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 video card requirments.
- Thread starter Malus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[/FONT]Are those requirements Mac specific?
I haven't played any of the recent games on my Mac but I remember I think I that Mac requirements were often higher than their PC counterpart. Is this still true? Or did I just dream that up?
Here is an example using the 2 last games I purchased for Mac:
Minimum System Requirements:
__________Age of Myth_________Civilization IV
__________PC________Mac_______PC________Mac
RAM_______128 MB____256 MB____256 MB____512 MB
VIDEO_____16 MB_____32 MB_____64 MB_____64 MB
CPU_______450 MHz___450 MHz___1.2 GHz___1.8 GHz
I haven't played any of the recent games on my Mac but I remember I think I that Mac requirements were often higher than their PC counterpart. Is this still true? Or did I just dream that up?
Here is an example using the 2 last games I purchased for Mac:
Minimum System Requirements:
__________Age of Myth_________Civilization IV
__________PC________Mac_______PC________Mac
RAM_______128 MB____256 MB____256 MB____512 MB
VIDEO_____16 MB_____32 MB_____64 MB_____64 MB
CPU_______450 MHz___450 MHz___1.2 GHz___1.8 GHz
Often, when games, like the two you used as examples, are ported from the PC to mac, they requirements get higher. Blizzard releases all of their games for the pc and mac simultaneously, so I think the requirements are usually the same.
Lol, I suppose not, but now this means I need to buy another mac to play a game. I wonder if a G4 would be good enough...
No chance. There might not even be a PPC version at all.
As for system requirements, it depends on the port. Occasionally they're lower on the Mac side, but that's pretty rare. Also sometimes the "higher" requirements on the Mac side are actually and technically the same as the PC version, but the Mac publisher is more realistic about what works well.
--Eric
I guess youre right. And really we will just have to wait for the game to actually come out huh? See I'm worrying for nothing hehe.
No guessing required, Rob from Blizzard posted here stating that it will not run on any G4, and maybe not even any G5.
You can
This is horrible, now I have to sell my macbook just so i can play a game...ugh, blast fast growing technology...blast it to heck!
Well don't blame Blizzard, blame Apple for putting a business-grade video chip in a "home" laptop.
The GM650 can use more than 64MB of graphics memory and actually the Windows driver will do (otherwise Vista wouldn't run). But somehow Apple limited it to 64MB on OS X.
Rob Harries said, that they are watching the WoW user statistics. The MacBook (not the Pro) is enormously spread among youger (gaming) people. It wouldn't be a wise choise to kick them out.
Rob Harries said, that they are watching the WoW user statistics. The MacBook (not the Pro) is enormously spread among youger (gaming) people. It wouldn't be a wise choise to kick them out.
yes, but the GMA 950 was a low-end choice when it was first used in the macbooks 18 months ago. Now it's just ridiculous. Blizzard can't support horribly outdated hardware forever.
128MB RAM sounds very low for any current gen game. That must be at the absolute lowest , most unenjoyable graphics settings.
exactly
.Blizzard actually does a simultaneous release for all of their games on a single hybrid disc. The Mac versions of their games are actually coded to run on Macs using OpenGL and everything (they were using Altivec for awhile, I'm sure they've stopped using it though by now).
Unfortunately I have lost alot of respect for Blizzard with World of Warcraft. They have destroyed WoW's lore and the gameplay has really lost it's focus, very dissappointed personally although SC2 looks like it might be ok.
That's not really the issue...even if you increased the memory that GMA950 accessed to 512TB, that wouldn't make it any better or more capable. And yes, it's definitely Apple's fault for using such a lame chipset (especially since they used to make fun of integrated graphics right up until the first Intel Macs were released, and for good reason). The
TV has a better graphics chip. Heck, even the iPhone might have a better graphics chip....--Eric
It would have been ok if they had updated their Macbooks to Santa Rosa and used intels new x3100 graphics chip. But they haven't.
Theres no chance of playing SC2 on the GMA950. I know, it really sucks. Probably cause the chip is about 2 years old and does most of the rendering in software. You'll need a real graphics chip.
Theres no chance of playing SC2 on the GMA950. I know, it really sucks. Probably cause the chip is about 2 years old and does most of the rendering in software. You'll need a real graphics chip.
exactly
Blizzard actually does a simultaneous release for all of their games on a single hybrid disc. The Mac versions of their games are actually coded to run on Macs using OpenGL and everything (they were using Altivec for awhile, I'm sure they've stopped using it though by now).
No, WoW and Warcraft III still use AltiVec on PowerPC. We even improved it a little bit for WoW 2.2.0 which is now in beta.
AltiVec is engaged on WoW if you have vertex shaders disabled. It can be a performance benefit depending on your exact balance of video card and CPU speed.
I don't know how I missed seeing that post, but it is incredibly disappointing. Part of Starcraft's wonderful mass appeal is that it ran well on low-end machines, and I was hoping that Blizzard would maintain that in Starcraft 2, and that my 1.33GHz iBook (or 1GHz PB w/ better video card) could limp through at minimum settings. Looks like it'll be relegated to my PC gaming rig after all
.
If I had to guess, I think you are going to be fine. Our computers may not be able to run it at top settings, but it will most likely run fine at lower settings.
This, of course, is all speculation based on a few of the RTS games on the market today, Blzizards history, and the experience I have had with my x1600.