[Tested] T61 is too slow for Starcraft 2

I'm playing the SC2 beta with my T61-T7300 3gb nvs140m 15.4 SXGA+ model, and I am so disappointed. I better get another computer for Starcraft 2..

On lowest setting,(which makes the SC2 look even worse than SC1) it is quite smooth. but Im telling you it looks horrible. on Normal setting(next lowest setting), it lags alot, and T61 gets pretty hot.

Maybe its because the game is beta, but I don't understand why it is so slow because Warcraft3 ran really well with highest setting, which look much better than SC2 with low graphic setting.

anyway, if anyone who got T61 and were waiting for SC2, you better get new computer.

 

The recommended graphics card for Starcraft 2 is an Nvidia GeForce 8600GT-level card, I believe, so I have a hard time believing that the T61 with the NVS140M runs it so poorly. Maybe there's some other issue going on here.

 

Where did u download the beta version. i saw someone playing sc2 in a starbuck the other day. How is the fx 880m compare w/ geforce 8600m gt in terms of gaming sc2???

 

if the recomended card is the 8600GT desktop that means thee 8600mgt can run it if clocks are set to same to same as desktop 8600gt right?

 

sry to hijack your thread. but any1 know, if it runs of t410 with dedicated graphics? i want to preorder starcraft2 ^^

 

So wait, you apologized for jacking the thread, but continued to hijack it anyways?? A pre-emptive thread jack is the worst kind lol. Most people apologize AFTER the fact.

You might ask... in the gaming forums... if a NVS 3100m is up to par for SC2. Or you could hit up google for like 45 seconds and see that although official sys reqs aren't posted, there are some leaks around indicating a *recommended as in not minimum or supported* spec of GeForce 8000 with 512 MB RAM for the Nvidia side of things. Now all you have to do is see where your 3100m stands in comparison to that...

 

It runs at 40-80 fps on low shaders at medium settings regardless of what is on the screen. That is extremely good. In my opinion low looks good. It looks similar to SC1 except smoother. If you're a competitive gamer you'll play on low anyway for screen clarity.

Comparing it to WC3 isn't very fair. Yes I can run it at high also, but it starts to choke for me with larger armies AND there are far fewer units.

 

I've been playing it on my T61 as well. T7300 (2.0 GHz), 2 GB RAM, Intel GM965. I have all the settings on low, so it isn't as beautiful as it could be, but it's still a lot of fun. It gets a little laggy when there are a ton of units on screen, and I sometimes get issues when trying to select units that are far away from each other, but other than that, it's very playable. I'm planning on upgrading to a W510, though (if Lenovo ever gets the damn FHD in stock).

 

i ran the campaign on my t61 (1.8ghz duo processor, intel family chipset, GB ram) and it is smooth on the lowest settings with barely any units in the game but in lowest settings with hundreds of units in the game, it lags so bad that i finished a mission in 30mins and the time the game says i took was 15mins (so it runs very slow and laggy)