Starcraft 2 System Requirements Revealed

[H.Bogard]

Time to gear up folks! Looks like the game is not very CPU intensive at all, listing a Pentium 4 as a minimum... from CVG come the unofficial requirements :

Minimum Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 256Mb RAM
CPU: Pentium 4
RAM: 1Gb
Internet: ADSL 1 MBit

Recommend Requirements:

GFX: GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512Mb RAM
CPU: Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb
Internet: ADSL 3 Mbit

Optimal Requirements:

GFX: Geforce 9000er or Radeon 3000er Series
CPU: Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb with DualChannel mode.

Source - CVG (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189528)

Editor's Note - I amended the OP, since these are not yet the official specs from Blizzard

[violentp]

Done and done.

[pheriannath]

7 series geforce as the low end? The CPU requirements aren't bad at all, but yeesh.

[Commissar Rob]

I think I'll be able to get away with my current beast...

[Deunnero]

It should fly, barely.

That's horrible considering it's an RTS and that grahics are really meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[cp#]

25MB should obviously be 256MB. GIVE ME THE FUCKING RELEASE DATE/MONTH/YEAR

[Heretic Machine]

Totally fine, I'm pretty close to Optimal.

[Telefrog]

Damn. That's awesome. I'm in.

[Citizen Philip]

What is a Radeon 3000 series, this gen or something? Are they missing the X somewhere, or did that get dropped?

[MasterEvilAce]

Now, do these specs take into account 24 carriers with max interceptors all flying around at once?

[Grey]

Looks like the game is not very CPU intensive at all, listing a Pentium 4 as a minimum... from CVG come the official requirements

Therefore pretty high videocard requirements. Guess I have to skip some games this year

[Grey]

/e ok after reading it with more care its once again a pretty weak requirement list, because every of those series includes low- and highend cards.

So its again: wait for the demo.

[sparkfizt]

7 series geforce as the low end? The CPU requirements aren't bad at all, but yeesh.

Well a 7 series is around 150 nowadays, in the grand scheme of things it's about 4 years old? My poor 7800.... I remember when it was bleeding edge ;_;

[cp#]

Well a 7 series is around 150 nowadays, in the grand scheme of things it's about 4 years old? My poor 7800.... I remember when it was bleeding edge ;_;

If you can even buy a new 7 series, it would be less than $100. You can get a 8800GT for $150, 3870 for around the same price

[Loki_09]

Thats not too bad, my PC cant handle it right now, but a new rig is in the cards come early 2009.

[H.Bogard]

Therefore pretty high videocard requirements. Guess I have to skip some games this year

What? Asking for a 2005-released video card is a high requirement? If you own a video card more than four years old you might as well not be able to play anything besides WoW.

[H.Bogard]

Also (fucking double post), mods, please fix the 25 MB error? Damn source typed it wrong.

[Evil Avatar]

Optimal Requirements:

GFX: Geforce 9000er or Radeon 3000er Series
CPU: Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz or Athlon X2
RAM: 2Gb with DualChannel mode.

Allow me to translate:

Unless you want the game to look like total ass, you will meet the above system requirements.

That upgrading thing is looking more and more like a requirement all the time. Is it too early to pimp the Birthday thing again?

[Grey]

What? Asking for a 2005-released video card is a high requirement? If you own a video card more than four years old you might as well not be able to play anything besides WoW.

Yeah youre totaly right. But most recent games begin with the 6xxx series requirements... thats probably the reason why I thought that this is high initialy.

[violentp]

Allow me to translate:

Unless you want the game to look like total ass, you will meet the above system requirements.

That upgrading thing is looking more and more like a requirement all the time. Is it too early to pimp the Birthday thing again?

I'm good to go oddly enough without spending a single dime.

[Norse]

The 256mb gfx card requirement means no Starcraft 2 for me. It'll probably suck anyway :)

[ElfShotTheFood]

7XXX series cards will be in their fourth year by the time this game comes out (most likely 2009). 9XXX series cards like the 9600 can be found for around $150 right now.

