The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
@infodan: the 2600+ is a bit too short, I'd say. The 3200+ would be the minimum - or any K8-class CPU; the basic Sempron64 1600 MHz ('2600+', too) may make the cut, provided you overclock it: properly aired, that ship can get a 50% clock increase with the boxed HSF, so... But it seems Sc2 takes advantage of dual core chips.

I'd say an X2 3800+ would be a realistic minimum.
 
woot.. this means my AMD 64 3500+ can run it... barely... now if only i had the 60 bucks to buy the game, i'll probly be a month or so late to ths starcraft 2 party

as for the people saying that low system specs are a bad thing... have you seen WoW in ultra mode? blizzard runs thier games where low end pc's (like mine) can play at low resolutions, with ultra mode it almost looks like a different game, i built a pc for a friend a few weeks ago, i7 dual 5770's not the best ever btu damn nicer than mine and wow looked absolutely georgeous, in starcraft it will be the same.
 
I'll take a game with great gameplay and good visuals over average gameplay and great visuals every day.

I still play C64 era software (mainly only Wasteland and Bard's Tale series, and trying to find someway I can legally get Red Storm Rising, in my mind one of the best Sub sims ever made) at times when the mood strikes me.
 
Yea, usually with RTS games from Blizzard, the minimum doesn't quite cut it through the whole game. They usually have a tower defense stage where there's waves of enemies and it slows down the 'puter. Hope my ancient computer can run it when I play it.
 
[citation][nom]fatedtodie[/nom]Why can't XP DIE so stupid horribly lame specs like that finally disappear. I wanted starcraft 2 to require a dual core processor and at minimum a 9800 or 4800. These lowball specs are retarded. Also no directx 11? DIE XP DIE. Directx 9.0c is what 2005? Blizzard is stupid. It will be a fun game, but it could have been so much more...[/citation]
Because Blizz makes thier games like that, giving access to all types of systems, and XP is still on alot of computers so it makes sense, look at a steam hadware/OS survey.
 
I don't mind that it can play on a XP machine with DX9, but DX10 should have been there for those of us who have it. Then again, when Blizzard was first going to release this game, DX10 didn't exist. I can just see it, 10 years from now when Starcraft 3 is produced, Blizzard will still be making games in DX9.
 
This is good news. I have a really good computer, but I was hoping to play it with friends that don't have systems that are quite as powerful. It's good to know that we'll be able to play.
 
[citation][nom]ww[/nom]I hate this pic of the terran with a cigar in his mouth IN the giant suit! like not to mention that it's not very healthy, how the heck does he get the cigar out of his mouth with his hands when it's in the space suit - and don't say he can open the glass thingi coz the whole point of the suit is to give him oxygen in a space/toxic environment![/citation]
Terran don't live long enough to worry about cancer or how to "spit out" the cigar butt.
 
Blizzard knows how to program well. Notice that the range from "required" to "recommended" is pretty wide. This means many of the graphical and performance aspects of the game are adjustable in a wide range, just like WoW. So, the game could be played on a low end machine while still being able to take advantage of the high end gear. I don't know of any other game producer that can do this.

They're even putting DX11 features in the next WoW expansion, but they can be turned off on low end machines and the game is still playable without them.
 
SC2 is one of those games that people will upgrade their computer just to play it and I don't like Blizzard just rehashing SC1 instead of really pushing the boundary of RTS.

DX 10.1 + support for 4K resolution should be available considering people will be playing it for the next 14 years.
 
[citation][nom]fatedtodie[/nom]Why can't XP DIE so stupid horribly lame specs like that finally disappear. I wanted starcraft 2 to require a dual core processor and at minimum a 9800 or 4800. These lowball specs are retarded. Also no directx 11? DIE XP DIE. Directx 9.0c is what 2005? Blizzard is stupid. It will be a fun game, but it could have been so much more...[/citation]

Cause Windows XP is still about 65% of the market share. NOT supporting Windows XP would be extremely stupid on Blizzard's part.
 
