatible with the Mac OS.

Starcraft 2 information

It will also take advantage of DX10

 

I think everyone knows it's going to be a very scalable game, possibly even supporting as low as the GMA9x0 series. C&C3 does....

I think anyone will a Go7300/X1300 or similar class card will be safe knowing they can at least run it.

But this is, of course, pure speculation.

 

Thats interesting but i have windows XP pro. does this affect me still
?

 

Well, if you read what i posted before, you are very correct and most likely right

 

Virtualization of graphics memory is part of Vista's driver model so XP isn't effected.

And that link to FG's estimate on SC2's requirement being a 128MB GPU with HW T&L doesn't really make sense. If they only say HW T&L, then that would imply that they support all the way back to DX7, yet 128MB of VRAM means that the support is limited to GeForce4 MX users and then only a subset of them. I don't think a DX7 generation GPU really benefits from 128MB over 64MB of VRAM so there really isn't a point to it. If they were to support DX7 cards then then the minimum VRAM requirement should be 64MB otherwise you are coding a path for too small a market.

I still think a DX8 minimum GPU requirement makes sense to make SC2 a step up from WoW. The minimum VRAM requirement would stay at 64MB to reach the majority of the DX8 generation cards and to help IGPs and GPUs that use TC or HM.

 

why do ppl always say Blizzards game requirements are very mainstream?
they released 2 games since 2000,
Warcraft 3
and WoW
Warcraft 3 was released in the days of the Geforce 4, and if I remember things correctly it took a Ti 4200 to get nice framerates at max setting at 1280*1024 resolution. Ti 4200 was actually a borderline high end card at that time.

WoW is a MMORG, just about any MMORG have low system requirements.

 

...Maybe because, believe it or not, 1280x1024 was not a mainstream resolution in 2000?

/Stefan

 

Amen to that!

 

Well it's not that their games don't require good cards to run on high settings. It's mainly that at the time their games come out (basing this mostly on WC3) that max settings will be very playable on high-end cards of the current and previous generation, medium with some high settings will be very playable on medium-end cards of the current and previous generations, and low settings will be at least playable on any card that fits the minimum requirements.

So it's about scalability with blizzard, which they do very very well and I wish more game companies would take note of this these days. Means a larger target market and hence more cash.

 

a 17 inch monitor is pretty common in 2002. Warcraft 3 was released in 2002 not 2000.

 

I'm pretty sure the most common resolution for 17" CRTs was 1024x768. Anyways, Warcraft III was very playable when I tried it on my GeForce2 MX and I was probably running it at 1024x768 back then.

 

According to Gamespot, no computer can run supCom maxed out, they ran it on Dual 8800 Ultra's and 4 gigs of ram. So with you running it on high.... you should have absolutly no problem with Starcraft 2

 

Just a guess from looking at the game play footages and comparing it with Tiberium Wars...

Guess: System Requirement
2.0GHz Processor
512MB RAM (1GB for Vista)
nVidia Geforce 6+ w/ Shader 1.0
5GB Hard Drive

Guess: Recommended
3GHz Processor
1GB RAM (2GB for Vista)
nVidia Geforce 7+ w/ Shader 2.0
5GB Hard Drive

 

No, i would think that they want to TRY and get pixel shader 3.0 in.

 

Warcraft III ran playably on my 8MB TNT2 video card with low settings at 640x480. Anyone who wants to play SCII will be able to. The threshold for a graphical minimum is much lower for an RTS than say a FPS. Anything north of and including a GMA950 will be able to run SCII. It only makes sense.

 

you're all just speculating


this entire thread doesn't mean anything until the game comes out

 

well... looks like it was based on warcraft 3.. 3d and tecture etc.

 

It's a new engine, not based of WarIII.

@hmmmmmm: I would agree with you, except given Blizzard's track record and target demographic, it's almost a given that most people will be able to plat SCII.

 

And i like that... Absolutly anything will run a blizzard game. So long like blizzard, they just need to get rid of WoW.

 

You better bet money that you can play it on integrated graphics.

I just hope I can run it on high. If you have a computer that's not over 2 years old, I bet you'll be able to run it.

 

I would bet it on medium.. running high with 300 units will be chokingly crappy..

 

BenchmarkReviews.com has posted a preview of Starcraft II, which is more a of collection of things that we already know rather than actually having gameplay results.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...ask=view&id=101&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=3

One interesting thing is they list minimum system requirements for Starcraft II:

I think they are only guessing though since even the official FAQ still states that it hasn't been decided and they usually wait until late in development when all the optimizations are done before determining system requirements. Besides, it's not like making the requirement of 128MB of RAM for DX7 generation GPUs will really improve their performance over the more common 64MB variants. The system requirements look a bit low as I expect at least some form of VS and PS to be required, and being an RTS, I would think they would have recommended a faster CPU to calculate all those units and physics. Anyways I thought I would provide the link on the off chance, they actually do have inside information.

 

One cannot base a games requirements simply by looking at other games it "looks" like (watch any HD video of SC2, it's much better "looking" if you look at effects and details). A games requirements depend on the game engine, look at Source, HF2 runs high on my VAIO with 8×AF and 39.7 fps on the test. Anyone who's played Rogue Leader on the NGC will realize that coders are lazy and 99% of engines suck.
WC3 ran at max settings on my LifebookC with a PIII, 512MB RAM and an Intel GMA 830 @ 1024×768.

 

False.

Even though the minimum requirements were 16MB VRAM, even my ATi Rage Pro 32MB would slow down at 640 x 480 with all low settings when a battle involved more than a handful of units.