E-mail:
Password:
GameSpot Video Games, PC, Wii, PlayStation 2, GameCube, PSP, DS, GBA, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3

By: Sarju Shah and James Yu - Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2006.

World of Warcraft wasn't a performance monster when Blizzard first released the game in late 2004. Players with modest and even mediocre systems could all get passable frame rates in Azeroth. Blizzard has stated that World of Warcraft will eventually get graphical improvements to keep the game up to date, but those changes aren't coming in the game's first expansion pack, World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. With 8 million subscribers and growing, you don't need to push out advanced graphics and raise hardware requirements just yet.

We revisited World of Warcraft in this new hardware performance guide since many of you will be returning to the game for the opening of the dark portal, or using the expansion as an excuse to upgrade your PC systems. Several generations of video cards have passed since World of Warcraft's initial release. The GeForce 6 series has long been replaced by the GeForce 7 series, and the 8 series is already here. Entry-level video cards have improved in the past two years. The industry's rapid pace of innovation means that you can buy a lot more processing power today for the same amount of money. The game doesn't require the best hardware to run well, but you will get better performance from the latest technology.

It's difficult to create a reproducible benchmark in an MMO with a persistent world. You could spawn your own dungeon instance or find an empty spot hidden away from player traffic, but we wanted to include that foot traffic since it's a major part of the gameplay experience. We decided to use the first 60 seconds of the gryphon flight from The Stair of Destiny to Honor Hold in the Hellfire Peninsula as our benchmark. It's the first flight path you encounter in the new Outland area, and the path is the same every time you take it. One significant variable out of our control is the number of players and monsters we fly over on the path. Frame rates varied at the low-resolution settings but became fairly stable at higher resolution levels such as 1600x1200 and 2048x1536.

Game Settings

You can easily run the game with all the settings enabled on most midrange hardware, but you can disable a few settings to get more performance from less powerful systems.

Graphics

Upgrading your video card will get you higher frame rates and higher resolutions, but you can still get decent performance out of older hardware. We tested the Burning Crusade on 14 different video cards.

CPU

The Burning Legion is very CPU friendly. You'll be able to play just fine on a two- or three-year-old CPU, but getting a better processor can still improve your frame rates.

Memory

World of Warcraft still loves memory. If you're only going to get one upgrade for Burning Crusade, make it an extra 1GB of RAM.



Sign up now to post a comment on this story!

284 Comments

First to Last Latest
1 2 3 4 5 6
« prevnext »
Bytor60150

I'm running w/ a Core Duo E6300-1.87- 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7600 GT OC and it runs great at 1280x1024 with everything cranked. Out side of cities where I usually get @ 35-45 fps I usually get 60-65 fps.

Posted Jun 30, 2008 2:05 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
BrolyLSSJ3

lol im running this on a very low end comp and it still runs just fine

Posted Jun 24, 2008 3:33 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Corey496

I'm running this with an AMD Phenom Quad-Core 9850, Nvidia Geforce 9800GX2, 4GB OCZ Platinum 800mhz RAM, Creative Soundblaster XF-I Xtreme Gamer and a pretty decent motherboard (not sure of exact spec) But I absolutely destroy this game! lol

Posted Apr 25, 2008 1:56 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
master_chief_MN

I'm running Wow+expansion just fine on a Dell Latitude D600 with 2Ghz Processor, 2GB ram, and a Radeon 9000 graphics card (32MB even!). I just bump down my resolution to 1024x768 to give it some extra kick when I need to. How is it that you are monitoring your frame rate?

Posted Apr 15, 2008 9:04 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
soccerguy93

@rokkuman09: Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Posted Dec 31, 2007 10:39 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
gizmonix

to matt168, Thats what I am running my system with, and I have about a steady 30-45 fps in non-crowded areas. In, say, Orgrimmar, it drops to about 15. Btw I have my settings at max everything on 1028x700 res. p4 3.4, 2 gigs ram, and the 8500 gt gpu.

Posted Dec 28, 2007 2:38 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
franekKimo

Plaing this on 2 laptops IBM ThinkPad T40 with 32MB graphic card (no problems at all) and on Toshiba P100-429 NVidia 7600 128MB - same thing.