[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]Cause Windows XP is still about 65% of the market share. NOT supporting Windows XP would be extremely stupid on Blizzard's part.[/citation]

Actually, XP is currently at 74% of the market share. Microsoft is still even offering XP downgrades for the next 10 years. XP is going to be with us a very long time. It is the pinnacle of what MS has to offer without annoying copy protection to screw it up, so it will continue to be used for the forseeable future. The only thing that would push any OS to overtake it would be to remove the copy protection.

That's specifically why XP rules the roost.
 
[citation][nom]ww[/nom]I hate this pic of the terran with a cigar in his mouth IN the giant suit! like not to mention that it's not very healthy, how the heck does he get the cigar out of his mouth with his hands when it's in the space suit - and don't say he can open the glass thingi coz the whole point of the suit is to give him oxygen in a space/toxic environment![/citation]

Terran don't have any weakness genes. They can smoke and then eat the cigars after they're done.
 
Oh, that hurts. I just barely make the minimum. According to the graphics card hierarchy chart on this site, my graphics card is at the same level as the minimum one.
 
Why is everyone stunned by the low system specs? Blizzard has never pushed the hardware boundaries on any game and probably never will. They have always been about mass appeal.Not supporting XP or making dx10 minimum spec would be just be stupid. I like eye candy in a game as much as the next guy but jacking minimum specs so you can stamp dx10 on the box for no real benefit to the game makes no sense.
 
Long live XP and DX9. Good job Blizzard. Not everyone need to be like iPhone zombies getting the latest crap coming out from whichever corporation. Make better games, not bloatware that just demand more hardware. There is not a value, bang for the buck, proposition that proves that Win7 is better value than the XP we all currently have. Bleeding edge fools should just bleed out and die.
 
[citation][nom]aznguy0028[/nom]Yea, i agree with the PC pushing gaming limits, but this is blizzard here. They made all their games run on very modest hardware to ensure the largest possible player base to get the most sales. It's always been that way, I wished that blizzard would push the envelopes on visuals as well, but it'll prolly never be the case Sc2 doesnt even have AA atm, which is so sad imo...i do hope they add it in later![/citation]
And this is why Blizzard is so successful. They've realized that, at the end of the day, it's the gameplay, not the graphics, that keeps people playing. A lot of developers have forgotten that in recent years.
 
Wondering if my 2 y/o Latitude D830 could play this game.

Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2Ghz - 2 cores / 2 threads

NVIDIA Quadro NVS 135M

3.5g (effective) Memory

Thoughts?
 
[citation][nom]invisibleman_90[/nom]Oh, that hurts. I just barely make the minimum. According to the graphics card hierarchy chart on this site, my graphics card is at the same level as the minimum one.[/citation]

That also means that your graphic card is so old (no offence)that it should cost you almost nothing to buy a better one 😉 . Unless your are using a laptop, then it is another problem.

I am sure that there are people (near you?) who have graphic cards gathering dust that could run SC2 at minimum settings.

 
Having played the beta on a few rigs, I would really take those minimum requirements with a grain of salt. The Recommended stats are right on, but I ran SCII on a P4 3.2Ghz with HT, 2gigs or ram, and a Radeon x800, and it would lag fairly hard in any game above a 1v1.
 
[citation][nom]Sashmo99[/nom]Wondering if my 2 y/o Latitude D830 could play this game.Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2Ghz - 2 cores / 2 threadsNVIDIA Quadro NVS 135M3.5g (effective) MemoryThoughts?[/citation]

it'll make the minimum easily. You'll probably be able to play it at the native res of your screen at medium detail levels.
 
[citation][nom]jednx01[/nom]This is good news. I have a really good computer, but I was hoping to play it with friends that don't have systems that are quite as powerful. It's good to know that we'll be able to play.[/citation]
No doubt, I have plenty of friends will what we would consider lower end PCs. I'd like to get together and play LAN games with them.... oh yeah, we can't, stupid Blizzard.
 
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]No doubt, I have plenty of friends will what we would consider lower end PCs. I'd like to get together and play LAN games with them.... oh yeah, we can't, stupid Blizzard.[/citation]

You can play on a LAN - get an internet connection, learn port forwarding, log into Battle.net. Done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom