PDA

View Full Version : StarCraft II Beta System Requirements Announced



Gradius
01-29-2010, 12:52 PM
Full Article.
(http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/575-starcraft-ii-beta-system-requirements-announced)

ArcherofAiur
01-29-2010, 12:55 PM
To quote the nazi in inglorious bastards


How Fun! Thats right. I just quoted a nazi.

Godless
01-29-2010, 01:14 PM
Beta?

But seriously, those minimum requirements are ridiculous. Probably all you need to get the main menu.

Bisso
01-29-2010, 01:23 PM
Beta?

But seriously, those minimum requirements are ridiculous. Probably all you need to get the main menu.

No, i think you overestimate SC2 graphics or underestimate Blizzard talent to optimize their games.

schofs
01-29-2010, 01:43 PM
*crosses fingers* finally something from blizzard that makes me think maybe just maybe beta will come soon

Islandsnake
01-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Damn blizzard is so good at optimizing there games lol


Cool stuff, "Final stretch guys"

Nicol Bolas
01-29-2010, 01:52 PM
No, i think you overestimate SC2 graphics or underestimate Blizzard talent to optimize their games.

It's not so much about optimization as how good you want it to look. I wouldn't expect the game to look very good on a GeForce 2. And given the quality of the drivers that ATI had back in the 7xxx days, I wouldn't expect the game to even function on the 7200.

Remember: all the pictures we've seen are from the game on a good machine.

Gradius
01-29-2010, 02:07 PM
Remember: all the pictures we've seen are from the game on a good machine.
Yep, for us lower-end guys it only goes downhill from here. The game will be optimized even further for release though. I heard that the difference between War3 beta and release was quite substantial.

Pandonetho
01-29-2010, 02:08 PM
It's not so much about optimization as how good you want it to look. I wouldn't expect the game to look very good on a GeForce 2. And given the quality of the drivers that ATI had back in the 7xxx days, I wouldn't expect the game to even function on the 7200.

Remember: all the pictures we've seen are from the game on a good machine.

This. The game will probably look like absolute crap on the lowest quality, but hey, gameplay before graphics amirite?

Out of curiosity
# Operating system:Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
# CPU type: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.80GHz
# CPU Speed (GHz):1.816
# System memory (GB):2.499
# Graphics card model:Radeon X1950 Pro
# Graphics card driver:ati2dvag.dll
# Desktop resolution:1024x768
# Hard disk size (GB):127.99
# Hard disk free space (GB):100.426

It's my old comp's specs. How well would this run the beta? Because I have - (negative)100% knowledge about computer specs.

Shadow Archon
01-29-2010, 02:14 PM
Finally, something that pretty much says beta is coming soon. Victory at last (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKUIIfSzhR8)

DeathsAngel
01-29-2010, 02:22 PM
This page on EU B.net is not available anymore!
http://eu.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_GB&articleId=38579&parentCategoryId&pageNumber=1&categoryId=7040


We are sorry, but we couldn't find any results matching your search term or the article you have tried to view is currently not available.

Pandonetho
01-29-2010, 02:40 PM
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2307

False alarm. Everyone jumped the gun.

DeathsAngel
01-29-2010, 03:37 PM
Blue post :


Hey folks,

I just wanted to drop in to clarify the situation a bit. As has been mentioned above, some websites have posted system requirements for the StarCraft II beta that were not accurate. The page where this information was found was a placeholder that should not have gone up. We will have more information about the system requirements once the beta starts.

Sorry about any confusion this may have caused. We did not intend to troll you. =)

Blueposter : https://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=22749569947&sid=3000&pageNo=4

ArcherofAiur
01-29-2010, 05:06 PM
Future Starcraft Twitters:



Blizzard: Starcraft 2 Beta has started!!!!!




Blizzard: Ooops nope it hasnt.

Norfindel
01-29-2010, 06:30 PM
Hahah! geForce 2??? It was too good to be true, lol!!! :p

Alar
01-29-2010, 10:52 PM
I know these specs are off, but I'm hoping I can at least (for the moment) run this at medium-high graphics. I can currently run WoW at Ultra (with shadows turned to one tick above lowest) and 4x multisampling. I hope to improve upon this by upgrading to a 64-bit Operating System in the near future so general computer functions improve in speed and power.

Nicol Bolas
01-30-2010, 12:50 AM
I hope to improve upon this by upgrading to a 64-bit Operating System in the near future so general computer functions improve in speed and power.

That is not why one upgrades to a 64-bit OS. It is either to run 64-bit applications or to run 32-bit apps that can use more than 2GB of memory.

Running a 64-bit OS does not cause "general computer functions" to "improve in speed and power."

Xyvik
01-30-2010, 04:13 AM
That is not why one upgrades to a 64-bit OS. It is either to run 64-bit applications or to run 32-bit apps that can use more than 2GB of memory.

Running a 64-bit OS does not cause "general computer functions" to "improve in speed and power."

It allows more than 2 gigs to be addressed by programs, including the operating system itself. In theory, upgrading to a 64bit OS if you have more than 2 gigs of RAM will indeed speed up "general computer functions."

But the phrases "more than 2 gigs of ram" and "in theory" here are the key ones. After all, with 64bit Win7 and 8 gigs of ram (heck, sometimes even with just 4 gigs of ram) you can turn off your paging file and increase system performance. My friend has 6 gigs of ram and turned off his paging file and that sped just about everything up.

But then again, if you have 4+ gigs of ram you rarely worry about game system requirements...I know I sure don't worry.

Nicol Bolas
01-30-2010, 02:51 PM
It allows more than 2 gigs to be addressed by programs, including the operating system itself. In theory, upgrading to a 64bit OS if you have more than 2 gigs of RAM will indeed speed up "general computer functions."

Not quite.

The OS always has access to the full 4GB of addressable 32-bit memory. It gives each process 2GB to play with, but due to virtual memory, this does not mean that the OS limits itself to 2GB. You will only gain something from 64-bit Windows if you have more than 4GB of memory (or a process tries to access more than 2GB).

Xyvik
01-30-2010, 04:11 PM
Not quite.

The OS always has access to the full 4GB of addressable 32-bit memory. It gives each process 2GB to play with, but due to virtual memory, this does not mean that the OS limits itself to 2GB. You will only gain something from 64-bit Windows if you have more than 4GB of memory (or a process tries to access more than 2GB).

Yeah, I forgot about that. I knew my numbers were a bit off, but It Was Late And I Was Tired™.

Amendment to earlier statements: If you have more than 4 gigs of ram, 64bit OS is the way to go for sure! :D

((but it still stands that if you have more than 4 gigs of ram you aren't really the type to really be worrying about system requirements, unless you sunk all your money in RAM...))