The SC2 Beta system specs (unofficial)

[Dr Super Good]

Your videocard may be fine for low, as low is prety much like WC3 graphically.

 

[CyberDuelX16]

My Specs fit, but the Sc2 Exe crashes after the screen turns black, Can Anyone Help Me?

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/starcraft-ii-408/starcraft-2-crash-problem-160063/

 

[FreshMobster]

Your processor is far too slow to run the game with physics and particles above the lowest settings (which needs single threads running at the post 2 GHz mark). Possibility of lagging in demanding custom maps or when pushing melee play to its limits. Next to that it should run the game.

As SC2 looks just like WC3 when set to the lowest settings (WC3 at high that is), if your graphic card can run WC3 on high it will run SC2 although it may be a bit laggy if you are viewing 100 zerglings (which is possible).

You will probably need more memory, although it might be enough for most small maps which do not use a lot of models.
Also with hardware that old / slow there is a risk of total game incompatibility causing crashes or random unexplained glitches. This however can not be predicted and generally should not happen.

I don't really think that with such setup he will get stable performance, unless he limits himself to 1v1 melee or other less CPU-demanding maps, as StarCraft 2 (it's current beta build to be exact) is a serious CPU hogger. Even on Low Quality settings the game still has higher polygon count for doodads, terrain and units/buildings than Warcraft 3. So it's actually not a good point to compare two, not to mention particle effects, which are rendered by the CPU. It puts a lot of strain, and even with a Dual-Core CPU our gentlemen here has, I'm forced to unwillingly go along my doubts and say he might have hard time passing not only melee maps, but maybe even whole Wings of Liberty Campaign. Problem number one being that StarCraft 2 beta isn't yet optimized for proper MultiCore performance. For example, my processor (AMD 5400+ 2.8 GHz) is seriously bottlenecking my video card (MSI 3850 256 MB) to a 30-40% usage, when it's only pushing the first core to its limits and leaving the second core at 30-50% usage. Obviously, game offloads particle effect rendering and physics tasks to the second one, leaving the biggest tasks to handle out themselves at the first one. Blizzard still has where to improve on this point.
Talking of RAM memory. 1 GB is still bare minimum, as stated by Blizzard, and that's correct. Random stuttering and hiccups prevail when scrolling through the map, even at lowest graphical settings, as the excessive need to store memory data goes unto virtual memory located at the HDD, which drastically cuts on performance. Not to mention long load times, even for a simple melee game (considering 40-50 seconds is a long time). Going for 2 GB, or ideally – 3 GBs for both UMS and Campaign maps should really raise the stability.

Anyways, it's still hard to justify final product by its half-baked, performance wise, beta game. Though I do believe Blizzard will get control over this situation.

 

[Dr Super Good]

FreshMobster, performance will unlikly increase...

Firstly WC3 is a DX8 game, it prety much was easilly maxed on the geforce 4 series graphic cards. Yes his card is a low range geforce 7 card but I doubt it struggles to run WC3 at max unless some poorly made custom map like green circle TD is choosen. Thus they may be higher poly and higher res textured, but then again WC3 was so comparitivly low that it is hardly a statement.

Only problem with his graphic card for running it on low I am thinking is it might not support the right DX9 shaders which means it will not even start. However despite how week his card is, it should handle low if it starts.

His processor is a major bottle cap, but remember that a lot of those effects get turned very low so most of its load is the actual game engine. He might not get a good framerate but it should be able to play the campaign or small 1v1 type melee.

As for how how optimized SC2 is... Well it does thread some tasks so there is a boost from dual to quad but I seriously doubt more will be threaded. The whole problem is keeping the data syncronized between threads however like you said, the effects and the physics are thereaded. You will probably find that the demanding thread is actually the graphics and physics while the secondary thread is the game update thread. It makes no sense for the demanding physics and particles to be using so little of a thread where as the flexible game engine is maxing it out. Thus you will find that despite your FPS dropping, the game will still run at full speed and such supporting that his processor will run the game although at reduced frame rate.

Software particles? Are people actually serious that SC2 uses software rendered particles? I seriously doubt they would load the CPU rendering effects for particles and such when the GPU can do them hundreds of times faster. On top of that the RAM in the GPU is faster for texture look up and doing this would not only cause a huge syncronization delay to be introduced wasting GPU time (has to wait for CPU to render before GPU can finish rendering and send frame to display buffer) and puts strain on the already limited buss bandwidth.

