Starcraft 2 Factual Game Requirements

I've noticed on this forum, and a number of others, "guesses" about what Starcraft II is going to require of your computer when you play it. I decided that we could do better than "guesses" and move up to "very educated guesses." So I decided to use my knowledge of computer hardware and software, my recreational knowledge of graphics processing and rendering, and give you guys a little more detailed account and estimation of what you're going to need (especially since I'm sure a lot of us are going to be buying new computers to meet the requirements of this game).

*NOTE: If you aren't interested in how I came to this conclusion, just scroll down to the requirements.

(Graphic Designers, bear with me on the laments description)
The basic premise of game design is that you're creating a 3D world. Older games used to be in 2D (Mario, Sonic, etc...). Actually, Sonic was one of the first, and very rudimentary 3D games (they released Sonic 3D for Sega). Anyway, the basic concept of these 3D games is the use of polygons to create characters. Without going too deeply into its explanation, the relevance this has to Starcraft II is that each of the units you will see in gameplay can take up anywhere from, say, 700 polygons(Marine) to possibly 10,000 polygons(Ultralisk, Carrier, Mothership). Each one of these polygons must be rendered continuously by a combination of your processor and graphics card. This will lead us to the eventual requirements needed to run a game like this.

There's two basic assumptions I'm going to make before going further into my "research" on the subject:

1) I'm assuming that each of the maps playable in SCII (being 3D) will consist of different rendering techniques including texture mapping, mipmapping, and other current 3D rendering techniques that were applied in Warcraft III. This considered, and based on the fact that large levels in Doom 3 and other more advanced 3D games contain about 60,000 polygons per level (given their 3D nature) then a level in SCII should be equivalent to about 50,000 polygons total. This is the roughest estimate that I will give in this entire article as it is nearly impossible to determine the true size of the background and the number of polygons within it, or where those polygons might be. That is totally up to Blizzard.

2) The second assumption I'm going to be making is that the graphics of SCII is going to be close to what it is now. They're not going to change graphics engines on me or anything .

Now, if a level on SCII is going to be made up of the equivalent of about 50,000 polygons, then it would be reasonable to assume that at any one time a player will be looking at about 5,000 polygons of background at any one time, due to the size of the screen. This may vary based upon the zoom feature that we've seen in gameplay demos.

On top of that base number of around 5,000, you would need to add any buildings and/or units that you'll be seeing on that map as well, not to mention the ones you're NOT looking at and their movement. But we're just talking about graphics rendering in this thread. I've said that units could be anything from 700 polygons to around 10,000 depending on the complexity of the model. For instance, a Thor will actually be a relatively low number of polygons compared to its size just because of its blocky shape.

So assuming you have a fairly large army and a decent-sized base, you're going to have around 100,000 polygons being generated on your screen at any one time. We'll use this as a base number and assumption. Although I can't properly express the algorithms that go with the rendering of a video game like this, as that is way beyond me, it does give you a decent idea of how much is actually being computed in order to give you a fps rate of around 30. That would be 3,000,000 polygons being processed per second.

Notice I said a BASE number. There are also techniques that game developers use to reduce the number of polygons and surfaces being used at any one time. One of these techniques is Progressive Meshing, where a unit that is further away from your sight is rendered with a less detailed shape than one closer to your view. So a smaller unit, like a Marine, might lose a little detail when you're in the full-out zoom, but it doesn't matter anyway because he's at a distance and you can't see it.

But, even with a reduced amount of polygons, Starcraft II will definitely be a game that demands a lot of your computer's computational ability.

Now, on to the real hardcore data analysis that would lead to the eventual prediction of Starcraft II's system requirements.

I read up on a few sites and found one site in particular that seemed to give a scientific approach to its analysis of different games and their 3D graphics rendering and its effects on computers.

For a basic foresight without reading their entire setup for their experiment, they used a basic Athlon dual-core processor, about 2.0 GhZ, a 256 MB GeForce 7800GTX video card, and a number of different RAM settings, 512 MB, 2 GB, and 4 GB.

Their findings were interesting to say the least. I'll pick a graph to show you the basis of their findings and leave it up to you if you want to explore it more.



These are the results for BF2, an FPS game that requires quite a lot of memory. If its not the latest high-requlirement 3D game out, it's close enough. The first set of Bars is with 512 RAM. The second is 2GB, and the last is 4 GB.

While you can't see the entire test as you can here: http://www.tech-hounds.com/article12/ArticlesPage1.html , you get the idea of the experiment.

