System requirements posted for WotLK
by Eliah Hecht 
Oct 7th 2008 at 2:30PM
Blizzard has been putting off posting system requirements for Wrath of the Lich King for a while, but they've finally made a commitment, posted on the official forums. As one might expect, they're fairly forgiving given modern hardware, but they are significantly bumped from the BC requirements (which were not updated from classic WoW, aside from nominally requiring a broadband connection). Here are the minimum and recommended requirements for Wrath:
- PC:
- Windows XP SP3 or Vista SP1 (Windows 2000 no longer supported)
- Pentium 4 1.3 GHz or AMD Athlon XP 1.5 GHz (up from 800 MHz Intel/AMD). Dual-core recommended.
- RAM: 512 MB/1 GB for Vista,
doubled fromsame as previous. 1 GB/2 GB recommended. - Video: GPU with hardware transform and lighting and 32 MB VRAM, same as before. Recommended 128 MB VRAM.
- Mac:
- Mac OS X 10.4.11 (10.3 no longer supported)
- PowerPC G5 1.6 GHz or Intel Core Duo. Big change here: G4s are no longer supported. This one actually affects me, since I do have some G4 machines hanging around the house. Intel 1.8 GHz recommended.
- RAM: 1 GB, up from 512 MB. 2 GB recommended.
- Video: Hardware transform and lighting, 64 MB VRAM. On the face of it, this rules out the integrated graphics found on MacBooks and Mac Minis, but there's been no official word on it yet. 128 MB VRAM recommended.
For those of you who don't meet these requirements (of whom there should be a lot more than there are now with the BC requirements), don't despair too much. The prevailing opinion is that these are more suggested minimums than actual enforced limits. If you don't have quite a fast enough processor or a proper video card, Wrath will probably still run, although your frame rates might not be very high. If you manage to find a computer that doesn't meet the BC requirements now and install WoW on it, it will still run, albeit probably not very well; there's no reason to think that will change in Wrath.
Anyway, here's hoping the updated requirements will let them put more prettiness in LK, although we know at this point there will not be a full graphical revamp.
Filed under: Wrath of the Lich King, Hardware
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Bloodletter Oct 7th 2008 2:38PM
Sorry if this sounds cruel and stuck up (I run on a pretty low end laptop myself) but these spec are far, far too forgiving.
The GPU minimum requirement is a lie. Anyone who tries to run the game with a 32mb GPU will run it at 1fps, after which one will see a bluescreen or a system shutdown due to GPU overheating.
The graphics in WoTLK have improved in every possible way (LOD, View Distance, Shadows, Texture Resolution, Bit Depth, Pixel Filtering) , and trust me, it takes a heavy toll on ones GPU.
Im in BETA< so I speak openly and honestly about this.
The RAM update is true and honest, as is the processor requirement.
Understandably, W2k has been thrown to the wayside.
Over and out.
sinisterwyvern Oct 7th 2008 2:44PM
and you can turn off all those fancy new shadows. This isn't saying you can run the game full blast at these specs. They're the minimum recommended to run the game at all.
jay Oct 7th 2008 4:56PM
You can even run the game at a lower spec than you can now without having to resort to console commands to turn down certain effects, like draw distance for example. But I agree, the engine has indeed taken a sharp turn in requirements, but nothing to major at least.
Arras Oct 7th 2008 2:39PM
those are *very* conservative requirements/guidelines/whatever you want to call them for a game in 2008. The service packs for Xp and Vista are things people should have installed already (probably more to do with security than actual performance - install your updates people!)
The memory requirements - pc or mac are also pretty low. Most systems come with 2gb installed by default and it's recommended you go up to 4 (or 3 if you're sporting XP).
I think macbooks, mackbook pros, and mac minis should be ok. When in doubt, up your system ram :)
Manatank Oct 7th 2008 4:31PM
Remember there is no point in getting 4GB of ram on a PC unless you are going to be running Vista 64. The 32 bit versions of Vista and XP can not utilize more than 3.2GB minus how ever much video ram is built into your video card (which often makes it so even 3GB of ram can't be fully used).