I am aware that particles are controled by the CPU however, so if you have thousands of them (with physics especially) it will really load the CPU controling where they have to go which would strain the CPU a lot. Look at the particle effects from FFXIII where they bounce off surfaces and such, if SC2 has that it is totally plausable that it will hog the CPU.

It just makes no sense to software render particles on low game options. On ultra it may be beliveable if they use some algerthim to generate their looks but still.

 

[Hero_Lief]

I just want to see a comparison...

If I can run WoW with everything on high and full and whatever, on at least 70fps average, shouldn't I be able to run Starcraft 2 nicely?

BTW... GeForce 9400GT w/ 1GB of dedicated RAM, and the computer runs at 1280x1024 with 3GB of RAM. I can't get processer info at my current time and place, however.

Also, XP Media Center edition, SP2. I'll get SP3 if need be.

I also have Ubuntu and would love to try WINEing it on that.

 

[Deathcom3s]

WoW and SC2 are so different in every aspect. For one, WoW is an RPG, SC2 is an RTS, RTS's are known to be much more CPU intensive. WoW is 5 years old, and is nothing spectacular visually, especially in comparison to games of today.

No, just because you can run WoW fine does not mean SC2 willl run fine.

 

[Dr Super Good]

If you are maxing WoW without stutter in areas like iron forge or where the hell there are lots of people nowdays, you will probably atleast be garunteed to run the game graphcally well at low - medium. This is only logical as WoW models are about as high res as SC2 models so if you can handle lots of them on screen at once you will handle SC2 moderatly. However do not even try high or ultra as both of those use heavy shader effects which WoW did not even touch.

Sadly as your XP you can forget any minor speed boosts DX10 could have yielded.

Do not expect SC2 to run too well in wine. Your better off running it nativly in XP as that way you are garunteed imediate compatibility.

 

[mikey4555]

Windows XP (Aspire T180)
AMD Sempron Processor 3400+
1.81Ghz
2.00 GB of RAM
NVIDEA GeForce 9400 GT

Can I run Starcraft 2?

 

[Hero_Lief]

If you are maxing WoW without stutter in areas like iron forge or where the hell there are lots of people nowdays, you will probably atleast be garunteed to run the game graphcally well at low - medium. This is only logical as WoW models are about as high res as SC2 models so if you can handle lots of them on screen at once you will handle SC2 moderatly. However do not even try high or ultra as both of those use heavy shader effects which WoW did not even touch.

Sadly as your XP you can forget any minor speed boosts DX10 could have yielded.

Do not expect SC2 to run too well in wine. Your better off running it nativly in XP as that way you are garunteed imediate compatibility.

I understand that an RTS is more CPU-intensive. So, let's look at it from a different perspective.

I upgraded to a NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT from a NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE in order to run Dawn of War 2. Though multiplayer for it has issues, that's because it's run via Windows Live. I can run it just fine in both the singleplayer campaign and singleplayer skirmishes at a good 30FPS with most everything on high. Should I be okay for medium-high SC2?

I'm working on getting system specs as we speak.

EDIT: Here are my brother's system specs... Mine are being a bitch.

The only changes are that I run a resolution of 1280x1024 (A 4:3 ratio, he's widescreen) and that our hard drive space is different (available), I have about 50gb more available than he does. Oh, and I have 2GB of general RAM, and 1GB video card RAM (Which it doesn't display here.)

We have practically the same computers.

Oh, and he has XP media center only, I also have Ubuntu.

 

[Hiruty]

could i run it?
i have
Pentuim T440 (2.20 Dual Core)
NVIDIA GEOFORCE 310 Cuda - 512mb
15" HD led screen
4gb ram

 

[warman45]

hey i wanna kno0w if my computer will run this.

specs:
AMD Athlon processor
1.24 ghz
1 gb ram
windows XP home edition
nividia geforce 6600 ( i think it's 66 might be 65

 

[Deathcom3s]

I think you'll be pushing it with those specs, don't expect great performance.

 

[Hero_Lief]

could i run it?
i have
Pentuim T440 (2.20 Dual Core)
NVIDIA GEOFORCE 310 Cuda - 512mb
15" HD led screen
4gb ram

That's a high-end video card with 4GB of memory and a 15" HD screen. That's not even funny, and it's not a bad processor. I'm guessing medium-high for you for most things. Though your OS could change things. I'm guessing you're probably 7.