Overall, their basic finding was that when running a game that is as demanding as BF2, or another high-end game, the optimum configuration, without increasing processor speed, was to use 2 GB of RAM (Two 1GB DIMMs), rather than 4GB. 4GB certainly did improve performance, but not to the degree that the extra cost would warrant. However, the larger the RAM, the faster the load time.

As far as the video card goes, of course you're going to want top of the line, but quite obviously their video card did fine with this high-end of a game, and will probably do quite well in SC2.

Don't forget that your RAM isn't the entire memory equation. When your RAM is all used up, your computer turns to your "page" file to transfer unneeded information from the RAM temporarily to the HD. Having a fast HD speed is also important.

As to actually computing out which video card/processor combination would be best on top of 2 GB of RAM for playing SC2 I came to a pretty standard conclusion:

Minimum:
Windows XP or Vista
Dual-Core processor with a speed of at LEAST 1.8 GhZ
256 MB Video Card(try to get anti-aliasing and HDR rendering) that is about equivalent to a Geforce 7800.
1-1.5 GB RAM
5400ish RPM SATA HD

*Note: Minimum requirements are what I perceive as being required to avoid lag at most times.

Recommended:
Windows Vista
Dual-Core processor 2.0 GhZ+
512 MB Video Card(Anti-aliasing, HDR, Shader Model) Geforce 7800 GTX
2 GB (4GB if you have the money to spend) RAM
7200 RPM SATA HD

Of course, you can go WAY more pricey than this and ensure that your Marine ALWAYS goes where you want him to go when you want him to. But from what I can tell, this is the most cost-effective way to do it. Don't overbuy if you're buying for this game!!!

Good luck!

 

Joneagle, this is an amazing post. One of the most informative and knowledgeable posts I've seen in a while. I understand that it's just an guess/estimate but it's no doubt a very educated one. It's great that u'r fillin' us in on what you know, some of us are deciding whether to get new computers or not all the time. Great job, d00d. REALLY interesting stuff. Thanks owerup:

 

I'm so not reading all that... maybe later, owerup: for the effort

 

wow....i rkn ure right ...amazing

owerup:

lol...

 

So I'm all good with my 3Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB ram and GeForce 8800GTX?

 

How can I find out what's my system config.?

 

Nice Post owerup:. Now, does anyone know where I can find out what my video card's specifications are? ( it's a mobile intel(r) 965 express chipset family (???))


Edit: LT, f you have a pc, go to control panel -> system -> device manager -> display adapters.

The graphics card is under display adapters.

everything else should also be on that page.

 

@ Droopy , Yes. You should be fine. You might be able to optimize your configuration if your 4GB of RAM is on 4 DIMMs. That will allow you to have 4x the access speed as opposed to a 2 DIMM system of 2GB. Your graphics card will be more than adequate for the current graphics levels I'm seeing from Blizzard.

@ LT , Nukem is right, go to your Control Panel, or you can simply right click on your "My Computer" icon and select properties. Device Manage is in there as well.

@ Nukem , you have a chipset. Unfortunately game makers have made the decision to stick with video cards for now. All games require them now. Although they will at some point in the near future be made obselete. As far as processing efficiency goes, a chipset is technically better, but it is more difficult to program for and uses up some of your processing muscle. Your chipset is basically a "virtual" video card that is integrated into your processor. Therefore your processor does all of your graphics work.

If you have a fast enough processor, you may be able to emulate a video card and fool the game. But that won't give you optimum gameplay levels. I would suggest you purchase a video card for your computer at the very least for SC2.

Check your ability to upgrade your RAM and your processor speed, it may be time for a newer computer to meet the requirements of SC2.

@ lichking , Actually, my assessment is based in as much fact as I could find. The only assumptions I made were the two I specified. That was how many polygons are in a map with the average amount of polygons per unit. That and that the graphics will not change. Everything else was based on general calculations and accurate approximations.

Of course I'm not 100% accurate, more like 85%, but it's a lot closer than I've seen anyone else come.

 

Well, I have 2 G's of Ram and a 3 Ghz processor (I believe, an Intel (Core?) Duo). It's a brand new laptop, I got it for college, so I figured it wouldn't be the best for games as I mainly need it to be portable. Thanks for the help with that.


Edit: Well I also have a Mobility Radeon 7500c. It's in my other computer, which I'll no longer be using, so I can just rip it out. Any idea of how good that is? I've been having ton's of trouble trying to look up or find a place to purchase these things (Namely the Geforce 7800 gtx 512). Thanks again for all you're help.