The "optimal" requirements are fairly forgiving: Good Core 2 Duo processors are affordable, and ram is dirt cheap.

[Roc Ingersol]

Well, this is Blizzard we're talking about. Their 'recommended' specs are usually lower than everyone else's minimums. So even being in the same ballpark as other PC game releases is going to seem 'high'.

While not particularly high overall, it's definitely a notch or two higher than they usually go. And it feels like an odd time for them to be doing that.

[sparkfizt]

Well, this is Blizzard we're talking about. Their 'recommended' specs are usually lower than everyone else's minimums. So even being in the same ballpark as other PC game releases is going to seem 'high'.

While not particularly high overall, it's definitely a notch or two higher than they usually go. And it feels like an odd time for them to be doing that.

wait... maybe this is a hint on the release date =X Maybe it's not coming out till 2010! D=

[jeffbax]

I'm not sure why it won't support 6xxx Geforce's, they really aren't that far behind.

[Evil Avatar]

Well, this is Blizzard we're talking about. Their 'recommended' specs are usually lower than everyone else's minimums. So even being in the same ballpark as other PC game releases is going to seem 'high'.

While not particularly high overall, it's definitely a notch or two higher than they usually go. And it feels like an odd time for them to be doing that.

Allow me to explain the high system requirements by quoting from a very good (and highly intelligent) regular reader.

Well, this is Blizzard we're talking about.

I think they are playing the id Software card and just counting on the fact that 10 Million Koreans will happily upgrade to play Starcraft 2 and everyone else can either get on the upgrade bandwagon or just keep playing that little WoW thing they have going on.

[Grey]

I think they are playing the id Software card and just counting on the fact that 10 Million Koreans will happily upgrade to play Starcraft 2 and everyone else can either get on the upgrade bandwagon or just keep playing that little WoW thing they have going on.

id has a korean fanbase?

[Citizen Philip]

id has a korean fanbase?

No they have kimchi. It's yummy.

[H.Bogard]

Allow me to translate:

Unless you want the game to look like total ass, you will meet the above system requirements.

That upgrading thing is looking more and more like a requirement all the time. Is it too early to pimp the Birthday thing again?

Highly doubt it after seeing the gameplay demos they released. An 8800GT or a Radeon 3850/3870 can handle this game with one hand.

Also, the Geforce 9xxx series isn't much of an improvement over the previous cards, so whatever.

[vanlandw]

No OS X version? Weak....

[Thin_J]

Yeah my year and a half old rig meets one requirement and exceeds all the others.

No worries here.

You can build a system that meets recommended specs for like $600 and most people who don't meet any particular part are probably going to be shy on the videocard part, which is a measly $140ish upgrade for a mid-high-end 8800 card with 512mb these days.

Small system requirements, just like everyone expected.

[silv]

No OS X version? Weak....

Amen to that. While my desktop meets all of these requirements (8800gtx, 4gb RAM, etc) I would love to run this on my MBP without booting into stupid Windows.

[walkstheplanes]

I hit the recommended. Whew, still chugging fine.

[Hemalin]

Considering we'll be lucky if the game makes it out before the end of 2009, that looks pretty low.

[Roc Ingersol]

I think they are playing the id Software cardThat definitely seems to be the case.

It's just not something they've ever done before.
And not doing it used to be one of their more celebrated hallmarks.

[Jackel]

Allow me to translate:

Unless you want the game to look like total ass, you will meet the above system requirements.

That upgrading thing is looking more and more like a requirement all the time. Is it too early to pimp the Birthday thing again?

Or it could mean that those are the requirements if you want to have a crazy high resolution with 4xAA that blows anything your 360 / PS3 could put up, out of the water.

Hell...Its great that you think its necessary for a PC game to always play at top of the line, however many games don't require resolutions that high....its simply an OPTION for ppl who can / do want to spend money upgrading regularly.

