The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...
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.)
- Blizzard,
- Activision,
- Build Your Own,
- starcraft ,
- system ,
- requirements ,
- recommended ,
- pc
- Deals for July 16: Weekend Deals on Electronics
- Indie Developer Tells Epic To F**k Off
- OWC Ships SSDs with SandForce SF-1232
- Nvidia: PCs are Archaic; Mobile is The Future
- This is the $100 Civilization V Special Edition
- HP and Dell Still Dominating U.S. PC Sales
- Acer to Launch 7- and 10-inch Tablets This Year
- Verizon Says Smartphones Can Replace PCs
- RuneScape Developer Working on Sci-Fi MMORPG
- Who Offers the Best Tech Support for Laptops?
- AMD Selling More CPUs, Posts Record Quarter Too
- Intel Will Fully Update Celeron, Pentium to 32nm
- Alleged Russian Spy Worked at Microsoft
- How Much Did Blizzard Spend On StarCraft II?
- Microsoft Confirms Zero-Day ''Shortcut'' Exploit
- New Nvidia Drivers Boost Up Fermi Performance
- What if Steve Ballmer Left Microsoft Today?
- ADATA's S596 Turbo SSD Offers Two Interfaces
Its good to see that I can run it.Great!
The beta is incredible. I could only imagine the finished version will compliment the core of the experience. CANT WAIT!
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.
Separate desktop/laptop requirements would be nice.
Funny how the mac version requires more hardware than the pc equivalent.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Stop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.
So will it be $60*3 for all three?
Stop 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.
um, you can turn up the visuals if you have a nice rig? these are the minimum reqs
Would it be fair to assume that Diablo 3 will have similar system requirements?
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!
Blizzard stated that AA was going to be included in the final release - just not the beta.
WinXP SP3 is kinda buggy...Will this run on an SP2?
Does this pretty much count out all netbook models not running a dedicated graphics chip?
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)
Thanks God ... I can run it in my pc
[citation]2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
[/citation]
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?
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...
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!
it's because they don't want a possibility of commotion from the intel and amd fanboys.
[citation]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?[/citation]
nice.. even my 4 years old computers can run it..
plenty of headroom for my rig!
wonder if my athlon II/5770 HTPC will be able to max it?
What the hell is AMD's version of a 2.6Ghz Pentium IV equiv?
the 2600+ ?
@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.
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...
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.