On my home PC - Specs: 4 core @2.4GHz, 667MHz FSB 4gb DDR2 RAM 7200 RPM HDD Nvidia 9800GT 2 monitors running 1680x1050 ea (Combined rez - 3360x1050) Win7 Premium Runs Ultra above 60FPS, averages out at about 85, dips to 60-65 in big battles, peaked at 100. Had iTunes, Opera, various apps running in background. Portable - Specs: 2CPU (not core) running at 1.66, 333MHz FSB 1g DDR2 RAM 5400 RPM HDD Mobile Intel 945 Express One screen @ 1024x600 Win7 Premium Starts, makes map, can play till I get about 10-15 units, then FPS drops till it becomes unplayable. In about 2-3 weeks, I'll be getting a netbook with the new N470 processor running 2CPU's at 1.83GHz, 667MHz FSB and 2G DDR2 RAM. I THINK it'll run it at low. I'll get back to you.
Systemreqslab or something? Yeah, but I don't think they have SC2. Plus, that just analyzes hard specs based off of dxdiag (on Windows anyway). It doesn't take into account OS resource draw, background apps, music players while ingame, or hardcore CPU load for large battles. Basically, the most reliable way is to check out someone who's tried with similar specs. I've set a WILL NOT RUN line with my netbook, now to slowly raise specs till we find a BARE minimum. My Home PC has set a WILL RUN line, now to slowly lower it till we find out where the different graphic levels bottom out.
There's some benchmark sites if you Google. @Fenix: I assume by 2.4Ghz you mean a Core 2 Quad, right? If so, I can't wait to try out my 3.46Ghz i5 750.
My laptop will most likely implode out of existence if I so much as download it... new computer time.... thanks for the specs tho, putting the requirements into perspective.
Yeah, 3.4 would eat SC2 for a snack really. I'd imagine the min req for a pleasant experiance would be maybe a dualcore 1.8/2.0 with a fairly decent vid card (256 might push it, but 512 EASILY) and 2g DDR2 would run it nicely. Not 100%.
hmm...same Mobile Intel card as me, so I guess it wont run on my system? Or would I need to put the game at min settings? I notice you mention that for the PC you were running at ultra, so is that how the game handled at Ultra on the laptop, or was that how it acted on all settings? My laptop: Sony Vaio duel core 1.6GHz 2GB RAM Mobile Intel 945 Express One screen @ 1280x800(w/ ability to lower screen res down to 800x600) WinXP Media Center Edition
The setting on the laptop was Low. I don't even know if it'll run at all on Ultra. EDIT: You've got twice as much RAM as me though...Unsure. POSSIBLY low, no promises.
Wonder why it doesn't work well even on low settings, the game doesn't even look that good on low. I assume it has the be the 3-D aspect that's causing the problem, since games like AoE2 look more visually appealing compared to SC2's low settings.
Games with higher maximum graphics always look worse on low than games that with lower maximum graphics on similar hardware.