 

[Hiruty]

..... well i got it i 3 days ago for my bday and it only cost 800 dollars

oh yah its not a geoforce 310 cuda 512mb its a
geoforce 310M cuda 512mb :3

 

[Hero_Lief]

My 9400 only cost 40 bucks. =p

 

[Hiruty]

lol i ment mah computer not my graphics card ASUS FTW

 

[Hero_Lief]

Lol, mine cost about 1,000 when I got it, it came with a friggin' 6150 LE...

 

[Deathcom3s]

That's a high-end video card with 4GB of memory and a 15" HD screen. That's not even funny, and it's not a bad processor. I'm guessing medium-high for you for most things. Though your OS could change things. I'm guessing you're probably 7.

Wait... weren't you the one asking if your computer could run it? And now you're the one giving people the green light? Anyone else see the irony in this...?

 

[Hero_Lief]

Well yes, but I know computers well. I don't know if my middle-end one can run it, but I can spot high-quality from far away easily. And I only commented on one person. Because that stuff is extremely high-end and there's no doubt it will run on his computer.

 

[Deathcom3s]

Extremely high-end? Are you shitting me? Aren't 310s just rebranded GTS 250's or something?

 

[Hero_Lief]

Well, okay, I may have exaggerated, but it's a good card.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Graphically, high aint that demanding from what I have heard and even weaker new cards will probably be able to obtain it. The main problem is high starts to seriously load the CPU and if you are using a lowish GPU, you will almost definatly have a lowish CPU.

With top end cards on ultra, your CPU will most likly cap the frame rate before your GPU even consideres it (custom maps will vary). Remember that SC2 is not that graphicaly demanding altough at times it can be.

 

[Hero_Lief]

I torrented the client and, although my computer has been shitting me due to a corrupted file or something during the install? my brother installed it just fine and can do everything high with textures on ultra and keep up 60fps. He has 1 more GB of RAM than me though. Then my other brother comes in here with his GeForce 6150 LE and 2GB of RAM shining and single-handedly runs it all low with at least 40/50 FPS. To say the least, most cards can run Starcraft 2 easily. What settings they use though affects everything.

My first brother, with the almost identical computer as mine, uses a 1440x900 desktop. That means his card is pumping out 1296000 pixels in high-ultra mode. Since I do 1290x1024 (1310720 pixels) I estimate I can do most things medium-high-ultra, like textures/terran high, particles medium/high, shadows medium, shading high, etc. I mostly just want it HD. Oh, and he uses VGA, I have DVI.

 

[Bloody_Turds]

I just recieved a key, with the following specs
2.6 ghz processor
512 ram
3 gb hardrive free
the installer is 1.6gb

ill update with howwell i run it, (on low settings ofc)

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Ran it at all settings highest (some are named ultra and some extreme) at 1280x1024

Ran very smooth i guess, didn't really check my FPS or something but it doesn't seem like a problem but ok i couldn't expect otherwise with my build.

Win7 Ultimate x64
Dual Core 3,00 Ghz
HIS ATI HD 4870
4 GB DDR2

 

[Deathcom3s]

At such low resolution, i'm not surprised.

 

[Bloody_Turds]

Update: it cant even run on my computer (because my videocard)
although i got it installed on my laptop its a little choppy (not much worse than warcraft 3) with the following specs, and all settings at their lowest:

Vista
1.47 ghz processor
2gb ram

although when you have 120 zerglings on screen at the same time... it slows down quite a bit. btw love the ability to select unlimited units ^^

 

[Hero_Lief]

Just got it working on my rig.
Image attached.
I get 50-60FPS no matter what is on the screen.

Options

EDIT: Wait a minute... These aren't my options.
EDIT2: Fixed.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

At such low resolution, i'm not surprised.

Yeah, well ive looked into it and it's running at 70-80+ FPS.

Although i don't see a reason why blizzard shouldn't add some AA into like maybe an optional 2x, 4x and a maximum of 8x

And YES im aware of the masses of units etc. so i don't know if that would work out.

 

[Bloody_Turds]

is there a cmd or something to show framerate, or are you guys using an outside program?

 

[Hiruty]

lol so my big old comp could play this on old med
Specs: 2.46AMD Anthlon Single core
1gb ram
and a okay graphics card ( can play oblivion on med low specs )

 

[The_wand_mirror]

is there a cmd or something to show framerate, or are you guys using an outside program?

Yeah x-fire, although it tends to cause framedrops sometimes when you access the chatbox etc.