Posted Dec 27, 2007 1:43 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
saywat11

this game is full of epic win

Posted Dec 23, 2007 4:32 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-2)
rokkuman09

soccerguy93 in most notebooks it is impossible or near impossible to replace the graphics card. In some notebooks you could upgrade the processor (if you can find a processor that works with the notebook), but it might be hard to do.

Posted Dec 23, 2007 12:08 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
Crappio

I'm running at a super smooth 80fps alone and 30fps in Ironforge with my new system on all max at 1280 x 1024

Intel Core 2 Duo E550 2GB 667mhz RAM
2x nVidia 256mb 8600GT's in SLi Windows Vista Home Premium

Thats well more than you need to play the game on max, I reckon this could easily do it:

Intel Pentium 4 3.00ghz
1GB 667mhz
ATI X1650
Windows XP

Posted Dec 22, 2007 1:13 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Adam_the_Nerd

For those of you complaining, I'm running on AMD Athlong 1.1 GHZ, 512MB RAM and 64MB nVidia Geforce4 MX440.

Who has it tough now fools haha.

Posted Dec 22, 2007 12:15 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+2)
Doric6

Im using Intel Core 2 Duo 6400, Geforce 8800 GTS 640mb and 2GB DDR2 RAM with max video settings and still hover between 50 and 75 FPS

Posted Dec 22, 2007 6:04 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-1)
soccerguy93

I'm not sure but, you can't replace the processor or graphics card on a notebook, right?

Posted Dec 21, 2007 7:33 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
soccerguy93

I'm running a 1.59 GHz 1.2 gigs of ram with a 128mb graphics card...

I need an update....

Posted Dec 21, 2007 7:26 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
matt168

could a 6150LE play this?

Posted Nov 22, 2007 6:18 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
matt168

could a 6150LE play this?

Posted Nov 22, 2007 6:15 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
mailbox2112

matt168, get an 8600GT its a little more expensive but, definitly worth it

Posted Sep 3, 2007 6:37 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
matt168

how would a BFG 8500GT play this game at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. i havent bougth the card yet but it was on sale for $129

Posted Jul 30, 2007 5:10 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Insanest6849

thats because its a notebook

Posted Jul 22, 2007 6:14 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
Leria

This is a fun game, but they REALLY need to start cutting back on the requirements to get the best performance. On the lowest settings for everything...... my new notebook computer with an inline graphics card can BARELY manage to get 30 fps. Activating everything..... it's basically unplayable, with 3-4 frames per second, max.
Sometimes, it just crashes without warning.

Posted Jul 20, 2007 3:44 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
Specimen2501

It was fun for about 2 months then.....SNOOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!!!!

Posted Jul 10, 2007 3:21 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-2)
suetracy

are these marks FPS? It just says performance not FPS so im not sure

Posted Jul 7, 2007 3:30 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
V4LENT1NE

Skormm, no one needs to even answer that, you know how it will run. It just sounds like you are showing off.

Posted Jun 26, 2007 5:43 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+2)
Trazac

Why not a performance guide?

Posted Apr 16, 2007 5:47 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+2)
eoin-99

why a performance guide?

Posted Apr 11, 2007 3:14 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-2)
Trazac

Go back to XP, thats a suggestion. @Geon106 that is laughable. Do a bit of homework next time instead of thinking all hardware is ahead of time because of the year. That and laptops suck for gaming.

Posted Apr 3, 2007 6:00 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
RTS-FPS-Gaming

yea am i have vista ultimate and am just wondering if it will work for this game? any suggestings

Posted Mar 31, 2007 3:07 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Geon106

Someone asked if they could play on Vista, yes, i beleive Blizzard released a patch for Vista. I wish GS had tested on older hardware, because i play on my laptop which is the following spec:
AMD Sempron 2800+
NVIDIA GeforceFX Go5200 64MB RAM
512MB DDR RAM

I got it in 2004 so I thought it would play WoW at relativly good graphics, but i have everything on low and a low resolution and it still runs fairly slow.

Posted Mar 28, 2007 10:55 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
Trazac

CPU has almost not pull in this game if you're just a moderate gamer

Posted Mar 20, 2007 12:04 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
shamarke

(Noob question)I got AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ do you guys think its a good performance????

Posted Mar 20, 2007 1:26 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-1)
Protocol_5

What about Mac users?

