Starcraft 2's system specs leaked?

Starcraft 2's system specs leaked?

Starcraft 2 hasn't had official requirements released just yet, but these guidelines seem good to us.


We have received word from Blizzard directly that these system specs are by no means the official specs for the game. Micromania did not receive these specs from Blizzard in any way, nor did Blizzard even answer a question in regard to the specs. Therefore, these figures should be taken as, at best, incredible speculation!

The originally published article will continue below for discussion purposes.

These are by no means official just yet, but after a visit to Blizzard's offices the Spanish gaming magazine Micromania has had a look under the hood of Starcraft 2 and got some outlines of what the system requirements will be.

While Blizzard is apparently yet to comment on the suggested requirements, they seem reasonable to us and are in line with current expectations for the upcoming strategy juggernaut. Check out the minimum and recommended specs below.

Minumum Requirements
GFX: GeForce 7/8 Series or Radeon 1000/2000 with 256 MB RAM
CPU: Pentium 4
Internet: ADSL 1 Mbit

Recommended Requirements
GFX: GeForce 8000 or Radeon 2000 series with 512 MB RAM
CPU: Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2.
Internet: ADSL 3 Mbit

Starcraft 2 hasn't gone gold quite yet, so you should be prepared for these figures to change somewhat as the developer finalises the requirements for the game, but as it is at the moment this is the best anyone has to go on.

Is your system equipped to run Starcraft 2 assuming these details are correct, or are you left by the wayside? Let us know in the forums.


Discuss in the forums Reply
sotu1 23rd May 2008, 10:08 Quote
that's surprisingly high for a blizzard game. they normally make games for the lowest common denominator
wuyanxu 23rd May 2008, 10:11 Quote
damn, only 2GB required..... still stuck in 32bit era :(
Paradigm Shifter 23rd May 2008, 10:15 Quote
Now, time will tell whether that ADSL 1Mbit requirement is for some sort of online activation, or whether it's simply Blizzard saying that multiplayer is the way to go. Hopefully the single player campaign will be as good as the originals, though... or better! :D
Mentai 23rd May 2008, 10:16 Quote
Geforce 7's would be around 4/5 years old by the time they release this? That's alright imo.
badders 23rd May 2008, 10:19 Quote
Awww. I have > everything on the minimum, apart from the internet connection.

Living 7.5 km from the exchange is teh suxxorz.
steveo_mcg 23rd May 2008, 10:22 Quote
My poor old a64 is still hanging in there.
mclean007 23rd May 2008, 10:37 Quote
I don't imagine the 1Mbit minimum internet connection will be required for single player - maybe you will need some kind of connection for activation or something, but that shouldn't need a minimum speed. Multiplayer will obviously need realtime bandwidth though.
Delphium 23rd May 2008, 10:59 Quote
Specs higher than I expected, but im ready and eagerly awaiting to take it on in fully glory
perplekks45 23rd May 2008, 11:04 Quote
Agree with everybody stating it's higher than expected/normal for Blizzard but as I'm above recommended specs... I don't care. :D
Aterius Gmork 23rd May 2008, 11:19 Quote
Awesome. I might be able to play it. I have exactly the minimum requirements.
pistol_pete 23rd May 2008, 11:25 Quote
The min spec for the original Starcraft was 90Mhz.

... I ran it on my 75Mhz beast, because I'm that hardcore.
Woodstock 23rd May 2008, 11:50 Quote
i dont know if my net make the cut damm max speed bs
naokaji 23rd May 2008, 12:05 Quote
Broadband in the min spec? I'll risk it and assume that the multiplayer will be big and receive lots of attention from blizzard.
Can't wait for that potentially best game ever to be released (well, until the next c&c game comes).
Denis_iii 23rd May 2008, 12:05 Quote
im sure if you cut out all the fancy visuals they've implemented it will run fine on lower spec.....dont understand the complaining as the recomended spec looks to me to below current avg pc game spec. My laptop will be running this fine at 1980*1200 AND I CANT WAIT!!!!!!
TomH 23rd May 2008, 12:17 Quote
Originally Posted by pistol_pete
The min spec for the original Starcraft was 90Mhz.

... I ran it on my 75Mhz beast, because I'm that hardcore.
I was running the equivalent of a fully-laden Skulltrail board with my 166MHz Pentium then! ;)
Xir 23rd May 2008, 12:34 Quote
Hmmm... 3 MBit DSL is quite tough for rural areas...
But as the main audience is in Korea ;-)
p3n 23rd May 2008, 12:39 Quote
3mbit connnection? get some netcode lmao
dfrangu 23rd May 2008, 14:06 Quote
Excuse me, but 3Mbit means 384kB/s... Is this so high for Western Countries? Here is something almost normal...
scarrmrcc 23rd May 2008, 14:20 Quote
when you say western do you meant the Americas?