Rather than spewing your usual anti-PC gaming rhetoric around, maybe we could wait until the game is actually released.

[Zawath]

I think those requirements are bit too high and the graphics of the game don't even look that good.

[silv]

I think those requirements are bit too high and the graphics of the game don't even look that good.

The graphics are drop dead gorgeous. Have you actually watched the HD footage? I'm not sure how you could say they are bad after watching that.

[Ten19]

Goddammit.

[Vanthar]

Blizzard has yet to confirm the specs, so far only confirming that the game will require Pixel Shader 2.0. Here's the list:

This is from a fansite. It's BS. Pixel Shader 2.0 would DEFINITELY allow 6 series to run it. Please update the front page.

[Vanthar]

Blizzard has yet to confirm the specs, so far only confirming that the game will require Pixel Shader 2.0. Here's the list:

This is from a fansite. It's BS. Pixel Shader 2.0 would DEFINITELY allow 6 series to run it. Please update the front page.

Since I can't EDIT, I want to be clear that my first line was from the quoted article. These are 'supposed' specs from a forum poster on a fan website that has some Spanish magazine. These are NOT the confirmed specs. Also, Pixel Shader 2.0 was supported as low as the GeForce FX cards, Radeon 9500-9800, x300-x600.

[PopoWRX]

The minimum is higher then I expected but the Geforce 7 series is pretty long in the tooth.

I'm surprised at the CPU requirement, usually RTS games gobble up CPUs, lower then I expected.

From the specs I should be able to play it at 1680x1050 maxed out. Which is what I expected.

[PopoWRX]

Yea, whats up with the editing deal? Anyway, since its rumor and SC2 can do Pixel Shader 2.0, I guess there goes Evil's whining about having to upgrade haha.

[Telefrog]

Since I can't EDIT, I want to be clear that my first line was from the quoted article. These are 'supposed' specs from a forum poster on a fan website that has some Spanish magazine. These are NOT the confirmed specs. Also, Pixel Shader 2.0 was supported as low as the GeForce FX cards, Radeon 9500-9800, x300-x600.

I was just going to say this. Here's the original source thread.

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497

Again, before people get in a huff. Blizzard has officially said the the only requirement they've set is pixel shader 2.0.

[Harv]

I'm good....

[Abash Alarmist]

Yea. This is way too soon for the system requirements to be revealed. They only do that a couple of months before release, and this hasn't even hit beta yet.

[BlackPete]

Hm. This may probably play on my laptop. Probably. Geforce 7900 Go may be a bit of a stretch, though.

[Fonz]

Thats funny, this game has higher requirements than Crysis, yet I don't see a trail of flames and bitching about that. Anyways before you go say I hate SC, I don't, I fucking loved SC1, had over 3000 win account with a 2200 ladder rating. My most played game and on top of that I'm not even in Korea :-p. So yeah... I just find it funny how the flames for Crysis Specs aren't here.

[Vanthar]

Thats funny, this game has higher requirements than Crysis, yet I don't see a trail of flames and bitching about that. Anyways before you go say I hate SC, I don't, I fucking loved SC1, had over 3000 win account with a 2200 ladder rating. My most played game and on top of that I'm not even in Korea :-p. So yeah... I just find it funny how the flames for Crysis Specs aren't here.

Because it doesn't have higher reqs that Crysis. These are BS reqs and it annoys me that no one has updated the front page.

[DeathtollWRX]

This game will dominate all the charts. Wii/360/PS3 will slowly collect dust. This is the PC game to end all games.

Starcraft2 is reason enough to invest $2000 grand into a pc just to make sure it runs smooth.

[Cyrillus]

Battlecruiser operational.

[jeffbax]

Amen to that. While my desktop meets all of these requirements (8800gtx, 4gb RAM, etc) I would love to run this on my MBP without booting into stupid Windows.

It was announced for simultaneous Mac release since day one, you guys need to pay more attention. Its blizzard, they release all games simultaneously.