Posted Mar 17, 2007 3:36 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
rokkuman09

This was a good article. My graphics card will run 90fps at 1600 x 1200. But Gamespot really needs to include more hardware. Like older processors and graphics cards. People still use them and want to know how will they will work with newer games.

Posted Mar 16, 2007 1:11 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+2)
matt168

is this game nvidia fav cause a 7900GS gets high frames then a 1950pro and i saw alot that the 1950 pro was a bit faster then the 7900GS

Posted Mar 8, 2007 7:02 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Trazac

failure...

Posted Feb 20, 2007 7:26 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
MikeD213

i have vista. will i be able 2 play this on it

Posted Feb 20, 2007 3:39 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-1)
Aureoloss

as always, you guys did not include older processors that people are still using.

Posted Feb 10, 2007 12:10 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
vitz3

Uhh you mean Burning "Crusade". Not Legion

Posted Feb 7, 2007 5:13 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
pauldarkside

lolgubbe ... Your, and I quote "intel core 2 duo 1.9 ghz so total 3.8 ghz" is where you sorely mistaken. It looks like you have the E6300 core 2 duo, a good chip but it's a basic C2D chip, nothing fancy. You have 2 cores capable of factory default clock speeds of 1.9GHz each. Perhaps you could apply for a job in Intel's marketing department because even they don't make the mistake of advertising an E6300 as a 3.8GHz chip. Thanks for the entertainment though - it passed the time away whilst waiting for the Supreme Commander demo to be released.

Posted Feb 6, 2007 6:16 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
ldavidtw2000

To be honest, I'll really pay attention to extra clouds while fighting, yeah.
or take a close look at ground or water and try to satisfy myself with some glow and tell everybody about it.

after all it's a cartoonish game, super high quality is still a cartoonish game, it's designated as so.

Posted Feb 5, 2007 8:39 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+1)
Trazac

Dude, shut up

Posted Feb 5, 2007 12:12 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-2)
coolgames89

I got nothing to say, im happy about my pc, thank you gamespot for the article though would've liked to see how a 2 7600GT's would lol,

Posted Feb 3, 2007 11:35 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (-2)
saugh

Yeah I really need the extra memory, oh well, hopefully this week.

Posted Feb 2, 2007 4:17 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
ahrensy

There is talk about using old-spec'd PC's and having WoW run fine in most areas. This is true (in most areas), as long as you have 1G+ RAM, but start 40-man raiding in high level instances, and watch your framerate DROP... hehe

Posted Jan 30, 2007 5:26 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
LTomlinson21

Thanks for the info.

Posted Jan 28, 2007 1:32 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
Trazac

asus en7900 gs TOP? Really nice card, cheap and fast, yet the 7950 GT is about the same price and a little faster

Posted Jan 28, 2007 7:26 am PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
chaoscougar1

im getting a new graphics card, the ASUS EN7900GS, its a cheap overclock of the original 7900GS and i have been hearing very good things about it

Posted Jan 27, 2007 8:51 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
KevNSt

first off, i'm sorry if my rant about a somewhat useless and non-enlightening hardware guide started all this - though i hope it didn't...

now, here's something all can laugh about.
and i do mean ALL of you, even those claiming to "run a pretty old PC"
my current pc-setup:

amd athlon(tm) processor, 1.40 Ghz(no, not a 2800+ type, the prior model)
some asus motherboard from the same era(what, 4-6 years ago?)
768 mb pc2100 ddr(?) ram(been so long since i checked, i can't even remember)
creative radeon 9600

had a minor hdd malfunction the other day, so i'm now down to an 80G WD caviar ide(possibly eide) at 7200 rpm(not that this makes any difference for wow)

here's the thing, as long as i do my part and stop downloads or other bandwith busters, the game runs just fine in most areas

oh, btw - i'm on a 19" lcd, with max res at a whopping 1200X1086 (up from a 15", so i'm happy )

have fun playing whatever you play


oh, lolgubbe: please contact me in your own language - i suspect we either share native language or possibly live in neigbor( never quite sure how that word's spelled - sorry if i've gotten it wrong though) countries...

for the next months i'll be buying parts though, got to get a system that's a bit more up to date

Posted Jan 27, 2007 1:05 pm PT
Login to rate this comment
/ (+0)
1 2 3 4 5 6
« prevnext »
advertisement