 

Well dude... I hate to rip your boat's motor off and sink it, but video cards are different in laptops than they are in desktop computers.

You're not going to be able to install the Geforce 9800 GTX on that computer.

Let me know what laptop model you have, give me a little time, and I can find out what the best video card your laptop will take is.

The Radeon 7500 definitely won't cut it. Sorry. It probably won't even let you RUN the game. You'd need at least a Radeon 9600 Mobility. That's the card I have and I'm planning on getting a new computer for the game.

EDIT: I have a laptop. I actually modded this Inspiron 8500 to take the ATI Radeon 9600. Don't try to mod a card unless you have experience in the area.

I would make a post for laptops.. which I might if I get enough requests, but it's difficult to calibrate to laptop video cards as most of the time it's hard to FIND a laptop that comes with a video card because they take up so much space, and even when you do find a laptop, you then have to match it to a card that will actually fit in its case.

Throw me a couple models and I'll find the card you'll need for that computer, or if enough people request I'll make a general post on how to find them or what popular brands will require.

 

What about a Mobility Radeon X1200? The laptop has 2GB of RAM and a 1.8 GHz AMD dual-core. Specifically:

http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c...o&tab=&xpoid=363439&xpoid=377342&xpoid=351655

What do you think?

 

Ugh, I wish I would of read this before ordering my new laptop. Seriously, jsut ordered it a few days ago. I'm good on Ram, but my core Duo only has 1.6 Ghz and my graphic card could probably be better. Well, i really needed a new computer. I just hope I didnt screw myself over.

 

@ knuckles , while your processor and RAM will probably do just fine (although not exactly optimal), your video card probably won't make the cut.

The X1200 is a couple steps below what I have, the Radeon 9600 Mobility, and I don't know for sure if even my card will run it.

@ Shadow Templar , I would send that laptop back and order a new one. 1.6 GhZ will probably run the game, but not all that well. Although as long as you're not looking for intense gaming, you'll still be able to play decently. You're not going to be the first person to load the game.

Make sure your graphics card EXISTS in the first place. If you can give me the model and brand of your laptop I may be able to help you more.

But don't worry, you didn't "screw" yourself over. Who knows? I could be wrong :-D. But I am closer than ballpark.

 

Two things:
No one unit in starcraft 2 will come close to 10,000 polys
The numbers are the same as the ones I "guessed" a while back.

 

Actually....

That's here:
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/interviews/cinematicteaser.xml

While it doesn't have anything to do with in GAME graphics as cinematics are notoriously high quality, it lets you know that Blizzard IS pushing the envelope of graphic design for SC2. They're not letting it slide.

Now that you know that, you might be a little more open to finding that the numbers I took from other games suggested that if Blizzard wants StarCraft 2 to have graphics comparable with games released in the last three years a complicated unit like the Mothership or the new carrier will probably have a large polycount. I would say 10,000 is the extreme limit of that. But that doesn't mean a unit won't come close.

The most complex unit will probably be the Mothership or the Carrier and will carry a polycount of around 6,500. But depending on the graphics that could vary greatly.

It doesn't matter much. The main thing your computer is working to render is the battle itself and its background. Once a unit is rendered it's already there. All your real-time rendering is in fighting animations, explosions, etc.

Btw, congratulations on getting lucky with your "guess." That doesn't mean it's educated or based on fact. It just means you put numbers in a post and said they were the requirements. And thank you for attaching your "guess" to mine. Maybe it lends your knowledge and support to my conclusion. Or maybe it doesn't.

 

I put it into front page news. So I will non-sticky this thread now.

I am a horrible front page news writer

BTW thanks Joneagle for the hypothesis. I need to upgrade my XP to Vista...

 

Haha.... you don't NEED to.

In fact, I'm running on Vista and it's not the greatest yet. But it is more powerful than XP. I would recommend it for people who know how to handle their PC.

Not for beginners yet tho. Still has a lot of backward compatibility kinks to work out.

 

The system I built for my wife 6 months ago for her to play WoW runs a Core2Duo E6400 that I slightly overclocked to 3.0 Ghz. It's got 2GB of DDR2 800 RAM, 2x1GB dual channel. Video card is 256MB GeForce 7900GS factory overclocked to 600 MHz. Standard 7200 RPM SATA HD. Everything is running on a ABIT AB9 QuadGT board.