[Abash Alarmist]

It was announced for simultaneous Mac release since day one, you guys need to pay more attention. Its blizzard, they release all games simultaneously.

Well, that and the fact that these are no way in hell the real system requirements.

[Phanto]

And thats Blizzard, I'm really not surprised even if those are the official requirements Blizzard always uses the most lower requirements possible even to play their games maxed out.

[Talanvor]

Well crap, guess I can't get away with my rig for a whole lot longer.

[PathMaster]

Well, my machine that came with XP back in Nov. 2001 is a P4, but only a 1.8ghz. I wonder what speeds that are assuming for those P4s. Other then that, I have done a Ram upgrade to 1 gb and have a x1650 card in there. I quite possibly will be okay. It says something when a seven year old machines could run the game with just a RAM upgrade and a gfx upgrade.

[Darkmatter]

They should have made the min specs super high. They could have pushed the industry forward by a good year or 2. :)

(At least over seas anyways)

[Chris_D]

Regardless of what they've listed, I'm pretty sure they are going to make it able to run reasonably OK on a Mac Book Pro (the Mac version that is of course).

[Talon-]

Blizzard games still manage to look fine at very low specs, so I don't think there's any reason to worry.

I say this because I ran WarCraft III on minimum everything (Res at 800x600), and the visuals didn't make me want a vomit. I wasn't exactly proud of them, but I loved the game so much that I didn't give a damn.

[cp#]

The engine is an updated WarCraft III engine. I am expecting somewhat higher requirements... but nothing too crazy. Definitely not anything higher than Crysis, or say, Team Fortress 2

I'm sure it will run on a 6 series or comparable ATI card at lower resolutions like 1024x768. Hopefully they let us choose any resolution, though. 1680x1050, for example.

[Talon-]

The engine is an updated WarCraft III engine. I am expecting somewhat higher requirements... but nothing too crazy. Definitely not anything higher than Crysis, or say, Team Fortress 2

I'm sure it will run on a 6 series or comparable ATI card at lower resolutions like 1024x768. Hopefully they let us choose any resolution, though. 1680x1050, for example.

Considering WarCraft III provided a plethora of resolution options, I'm guessing SC2 will provide the same.

[boratika]

This game will dominate all the charts. Wii/360/PS3 will slowly collect dust. This is the PC game to end all games.

Starcraft2 is reason enough to invest $2000 grand into a pc just to make sure it runs smooth.

2 Million dollars is maybe a bit much.:D

...maybe...

[Abash Alarmist]

This isn't a glorified WarCraft 3 engine. It was built from the bottom up, as they do for all of their games.

[TheKeck]

Optimal is nVidia 9000er series or Radeon 3000er series? Am I missing what that "er" means??? Isn't an 8800 GT a lot better than a 9600 GT or anything in the 3000 series?

[TheKeck]

2 Million dollars is maybe a bit much.:D

...maybe...
Nice catch. :)

[Antdude]

These are fan site fantasy specs. Believe nothing until you see a press release from Blizzard, not Amazon, or CVG or Gamestop.

And yes, there will be a Mac OS X version, released in the same box, at the same time as the PC version. Blizzard actually has announced this already. It's been their standard since Diablo 2.

[cp#]

This isn't a glorified WarCraft 3 engine. It was built from the bottom up, as they do for all of their games.

Ahh, you're right.

[Lance Uppercut]

These are fan site fantasy specs. Believe nothing until you see a press release from Blizzard, not Amazon, or CVG or Gamestop.

And yes, there will be a Mac OS X version, released in the same box, at the same time as the PC version. Blizzard actually has announced this already. It's been their standard since Diablo 2.

http://kotaku.com/5010798/those-arent-the-starcraft-ii-system-specs-youre-looking-for

Confirmed as fake system requirements by Blizzard.

[Chris_D]

Nice Blizzard. Well maybe it will be my first PC (well mac) game purchase in quite sometime.

[brokenFUN]

Well i'm set up... Now I wait.