Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Starcraft II and the new MacBook Air
- Thread starter ImperialX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I installed Bootcamp + Windows 7 on my MBA 13 (1.8GHz, 4GB) + SC2. Default settings, native resolution, FPS capped at 30.
It actually worked very well. At 200 units in a 1v1 AI match, I was getting no lower than 26FPS with a group of 22 Battlecruisers. I guess it's slightly better performance than in OSX.
It actually worked very well. At 200 units in a 1v1 AI match, I was getting no lower than 26FPS with a group of 22 Battlecruisers. I guess it's slightly better performance than in OSX.
Awesome. Is default = Medium settings? 26 is a littttle low, but native is not necessary for me. I play on all low atm.
Yes, if it is on medium having around 26 fps it is quite good. I will actually lower the resolution by 1 notch since the 13in have a 15inch reso. Anyhow in the worse case scenario, I will just play in low >_< and play ultra on my desktop. I will only curious
. Thanks guys for the info.Just for reference, SC2 seems to me to be highly playable on very low-spec machines. I'm using a nearly 4-year-old MBP (2.4 Ghz Core II Duo, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 8600M GT w/ 256 MB VRAM) and find the game to be very playable on medium-low settings, maybe dropping down to 15 FPS during the largest battles. We even threw my 7-day trial on a friend's 1.8 Ghz Acer (very new but cost him $300 at Walmart) and it runs very well on all-low settings.
Comments like this are not helpful. Especially when others have posted frame rates that contradict what you've said.
My comments are accurate. SC2 stutters even in 1v1 games, which is a huge disadvantage in a game like SC2 where a single hesitation can cost you the game. You might get 30 FPS for a while, but the frame rate will drop to 0 periodically, which makes the game not viable for even casual online play.
"running the game" and actually "playing the game"
I know this might probably throw some people off, or perhaps cause me some harm... but here is my experience with SC2 and my MBP 13" (yes MPB, not MBA).
I'm sure you can run SC2 on the lowest of specs on the new MBA just fine, just like I do, and I'm sure the game is fine when it comes to playing the single player missions... but I'm almost 100% certain that you will not enjoy the game in it's fullest (or at least the way it was meant to be enjoyed).
I play near full settings on my MBP single player missions, and for the most part the gameplay is just fine... while enjoying all the glory of "modern" graphics of today's RTS... however when it comes to playing on battle.net it's a different story. Quick rush 1vs1 or even 2vs2 games it performs well on medium everything with 3d portraits and all... but if the game takes over 20-30 minutes and everyone had a chance to build up a fair sized force that's where I fall out. I cause the game to slow down, and people start screaming... as while I'm getting a suggestion from the game itself to reduce my graphic settings everyone else in the game gets a nice screen telling them that I am the one who's slowing down the game!
While I enjoy and consider myself semi-good playing the Protoss I can't utilize my quick rush to air superiority as a combination of 3-4 carriers, void rays, and a mothership causes a crawl... forget using vortex while your drones are deployed either.
I spent a good amount of money to trick out my MBP and while I don't have the fastest processor I upgraded RAM, and switched from a traditional hard drive to a SSD solution. My MBP is blazing fast with everything else I do (photoshop, coding, surfing, etc.) but when it comes to SC2 I wish it did a little better.
So here are my specs
Intel C2D 2.4,
8GB 1067 DDR http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226015
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
120GB SSD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233125
Did I make bad choices for hardware? Perhaps... but I didn't have unlimited budget. So why am I writing all this? Maybe because I really think that even though incredibly sleek MBA may not give you the gaming experience you're looking for.
This is all within OS X 10.6.4 I don't dual-boot, nor I check the FPS... but if it's choppy or lags... I don't care what the FPS are, I can't enjoy it, simple.
Just my two cents.
I know this might probably throw some people off, or perhaps cause me some harm... but here is my experience with SC2 and my MBP 13" (yes MPB, not MBA).
I'm sure you can run SC2 on the lowest of specs on the new MBA just fine, just like I do, and I'm sure the game is fine when it comes to playing the single player missions... but I'm almost 100% certain that you will not enjoy the game in it's fullest (or at least the way it was meant to be enjoyed).
I play near full settings on my MBP single player missions, and for the most part the gameplay is just fine... while enjoying all the glory of "modern" graphics of today's RTS... however when it comes to playing on battle.net it's a different story. Quick rush 1vs1 or even 2vs2 games it performs well on medium everything with 3d portraits and all... but if the game takes over 20-30 minutes and everyone had a chance to build up a fair sized force that's where I fall out. I cause the game to slow down, and people start screaming... as while I'm getting a suggestion from the game itself to reduce my graphic settings everyone else in the game gets a nice screen telling them that I am the one who's slowing down the game!
While I enjoy and consider myself semi-good playing the Protoss I can't utilize my quick rush to air superiority as a combination of 3-4 carriers, void rays, and a mothership causes a crawl... forget using vortex while your drones are deployed either.
I spent a good amount of money to trick out my MBP and while I don't have the fastest processor I upgraded RAM, and switched from a traditional hard drive to a SSD solution. My MBP is blazing fast with everything else I do (photoshop, coding, surfing, etc.) but when it comes to SC2 I wish it did a little better.
So here are my specs
Intel C2D 2.4,
8GB 1067 DDR http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226015
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
120GB SSD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233125
Did I make bad choices for hardware? Perhaps... but I didn't have unlimited budget. So why am I writing all this? Maybe because I really think that even though incredibly sleek MBA may not give you the gaming experience you're looking for.
This is all within OS X 10.6.4 I don't dual-boot, nor I check the FPS... but if it's choppy or lags... I don't care what the FPS are, I can't enjoy it, simple.
Just my two cents.
I don't think he was claiming that your personal experience was wrong, he was stating that people (myself included) have tested the new MBA and it performs like a champ.
What settings are you using? Which 13" MBP? If you're running the 9400m graphics card, it doesn't surprise me that you are seeing some iffy results.
Specifics are always the best thing to list. The more specifics the better.
As stated before, yes, I was on all low.
And I am very interested to hear how an entry level 1.4 with 4gb RAM runs SC2. I'm highly considering picking up that model for myself.
All settings lowest except for native resolution. I have 2010 MBP.
It isn't a good solution to play SC2 in OS X. It is probably playable in Windows.
This is pretty cool. For what it is, the Air is pretty cheap. As an Apple product, anyway.
Wishing I had the cash for one now. Laptop wise, they're exactly what I need. I've got my W7 workstation for serious competitive SC2 but the ability to - at least - play anywhere is very tempting indeed.
Also, now that I've been using an SSD for some time, I think I'd find it hard to go back to a standard HDD.
Wishing I had the cash for one now. Laptop wise, they're exactly what I need. I've got my W7 workstation for serious competitive SC2 but the ability to - at least - play anywhere is very tempting indeed.
Also, now that I've been using an SSD for some time, I think I'd find it hard to go back to a standard HDD.
Top spec'd 11" was doing pretty well in early game stages on medium. I didn't check the fps, but it seemed smooth.
What I was a little concerned about was the cpu temp (granted from iPulse's stats) was running about 75. The fans were of course on full blast. Any harm in that? Normal (no load) seems to be around 43.
What I was a little concerned about was the cpu temp (granted from iPulse's stats) was running about 75. The fans were of course on full blast. Any harm in that? Normal (no load) seems to be around 43.