1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still havn't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Don’t forget to sign up for the Hive Cup. There’s a 555 EUR prize pool. Sign up now!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. The Hive Workshop Cup contest results have been announced! See the maps that'll be featured in the Hive Workshop Cup tournament!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. The results are out! Check them out.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. The poll for Hive's 12th Concept Art Contest is up! Go cast your vote for your favourite genie!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. The raddest synthwave tracks were chosen - Check out our Music Contest #12 - Results and congratulate the winners!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

The SC2 Beta system specs (unofficial)

Discussion in 'StarCraft I & II' started by MGCǂSpectre, Feb 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deathcom3s

    Deathcom3s

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,282
    Resources:
    1
    Models:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Oh my...

    High Textures take up 512MB of HDD space, not memory. Honestly, if they took up 1Gb of memory on Ultra, none of us would be able to run it on ultra.

    You're going to be fine as far as processor speed and memory go. What video card do you have?
     
  2. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,545
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    TheTerran, your processor is too slow to max physics and lighting. It is perfectly able to play the game however with those settings reduced.

    The whole 1 GB of video is a lie. The game is totally maxable at full FPS on an nvidia 275 GTX which has 700 MB odd of GRAM.

    Textures above low make little visual difference unless you have lighting turned on to a decent level. No real visible difference was noted in comparision screenshots between high and ultra textures unless lighting was turned on to a decent level.

    Basically I think high and ultra add extra texture layers for lighting and such but as I am not in the beta I can not know for sure.
     
  3. RoughneckLeader

    RoughneckLeader

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    286
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    How would a Radeon HD 5670 HD 1gig, Quad core 2.4 GHz, and 4gigs of ram do in Starcraft 2? I'm looking at a 1680x1050 resolution.
     
  4. Deathcom3s

    Deathcom3s

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,282
    Resources:
    1
    Models:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    You should be fine with a mix of High/Medium settings, but i'm really not sure how an HD 5670 will perform, so that's just a guess.
     
  5. noob134

    noob134

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    335
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I just want to know if I am able to run this game
    it is a Dell inspiron 530s (slim tower)
    I have plenty if hard drive space free about 250 GB
    I have an intel core duo @ 2.66 GHz
    3 GB of RAM
    My graphics card is a Radeon x1300 256MB
    My OS is Windows Vista 32 bit
     
  6. Deathcom3s

    Deathcom3s

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,282
    Resources:
    1
    Models:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    You should be able to run it fine on Medium/low settings.
     
  7. santalguy

    santalguy

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    u should lose the vista, and u`ll run it perfectly
     
  8. Deolrin

    Deolrin

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    7,208
    Resources:
    57
    Models:
    48
    Icons:
    6
    Packs:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    57
    Okay, so, I'm a noob with all these stuff so I don't even know where to check, but from what I found, here are my specs:

    Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU
    E2140 @ 1.60GHz
    1.60 GGz(I don't know, it's in Russian, that's how it translates, possible Ram?), 1gb OZU(Maybe ram? Dunno. :S)
    NVIDIA GeForce 7300 SE/7200 GS(Video Card, I guess)
    1280*1024 screen, Windows XP, 32 bits(highest).

    I got those from "My Computer ---> Settings", and the last two lines from the place where you chose your resolution(right click on desktop, "Settings", "Properties" if I translated it right).

    So, my guess it'll run... On the lowest settings, if at all. Well, is SC2 more demanding than Oblivion? 'Cause Oblivion barely runs with a 800*600 resolution on my comp with moderate settings, and lowest on anything higher but it lags a lot.
     
  9. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,545
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    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.
     
  10. Deolrin

    Deolrin

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    7,208
    Resources:
    57
    Models:
    48
    Icons:
    6
    Packs:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    57
    Oh, okay, thanks. So, processor, it's the "Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU" thing or is it the "E2140 @ 1.60GHz" thing? Or something else? Anyways, so I need a(much) better processors and more RAM, right? I'll try and get something when SC2 is released. And what about my video card? Is it fine?
    Thanks again.
     
  11. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,545
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    Your videocard may be fine for low, as low is prety much like WC3 graphically.
     
  12. CyberDuelX16

    CyberDuelX16

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,360
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
  13. FreshMobster

    FreshMobster

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    115
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,545
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    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.
     
  15. Hero_Lief

    Hero_Lief

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,123
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Deathcom3s

    Deathcom3s

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,282
    Resources:
    1
    Models:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    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.
     
  17. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,545
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    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.
     
  18. mikey4555

    mikey4555

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Messages:
    60
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Windows XP (Aspire T180)
    AMD Sempron Processor 3400+
    1.81Ghz
    2.00 GB of RAM
    NVIDEA GeForce 9400 GT

    Can I run Starcraft 2?
     
  19. Hero_Lief

    Hero_Lief

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,123
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Hiruty

    Hiruty

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Resources:
    3
    Icons:
    1
    StarCraft II Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    could i run it?
    i have
    Pentuim T440 (2.20 Dual Core)
    NVIDIA GEOFORCE 310 Cuda - 512mb
    15" HD led screen
    4gb ram
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.