Phorx Oct 7th 2008 2:41PM
"RAM: 512 MB/1 GB for Vista, doubled from previous. 1 GB/2 GB recommended."
I think you've got that a bit mixed up.
dAnixx Oct 7th 2008 3:27PM
minimum settings -
NOW u need 512 MB if u got windows xp, 1gb if u got vista. Used to be 256 MB for xp and 412 for vista.
recomended settings -
1gb for windows xp and 2gb for windows vista
I think thats it but im not sure :P
dAnixx Oct 7th 2008 3:28PM
minimum settings -
NOW u need 512 MB if u got windows xp, 1gb if u got vista. Used to be 256 MB for xp and 412 for vista.
recomended settings -
1gb for windows xp and 2gb for windows vista
I think thats it but im not sure :P
Josh Oct 8th 2008 9:15PM
Of course I can't be certain. But my system is 4 years old. And it can do pretty good in WoW. The main key to WoW as far as I can tell is a strong CPU. The stronger the better. Now as far as you others who feel they have a decent system. I would recommend you reformat you computers and just install WoW if possible. You wouldn't believe the amount of FPS you lose from your sytem collecting Junk.. In fact the one I have I don't even use a browser on. This should keep your FPS up. And do this like once every 6 months to keep it fresh. It is a pain in the butt. But you will appreciate the improved framerates. But if you got a beefy system you don't really need this unless you got another game that might need it.
Kat Oct 7th 2008 2:43PM
Oh that stings somewhat--I hate that my G4 laptop is only 2 years old and suddenly pushing obsolete. We'll see how this plays out with my playing WoW since I certainly can't afford a new computer anytime soon.
Bloodletter Oct 7th 2008 2:46PM
Same here.
Eliseth Oct 7th 2008 3:06PM
Yeah, I don't know about anyone else but I've actually noticed a significant decay in performance in the last year or so, I'm guessing due to some of the changes they've already made to graphics. I've already had to turn most everything down to minimum levels to get even 20-30fps, and in huge battles that drops down to 8-10. (And yes, my machine more than meets the sys reqs.) What's interesting to me is that on the -same- machine, I was getting 30fps easily with most settings turned up about half-way when BC first came out. Nerf graphics, seriously.
I appreciate that they are upgrading the visuals and coming up with some very pretty stuff, and for those of you who have up-to-date machines that's awesome. But many of us don't have that much disposable income--as much as I might like to get a new computer every 2 years there's no way I could possibly afford it. So I'm fervently hoping that they'll allow us to turn off a whole bunch of s**t so I'll actually be able to run Wrath in a playable way--especially if they increased the options for turning down details. It would be AWESOME if they allowed us to turn off things like fire effects or non-interactive NPCs (I'm looking at you, Shattrath guards), for example.
Alternatively, if anyone wants to donate some $$ for a new computer, feel free!
Matt Oct 7th 2008 4:20PM
Pushing obsolete? It was already gimped for gaming when you bought it. QQ.
Be happy that Blizzard was nice enough to let your run BC on integrated graphics.
niko Oct 7th 2008 4:42PM
Matt, you don't know your macs, so your comment makes you look like an idiot. WTG. Here's a history lesson for you:
All G4-based laptop computers, be they PowerBooks or iBooks (even the G3-based iBook), had discrete graphics chips. In all cases, they were technically more equipped for gaming than many laptops that are still being "supported" by Blizzard. Intel-based Macbooks (not the Pro's) are the ones with integrated graphics. Notice that they are supported. The OP mentions they aren't sure whether they'll be supported, but they will. Intel's GMA solution can pull 64MB of a framebuffer anytime it's called for, even in OS X.