cause actually 384kB/s is kinda slow/average...for most people i know (ok except my parents they actually have a 18k connection....dial up, and the live in the boonies)

many people run a DSL higher than that, or have a cable connection...alot higher than that.
dfrangu 23rd May 2008, 14:39 Quote
By Western Countries I mean all that is Western from my country which is supposed to be poorer... But a lot of people complain about that 3Mbps... I gues they think is 3MB/s and do not know that 8kbps = 1kB/s therefore 3Mbps = 384kB/s...
Mentai 23rd May 2008, 15:31 Quote
Depends where you live. You won't be able to reach those speeds in a lot of areas in New Zealand, but our infastructure is below average. I do think 384kB/s is extreme for playing an rts, I mean really. Even if you do have those speeds you'll hit your data cap in no time. I don't know how many countries suffer from data caps, but here there are still no unlimited plans. Sigh...
AngelOfRage 23rd May 2008, 16:31 Quote
This is well timed, i can judge what specs i want from my new laptop. I'll definatly be getting this when it comes out, same with a large number of my friends, this is a game all i know are looking forward to.
hughwi 23rd May 2008, 17:13 Quote
damn, i might have to dust off the original and give it another run through in anticipation of this :D
pendragon 23rd May 2008, 17:49 Quote
wow.. i'm surprised at the specs.. higher than I anticipated... cool.. My new rig can happily handle everything it seems :) .. Hope they don't have any stupid copy protection on it like Mass Effect
teamtd11 24th May 2008, 19:59 Quote
Is this going to be DX10? as the recomended gfx are DX10 if it was not for that then i would meet the recomended. if it has no dx10 option then im hoping i can play this at the max :D
impar 25th May 2008, 00:11 Quote
Originally Posted by pendragon
Hope they don't have any stupid copy protection on it like Mass Effect
:| Funny... Two nights ago I had a nightmare about that.
In it, Starcraft2 had the most bizarre, complex and draconian DRM implementation ever introduced in a software. It even had an avatar-like presence in the game itself as a zerg character, the alpha male of the Zerg Queen.

It was a weird dream...
knuck 25th May 2008, 15:36 Quote
In two generations the low end cards will be faster than what is recommended to play this at max settings so I am not worried at all. Most of the players are going to hate this game anyway because they are still playing the original (and have been for 10 years) and they won't like the changes
Amon 25th May 2008, 23:18 Quote
System specifications are high because of the game's high unit cap.

High network bandwidth is largely irrelevant if your connection bogs down to a a trickle at peak hours.
Marc5002 26th May 2008, 10:22 Quote
yeh i heard they would support 1920x1200 monitor if you play a game at 1920x1200 (max game player and thousand of unit)
It Sure yo need a GEforce 8800GT. For no lag XD OR Sli. I my Self play Wc3 ? Costumes Games
And i got 7600gT 2GB Of DDr2 800mhz & 4600x2 Socket Am2 nforce 590 Asus M2N32-Sli deluxe and see some lag sometime on the game as i get over 900 units in the game but 60% of user lag but some that of my friend i know that said and have 4GB Of ram + 8800GT & Intel dual core duo E6400 or recently some 8500 AD no lag while i was LAGGING XD with over 900 units .
How Ever in Ladder Of Wc3 You will never see that much unit as there food caps.
But Thinking of Dota Game & Tower Defense the more power you have. the more you can make.
and i belive that cap will be set higher for map makers Designer So that the game is high quality :) Such as Dota game Designer : naruto ultimate RPG & Tide of Blood : parasite : Line tower wars : Are exemple of What Starcraft 2 will be Capable off.
Im drooling about that game it being 7 year common :)
Marc5002 26th May 2008, 10:27 Quote
wanted to delete a comment. doesn't know if double posting is spaming
boggsi 29th May 2008, 15:07 Quote
wtf are they transferring to need a 3Mbit. I highly doubt that, unless they are steaming graphics or something. Seriously 3Mbit is 3 million bits a second, assuming each unit or action has: int identifier + int roation + 3 x int position = 160 bits. That allows 18,750 individual updates a second, I really cant see it being coded to require that level of information. Even pro-korean gamers can only average 5 clicks a second!
mclean007 29th May 2008, 17:29 Quote
I guess they are covering their backs so that if you have a 3Mb/s quoted speed, you'll be able to play the game without problems. That means (a) it is based on the absolute maximum amount of information having to be transferred at any one time; and (b) it is taking into account the sad fact that quoted speeds are rarely reached in reality.

Also each unit may need more data to fully describe it - e.g. speed, health, ammo, destination, experience. I presume the game has some kind of deformable terrain, so keeping that in sync might need a chunk of bandwidth. There are lots of scenarios.
mattposivy 13th November 2008, 14:13 Quote
holy crap a nvidia 7/8 series?

jeez blizzard what are you trying to do? make my comp blow up?????

i hope my GE force 6800 can handle it..i have everything else
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums