Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 100 comments

The rather low system requirements means that nearly everyone with a modern computer should be able to play Starcraft 2.

Can you believe it? Starcraft 2 will be here in less than two weeks, which means that you have less time than that to make sure that your system is up to snuff to play it.

Blizzard has finally released the final system specifications for Starcraft 2, which we're sure that most of you meet. Still, it's nice to know where you fall in the range from "required" to "recommended" and beyond.

Minimum System Requirements*:

PC: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7 (Latest Service Packs) with DirectX 9.0c
2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
128 MB PCIe NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT or ATI Radeon 9800 PRO video card or better


Mac: Mac OS X 10.5.8, 10.6.2 or newer
Intel Processor
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon X1600 or better


PC/Mac: 12 GB available HD space
1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista/Windows 7 users, 2 GB for Mac users)
DVD-ROM drive
Broadband Internet connection
1024X720 minimum display resolution


*Note: Due to potential programming changes, the Minimum System Requirements for this game may change over time.

Recommended Specifications:

PC: Windows Vista/Windows 7
Dual Core 2.4Ghz Processor
2 GB RAM
512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX or ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better


Mac: Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4 GB system RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4670 or better

(source: Big Download.)

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 28 Hide
    toxxel , July 16, 2010 6:19 AM
    Funny how the mac version requires more hardware than the pc equivalent.
  • 18 Hide
    gho3t , July 16, 2010 6:28 AM
    Not really, OpenGL vs DirectX, differant graphics APIs, different optimizations. Also, Microsoft have invested a lot into building a games friendly OS, Apple.. not so much.
  • 13 Hide
    Anonymous , July 16, 2010 6:59 AM
    vectorm12Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.


    Stop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.
Other Comments
    Display all 100 comments.
  • 1 Hide
    Tamz_msc , July 16, 2010 6:10 AM
    Its good to see that I can run it.Great!
  • 9 Hide
    stevesauce , July 16, 2010 6:15 AM
    The beta is incredible. I could only imagine the finished version will compliment the core of the experience. CANT WAIT!
  • 13 Hide
    vectorm12 , July 16, 2010 6:15 AM
    Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.
  • 28 Hide
    toxxel , July 16, 2010 6:19 AM
    Funny how the mac version requires more hardware than the pc equivalent.
  • 18 Hide
    gho3t , July 16, 2010 6:28 AM
    Not really, OpenGL vs DirectX, differant graphics APIs, different optimizations. Also, Microsoft have invested a lot into building a games friendly OS, Apple.. not so much.
  • 12 Hide
    aznguy0028 , July 16, 2010 6:47 AM
    vectorm12Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.

    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!
  • 13 Hide
    Anonymous , July 16, 2010 6:59 AM
    vectorm12Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.


    Stop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.
  • 3 Hide
    sliem , July 16, 2010 7:13 AM
    So will it be $60*3 for all three?
  • 6 Hide
    Kelavarus , July 16, 2010 7:17 AM
    hotsacomanStop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.


    Meh, I'm not really impressed with visuals OR gameplay. Rather, I'd say its strength lies in the modding capability, as well as hopefully the story.
  • 4 Hide
    bk641 , July 16, 2010 7:20 AM
    um, you can turn up the visuals if you have a nice rig? these are the minimum reqs
  • 2 Hide
    rza , July 16, 2010 7:27 AM
    Would it be fair to assume that Diablo 3 will have similar system requirements?
  • 10 Hide
    gnookergi , July 16, 2010 7:57 AM
    aznguy0028Yea, 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!


    Blizzard stated that AA was going to be included in the final release - just not the beta.
  • -8 Hide
    Anonymous , July 16, 2010 8:19 AM
    WinXP SP3 is kinda buggy...Will this run on an SP2?
  • -6 Hide
    Anonymous , July 16, 2010 8:39 AM
    Does this pretty much count out all netbook models not running a dedicated graphics chip?
  • 4 Hide
    rantoc , July 16, 2010 8:49 AM
    SC II Beta had a huge range of settings, everything from making it look ok to make it look very nice!

    The gfx scaling of this title is big, so anything from their minimum to insane rigs will still be properly used. (got 480 SLI rig and it worked quite hard with everything cranked up)
  • 0 Hide
    poorya_user , July 16, 2010 9:03 AM
    Thanks God ... I can run it in my pc
  • -5 Hide
    opmopadop , July 16, 2010 9:54 AM
    2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor

    Agreed, What the hell are you CPU manufacturers doing with your product names! What the hell is AMD's version of a 2.6Ghz Pentium IV equiv?
  • -6 Hide
    Anonymous , July 16, 2010 10:13 AM
    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!
Display more comments