 

[Hero_Lief]

My singleplayer launcher has a checkbox for "Show FPS". Never used it though.
I'm just estimating.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I wanna make this note on System specs. In another thread i said that there seems to be a change in grahpics - mostly the change is in special FX such as Bcrusier missiles or protoss constructing/warping effect.

It seems they have lowered the graphics to make low PCs run probably on Medium cause Low Textures&Graphics seem to be too bad looking. Thx Blizzard for lowering them a little, cause I made both Textures&Graphics be HIGH for me and it runs very smoothly, oh well maybe I was able to run High both without lag before, but now it's 100% smooth at High quality, I Wont go ULTRA and i think it's unneeded. High is pretty much amazing quality!

 

[Hiruty]

woot woot so system specs are lowered for low end comps?

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

It's nothing big, so 'a little' would describe it best. It doesnt mean it will run on lower specs than those announced but still better for those that can run low quality only.

 

[punisherw3]

Hello i was wondering if i can run starcraft 2 with this netbook
specs:
graphic card : NVIDIA ION
processor:Intel Atom N270 1.6ghz
512 KB L2 Cache
533 MHz FSB
ram : 2x 1GB DDR2 667 MHz
chipset: NVIDIA ION
windows 7

 

[Hero_Lief]

Turns out you can adjust how bad graphics are, past Blizzard options, by choosing "low" and modifying "low" in one of the .SC2Assets (All the asset file is, for this one anyways, is a txt file for options) to from 40% reduction (6) to like, a 50% reduction (5) and the engine does it. I think my craptop can play StarCraft 2 with all the settings on 1. o_o

 

[Hiruty]

lol CRAPTOP FTW XD

 

[Hero_Lief]

My craptop can't run a networked WarCraft III with everything low at a 1024x768 resolution, and it's fan is loud and doesn't work. It has 30 minutes of battery life and overheats constantly.
IT'S A CRAPTOP!

 

[Linaze]

As the hardware noob I am, perhaps someone could tell me how much my computer sucks.

Windows 7
2GB Ram
ATI Radeon 3100 892 MB
1280x800 Resolution
AMD Athlon 2.1GHz Dual Core

Well?

 

[Hero_Lief]

The resolution isn't too good, but Sc2 will run on it.
Windows 7 is meh, I hate it, but it'll certainly run Sc2.
I don't know about your graphics card, as I run on the GeForce scale, not the Radeon scale.
I don't know too much about processors, but it looks like it'll handle it.

All in all, check with someone else about the card, but from the rest of the specs, it seems you'll do fine mediumhigh, as long as your card doesn't lag behind.

 

[Linaze]

It's a laptop I got from school, so damn, if it can even run the game on low I'm satisfied.

 

[Hero_Lief]

Lol. Yeah, it might be able to, but the graphics card doesn't seem TOO good, I've seen some 4000's going around. Though with the recent discovery of a lessening requirement, I believe you can run it.
Should try running a game of it's equivalence, say, Dawn of War II, or Fallout 3. If you can run either at all you'll be fine for Sc2.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

You can run high textures and high graphics smoothly i think, if not, medium textures and high grahpics could work well.

I never customize grahpics, I only choose Grahpics/Textures. FOr me both are high - runs smoothly, Ultra isnt so much difference compared to High. It lags frm time to time if I ultra.

 

[Hero_Lief]

I always keep textures ultra in every game I play. I'm a texture freak. But everything else I don't care enough to make ultra. Some I care about more though, so therefor I do customize.

 

[Deathcom3s]

An HD 3100 will not run SC2 on High. Please, do not say anything unless you know what you're talking about. -.-

You're going to have a hard time running this game with an HD 3200. The discrete graphics equivalent of that card is an FX 5900, which is a horrible card (my siblings computer has one, it sucks, trust me). The FX 5 series is a huge blackmark on Nvidia's record.

I gave the game a test run on an iMac with a Core 2 Duo and 9400GTM at school today, and the game really doesn't look too bad on low, and ran fine in windowed mode. But bump up the overall quality to Medium and put it in Fullscreen @ 1024x768, and i was being treated to a slideshow.

 

[Hero_Lief]

Strange, I do a 9400 GT and 1280x1024 on medium/high/ultra mixes just fine.
How much memory does your school one have?

 

[Linaze]

But Deathcom, will I be able to run it smoothly on at least low graphics?

 

[Hero_Lief]

Judging that he said an FX 5900, I'm going to say hell n-... Perhaps.
Turn off portraits and everything off and low and you MIGHT. Just MAYBE.

See, everything looked great for you, but a shitty graphics card could halt you in your tracks.