Checking to see if I can run Starcraft 2 with these specs...

[tom_mai78101]

Well, everyone is guessing ;P That's my guess. Why would SC2 lag less than WC3 ' Makes no sense to me.

And you gotta take in the models and their poly count.

nVidia and ATI integrated cards are, IMHO the top cards, and their integrated cards aren't half bad, but integrated cards are still integrated

Alright, but still, I think my specs can handle it game for now...

As for integrated cards, one can't expect for it to be replaceable, right?

 

[Sevion]

Nope. Unless you void your warranty by opening your case and replacing your entire MoBo (with another integrated :-/) then nope.

Unless ofc, if you take all the parts out and stuff them into a case full of oil (for cooling), or other coolant, and that way that way you can have a MoBo with a graphics card. However, that might require pretty much a replacement in all *or most* other parts, and knowledge in computer engineering (so you know where to plug crap in XD).

Then again, if you do that, you might as well buy a new PC (Desktop preferably).

Though, if you computer can run SC2, I doubt it'll run it very well. You'll probably lag like hell.

Though, there is a small chance you can run it with little/no lag. Doubtful.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Isn't lagging mostly caused by the connection, like a bit close to 40%, and the rest are made up of different reasons of why it lagged?

 

[Sevion]

Some is caused by hardware not being able to handle it

 

[sqrage]

Framerate is never caused by Network it is caused by system hardware.

Latency lag is caused by the network.

The minimum specs you linked to are highly unlikely. And minimum specs typically means you can open the game and then run it at like 2FPS. Which to me isn't really running the game.

Go ahead and buy the game when it comes out if you don't trust me and Sevion and let us know how it runs.

If it ends up running more than 10FPS then you're in luck.

 

[Sevion]

My laptop, which has higher specs than you, can barely run WC3 at times. I doubt it'll run SC2.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Framerate is never caused by Network it is caused by system hardware. Latency lag is caused by the network. <snipped>

Hm...The term "lagging" is a confusing one. However, if Starcraft 2 can run in XP, what kind of specs should they be? And since I'm Vista, that means I should be able to beat XP in performances in some way.

My laptop, which has higher specs than you, can barely run WC3 at times. I doubt it'll run SC2.

Maybe you should check your laptop. I run WC3 just fine, even with unregistered Fraps running and recording in the background.

 

[Sevion]

Well, my laptop is pretty crappy XD I really dunno why.

Anyways, my desktop just went up in flames. Or more specifically, my motherboard. I won't be playing anything anytime soon until I get a new Motherboard

And yes, I AM really pissed. >_<

We're talking a $120 motherboard. It served me well. It will go to PC Heaven.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Can I see your laptop specs to compare with?

The reason I need to compare your specs is that, my college might wanted me to use a 1 GB graphics card, with 100% OpenGL compatibility, and it may requires 2.0 Ghz dual core processor. Those are guess still, as I haven't met my professor, and haven't asked the minimum specs for me to take consideration of.

 

[Sevion]

Intel Core2 Duo T7250 @ 2.0 gHz
3GB DDR2 Ram
Windows XP 32 Bit Home Premium SP3
nVidia GeForce 8600M GT

It sucks

 

[tom_mai78101]

It seems to be fine. I might consider that with Windows 7 pre-installed.

Windows XP 32 Bit Home Premium SP3

Wut?

 

[Bloodcount]

yes, yes you will. I mean if you can run this:

http://i.testfreaks.com/images/products/600x400/129/devil-may-cry-4-88286.3149953.jpg

http://www.totalpcgaming.com/games/devil_may_cry_4/screenshots/screenshot_10.jpg

http://at.playstation.com/media/91615/161/devilmaycry4_image4.jpg

perfectly fine with a 512 mb ram, 256 mb video card and 2.0 gh processor, with no lag and medium loading time, then with your specs it will load like for 3-5 seconds (your PC has the same specs as my second PC). Now this game has a lot better grafics then SC II, it is uber-flashy and full with effects. The monsters have good AI. If you can run this then a RTS will be a sinch.

THOUGH in rts the lags come from massing, so I recommend, by all means, not playing massing games (like footman) or melee with more then 8 players... .

Still, this is just my thoughts and my point of view. If anyone can prove me wrong, go ahead.

 

[Sevion]

Blood, in what RTS game have you seen minimal massing? I think a bound is one of the least massing. But those create and destroy :-/

Not proving you wrong, just pointing out he will have lag (Considering Game-Types)

 

[sqrage]

perfectly fine with a 512 mb ram, 256 mb video card and 2.0 gh processor, with no lag and medium loading time, then with your specs it will load like for 3-5 seconds (your PC has the same specs as my second PC). Now this game has a lot better grafics then SC II, it is uber-flashy and full with effects. The monsters have good AI. If you can run this then a RTS will be a sinch.

Are you forgetting he has an onboard GPU? Those are known for sucking. An ATI or nVidia laptop card would be slightly better but even those suck. I'll take a quote from another forum "Intel graphics card? Those weren't made for running games newer than 5 years old"

 

[tom_mai78101]

Apparently, Intel have a lot of negative reviews on their graphic cards.

sqrage, what kind of onboard laptop graphics card that doesn't suck? Either it has to be Nvidia, or ATi, either one of those. And I'm assuming you're comparing the graphics cards with ones that can be replaced in a laptop (Those types are out of my budget). Indeed it sucks, but not entirely if you're considering one's expenses. We don't have much choice, do we?

Bloodcount, that's a bit extreme, isn't it? If you're playing Devil May Cry 4 on an XP operating system, either that player is running the game on quad-core, or he's just too rich. I'm not considering that game anyway; I'm just hoping I can get 100% OpenGL compatibility. Thanks anyway.

 

[Bloodcount]

Ok, so to sum it all up: YOu should be able to run the game but with lags.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Slapshot136]

ive been able to run CnC 3 (red alert and tiberium wars), both expansions, fine with intel graphics (not max settings but it still looked nice, biggest ive played on those is a 3 humans vs 3 computer lan, but that should be fine.. i doubt SC2 will pull more then that, blizzard is pretty good at keeping games playable with weaker computers on lower settings, besides that they are known for making cpu-bound games more then gpu-bound games (take a look at WOW for example, it's a lot more cpu intensive then gpu intensive, especially at lower settings), so with a dual core you should be fine

 

[tom_mai78101]

Great! Thanks for your info.

And, what is your graphics card?

 

[KillerChi]

Seriously, you can't figure out whether a computer will run SC2 by checking how it performs with WC3, that's an older, much older game. I'm 99% sure SC2 will have much higher system reqs than WC3 and SC1. If you're computer is slow with WC3(not over networks), you're screwed. RTS's tend to have lower system requirements, RAM will probably be the main thing, and having a decent video card will be the ones to look at the most.