I've looked through all of the system requirement pages on here and I can't see anything that would help with this: So here are my specs that I'm not sure will work(I think, not PERFECTLY SURE): Graphics card: NVIDA GeForce 6200 (256 mb memory total) processor: AMD athlon 64 3400+ Everything else fits system specs. Thanks for any help!
The CPU might be able to hack it (barely) but the graphics card is severely underpowered. Is that a PCI Express slot or AGP? Also, what CPU socket is it? 939 or AM2? Perhaps even 754?
I know, but that is 128mb NVIDA GeForce 6600, mine is a lower "model" I guess, but is 256mb. Don't know if that makes a difference or not, that's why I asked. The poster above you seems to think it's enough. I'm not looking for super high quality, just to let it run at absolute miniumum settings smoothly.
video memory doesn't matter nearly as much as the GPU itself, unfortunately. memory only becomes a limiting factor as you increase the resolution.
What about AGP vs PCIe? The requierments specify a 128 MB PCIe NVIDA Graphics card, i've got AGP don't know if that would make it better or worse... I'm not exactly a computer whiz
AGP vs PCIe are just different interfaces. AGP's got a smaller bandwidth but it doesn't matter all that much when the cards themselves aren't able to saturate it. The only reason I asked is because if you had PCIe, it's easy to upgrade the graphics card and at least if it doesn't work, you can reuse the PCIe card on a new PC. With AGP, it's not worth upgrading. Frankly, onboard video such as the GeForce 9300/9400 or ATI Radeon HD3200/4200 (AMD 780G/785G) or even the Intel GMA HD (on Core i3/i5 Clarkdale CPU) will be faster than that GeForce 6200. Your CPU is already iffy. It's faster clock for clock than the single-core Pentium IV 2.6GHz but even if it worked, it will be barely meeting the minimum CPU requirement. Even the lowest end current CPU you can buy on Newegg will be much faster than what you currently have. Okay, maybe not the Celeron 430 but jumping up to a $50 Athlon II Regor or Celeron/Pentium Wolfdale would be a definite improvement. Two sites for checking hardware compatibility for StarCraft II: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10397/
Well believe it or not, it runs. And not with monstrous lag either! So far I've only played on the campaign mode, and it works well. A bit laggy when 100+ units are on the screen, takes a while to load maps/the Hyperion after missions, and once every 5 minutes or so it freezes for 5ish seconds and repeats the same noise multiple times. Those are the only problems I've found so far. I'm expecting multiplayer to be VERY laggy, so I'm looking into upgrading via a new motherboard/CPU/graphics card. I was pretty suprised, but happy Thanks for all the help!
wow. that's pretty good. usually when companies list "minimum requirements" those are the specs needed to run on minimum settings and still slightly choppy. i guess blizzard's specs are more generous than that.
Not just that. I think it also has to do with the fact that StarCraft doesn't really need very high framerates to be playable. Extreme choppiness occurs below 10fps. Above that and the game's quite playable.