That setup is certainly nowhere close to top of the line, but I'm not really worried about it running SC2 when it comes out. The video card still has a bit of room for overclocking, and the CPU quite a bit of room for OC. I didn't do anything with RAM settings yet other than give it a little more juice. I threw out the stock CPU fan from the start but I could easily get way better cooling any time while still going air cooling.

Getting a top of the line gaming PC right now for a game that you don't know when it will be release is stupid. It will be at least around a year, roughly. Buying 4 gigs of RAM right now is overkill, so is a top of the line video card. Close to release time, roughly a year later or so, you can get better EVERYTHING for lower price. Unless you have cash to burn or your daddy pays for it all while he's making money on a yacht somewhere in the Caribbeans most of the time, I think the cost of investing into a PC to use for a game to come a year later should be carefully evaluated.

In my opinion, for the average person, it is better to go for a cheaper setup now and leave room for upgrades later on that will be cheaper than getting them now. I would suggest getting parts that leave room for overclocking when you need it later. Just spend the same money you would anyway, but do some research as to which parts have better overclocking potential. It's silly to get 4GB of RAM now when you can do fine with 2GB now and get it for cheaper later on. Video card you can't really skimp on, but all the DirectX 10 cards will also keep getting cheaper, not that you will need one that good anyway though.

My PC is much older and slower than my wife's, I haven't built one for myself yet as I still don't really have the need for it yet. But even when I do, that's what I'll be doing cuz I'm not made of cash and I have a son to raise. I'm just going to build a decent system around $1000~1500(cheaper if I reuse monitor, speaker, keyboard, mouse, etc. and shop more selectively) that has good overclocking potential and just put money down for better cooling options when I need to.

Basically, all this doesn't really address the opening post in any way. All I'm saying is, if anyone's going on a panicky frenzy thinking they need to get a top of the line PC or anywhere close for SC2, I think they need to slow down and think again. There really is no need, especially right now. Blizzard has traditionally been mroe about getting more people to be able to play with lower system reqs than making a name by pushing any technical envelopes. Rather than spending a lot of money on a rig for SC2, it's far better to plan a bit and spend less total but more wisely.

I just don't know how all of my posts just get this long, sigh~ But anyway, that's my 2 cents. Oh, and I personally don't like Vista and laptops at all.

 

They are pushing the envelope in terms of cinematics, not in terms of in game graphics.

Read my graphical comparison thread here it explains the graphical detail in terms of polygons of units in starcraft compared to other units in detail.

I really doubt this. Blizzard doesn't just throw around polygons no matter how complex a unit is. The Carrier especially will be nowhere near this. Blizzard is quite conservative in the polygon counts so that it doesn't choke the computer.

I'm pretty sure units are not just rendered once. I haven't done tons of research on how exactly game engines work but when you put too many units onto the screen in WC3 at the same time the polygons will literally start warping and stretching around. My guess is that the engine cannot handle the vast number of polygons associated with each unit. And this isn't when they are fighting or anything. It'll do it when they are standing still.

My "guess" took the same type of research as yours and yours is just as much a guess as mine is. I didn't make some long *** post about it so it wasn't news worthy.


Oh and having a dual core will not be a minimum requirement.

 

Oh, really, paragon? No. But if you're going to go out and buy an older processor that's almost 4 GhZ you're going to have a tough time shopping.

I gave the Dual Core numbers in an effort to make it easy to find them. You really do love to look for retarded flaws in arguments, don't you? Does it make you sleep better at night? Also, a "long ass post" that is backed by facts rather than pure assumptions (although mine contains a lot, as was necessary) is different.

Also, units are rendered once. Their basic structure is rendered each time it appears on screen. Only once. From then on so long as they remain at least in peripheral vision it is only their actions (moving blades) or explosions or attack animations in general that are rendered. That's why if you have a large number of units on screen and suddenly look at them, you will expereince "choppiness" which is created by your HardDrive struggling to equip your RAM with access to the page file fast enough.

Carrier, Tempest, same thing to me, but their style of the unit looks awfully complicated. I've consulted with ArchLimit a bit about this topic, I'd ask him to put his input in on the polygon count of a a few units.

In fact, he disagreed with me on the general number of polygons per unit. He thinks they're lower, but we've both agreed that most of the units will be around at LEAST 2500 polygons. That includes actions, animations, attacks, etc. So if a unit is 2000 polygons as just the design, then it would be an additional 1000 polygons for its animations, movements, etc.