Skip to Content
6-10-2009 @ 11:12AM
AS to the last question, I also found that the systems processor plays a HUGE part in your FPS. I was actually surprised at how much.Somebody with a decent graphics card that upgrades their processor to a really good process can see a really good FPS increase.So...WoW relies both on the graphics card as well as the processor. Having a great team makes WoW great, having 1 of the two be great will still have good results, just not as good.
6-10-2009 @ 11:52AM
Blizzard has a fantastic history for making games work well even on older hardware (at time of release). I can vouch for the processor bearing more of the load (for the graphics) than some other games that shift more of that load to the GPU. I can run at perfectly reasonable fps with the settings way up, and my PC is 5 years old with a mediocre video card by today's standards (Radeon X1600) and really powerful albeit single-core processor (HT P4 Extreme 3.8ghz ), only 2GB RAM in it. I do choose to turn the graphic detail down for a performance gain, but it's perfectly playable on high (not max).
6-10-2009 @ 12:44PM
It's also worth noting that 2GB of RAM is likely going to leave you with adequate performance everywhere except Dalaran. I'd recommend going with the maximum you can afford, and watching your system resources in real-time while you're playing so that when frames start dropping you can see why. Every single person in my guild who was running with 2GB or under of RAM didn't notice any problems until they hit Dalaran, at which time the game became virtually unplayable. Having experienced the same phenomenon in old-school AV on my old powerbook, I recognized the RAM slowdown (RAM delays look different than, for example, processor or video card overload) and tossed another couple gigs in my box, and recommended the same for the members of my guild. Everyone's problems were solved. It looks like Dalaran uses about 3-3.5GB of RAM, on my box. Your mileage may vary based on time of day, server population, etc., but I'd say 2GB is the bare minimum for maintaining a playable game.
6-10-2009 @ 1:06PM
I run WoW on a MacBook Pro (the 9600 GT version) in Windows XP and it does run ok, though not as good as I was hoping. With graphics all the way up except shadows at 1680x1050 I get around 15-30 fps in Dalaran. 25 man Ulduar can get as low as 8 if I don't drop a lot of settings, so I tend to play with everything on lowest (still at 1680x1050 - the native resolution of the monitor I have connected to it) except spell detail at half and projected textures on (otherwise I can't see some important effects) and get around 15-20 most of the time in a raid.My girlfriend just bought a Sony Vaio with mostly lower specs (slower CPU, lower rated graphics chip, but more RAM), running at 1920x1080 with everything at full except shadows and it destroys my framerate (she rarely dips below 30). I'm not sure why :/
6-10-2009 @ 2:01PM
I run WoW on Mac OS X, with a Core Duo iMac with 2 gigs of RAM and I get good performance, overall: 30-40 FPS almost all the time. While raiding I sometimes drop to 25. I keep most of my settings down. The only place that's really bad is Dalaran, where I can dip to 15 during peak times. Play with your graphics settings for best performance.I recently tested WoW on my brother's 9400m Mac Mini and was pleased with the performance- though his unwillingness to give me much time led me to only run around Ironforge for a bit though. He also only has 1 gig of RAM. Stacked with 4 gigs (which I believe is the Mini's top RAM now), i could see it being very nice.Personally, if I were you, I would hold off buying a desktop Mac for a short while. I think the Core i7 will be debuting end of summer. But the lappies were just refreshed at WWDC, and I think they're fantastic. I got my hands on one to inspect and they're rock solid machines, good graphics, Firewire, and the battery is incredible. I couldn't run WoW on it but if it runs as good as every other Mac with the similar graphics, you should be fine.But general rules apply: As much RAM as you can afford, buy with stock RAM and buy it after market. It's easy to install in a Laptop and you'll pay a lot less then Apple's preinstalled. You also will get the system faster.
6-10-2009 @ 3:23PM
i've been running wow on a macbook (not pro) for about a year now and with all the settings down all the way i can raid and do whatever. dalaran can be bad at times, with my fps going down as far as 7 or 8 fps. kinda sucks but the rest of the gameplay is just fine...i don't really miss the decreased settings as long as i get to play.
6-10-2009 @ 3:24PM
oh yeah the reason for my post was to say you should definitely be fine with a macbook pro. my friend uses one for wow and he has a shit load of addons and stuff and he runs extremely smoothly when i've seen him in raids.
6-10-2009 @ 3:25PM
sorry to spam, we both have 2 gigs.realized i forgot that part.
6-10-2009 @ 5:58PM
Blake - why run in Windows? Run the Mac client.
6-10-2009 @ 7:17PM
I'll vouch for being able to play on abysmal systems. When I started in BC, I started on a laptop with 512 megs of RAM, 64 of which was dedicated to video (leaving me with 440ish), a 1.6 GHz processor and some other slower features. I had about 8 fps in the field, 14 in an instance (which was part of the reason I loved them so much), and about .25 in Shatt.Wrath came out and conveniently coincided with my laptop's power supply burning out (literally), and I upgraded to a whopping 512 RAM with a 32(? 64? I'm still not sure about it) MB video card and a 1.8ish processor. Everything was at least four years old and it runs wrath (though I still manage a whopping .25 or less fps in dalaran. Hearthing and flying in will almost always disconnect me if I'm not careful. Same applies for the Argent Tournament). So yeah, chances are: you can run WoW. It won't be perfect, but it's possible.
6-11-2009 @ 7:30PM
SaintStryfe said,"Personally, if I were you, I would hold off buying a desktop Mac for a short while. I think the Core i7 will be debuting end of summer."We'll see. Apple has never offered a Mac option with a real gaming configuration that I can remember, at any price point. They may keep using the non-consumer Intel chips high end and wait for the new lower end i7 revs before they shift on low and middle. The current i7 chips are absolute monster performers. Intel hit that one out of the park and into one in another city.On second thought, they are (effectively) eight core chips and they're perfectly suited to A/V work, so Apple may shift sooner than later. It'd also give them a new chance to gouge on RAM prices, re:"buy with stock RAM and buy it after market."If you buy extra RAM from Apple you might as well dump a sack of cash in the oven while sticking a fork in an electrical socket. The markup is dizzying.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.