Other than Blizzard just deciding not to maintain the G4 codebase for Wrath (and who knows, it might just work), 1GHz+ G4's should be able to handle WoW. If they really think it's CPU-limited, there are plenty of dual-processor G4's that are beasts even today. You just can't say that about the PC's of the same era.
Bottom line: before spouting off insane QQ comments about someone's legitimate claim concerning a computer that is perfectly capable of running WoW and is being forced out by some strange decision by Blizz, make sure you do your homework.
BTW, learn something about macs at http://www.everymac.com
Ikarus Oct 7th 2008 6:40PM
Imac G5 here, not the intel model though. 1.8Ghz processor, 768 MB ram, 64 vram. TBC i get at most 18 fps, in shatt its more like 4fps. it's painful. I know the vram is low, but i've wondered if just getting some more ram might help me out. like 1gb -2gb. any thoughts on whether this would help me at all?
(osx 10.5 btw)
niko Oct 7th 2008 9:08PM
The 1.8 GHz G5 iMac is fine for running WoW. Easiest and best improvement is a RAM upgrade. Lucky you, the G5 iMac uses standard DDR 3200 like a desktop, not the smaller SO-DIMM's that the Intel-based models use of today. You can go up to 2GB, and I completely suggest you max it out. RAM is sooo cheap these days, it's a no brainer. Just do it.
If you want to max the resolution to the natural LCD's size, plan on bringing down the effects a bit, if you haven't already. That machine should be able to handle medium settings with no AA plenty fine once you have the RAM (the lack of enough system RAM is hurting WoW more than you know). The 64MB on the 5200 Ultra is nothing fantastic anymore, but if you respect it enough to not destroy it with high settings, it will still do a good job for a while yet.
Besides, maxing the RAM makes OS X so much more responsive overall. OS X utilizes RAM so well, it has scalable performance increases the more you throw at it... right on up to 32GB and beyond.... so max it out for general performance improvements, as well as WoW performance improvements. It's a win-win IMO.
Deathgodryuk Oct 7th 2008 11:58PM
You can get a decent motherboard/processor combo for under $200 bucks, a pretty nice graphics card for under $150,and a gig of ram for under $30. And that is only if you need to COMPLETELY upgrade your system instead of a partial upgrade. Its not that hard or expensive anymore, just forego the Starbucks for a month.
SlipperyJim Oct 8th 2008 4:11AM
I'm not being funny but 2 years old is pretty ancient in computing terms.
I run WoW on both a desktop PC and a MacBook Pro and the MacBook struggles even now, it's just the way it is.
dawnseven Oct 8th 2008 12:48PM
"Yeah, I don't know about anyone else but I've actually noticed a significant decay in performance in the last year or so, I'm guessing due to some of the changes they've already made to graphics."
I'm so glad someone mentioned this. It's been driving me a little crazy lately. HAS Blizzard changed anything currently??
I was recently running through Thousand Needles leveling an alt because I'm bored silly. As I was running along I noticed how the moon was shining and reflecting off of things and how I could see that the path I was running on was made of tiny pebbles. Sounds kind of petty but I'm sorry I've run through 1K Needles now on countless alts and I don't remember ever noticing millions of pebbles. I thought "Meh, I must not have ever paid attention. Shame on me." But again, my eye kept getting drawn to the moonlight and the reflections. It's like things have changed.
I put all of this out of my mind and focused on leveling again but a little while later it came up again. Specifically after my husband laughed and threw something at me for running off of Darkcloud Pinnacle and dying. Why did I do such a thing? Because his warrior was running in front of me with a metallic shield on his back and the motion of his character was making the reflected moonlight on the shield swing back and forth and back and forth and I got mesmerized by it and wasn't expecting him to take a sharp turn.
So have they changed something? Or are my senses just heightened in anticipation of Blizzcon, the patch, and the xpac dropping? :)
Siona Oct 7th 2008 2:51PM
I'm on a Toshiba laptop, and I can run the beta just fine. Will this mean I'm able to run the expansion just fine, then?