Squishy Tia wrote:
I don't see it being exceptionally bad on your machine. The X3100 is a far cry better than the old G41/G45 Intel integrated graphics used in older Macs/PCs. You should be OK, though you may not have access to all of the video options, as some are invariably not supported for Intel graphics.
First off I do agree that the GMA X3100 isn't a bad card, but apparently it doesn't kick it for SC2. Read below.
I have the same exact machine specs except I have a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo, and I was also in the SC2 beta since mid March. When the Mac beta came out I was eager to try it. I did, and I was disappointed to learn that even with everything on low it ran UNPLAYABLY. I went on the Battle.net Forums to see if the X3100 is supported, and the developers said it is NOT because its chipset is too slow. You would need at least an early model 2008 MacBook (the early unibodies) or anything from there on up that started to have the nVidia 9400m integrated video cards/boards. I doubt this'll change when retail hits the shelves in the next few days..
And second off, with that said, SC2 has a similar engine to WC3 (and WoW to some extent), which both run great on the X3100 on medium to high settings... and I do realize that WC3 is an older title, but it also uses the up-down point of view like SC2 does, including using the scroll-wheel on a mouse to zoom in or out on units and terrain on the map. I don't know nor understand what's changed in SC2's graphics subsystem to make it require more graphics horsepower.... It'd be interested to find out.