Doom III system requirements

[sash1]

here

Just noticed it as I was browsing FS.

I highly doubt that a system with those specs would be able to play Doom III. My secondary rig can't even play some year old games and it is much more powerful than those specs say. Oh well...

Thought some may care,

~Aunix

 

[DaveSimmons]

My secondary rig can't even play some year old games and it is much more powerful than those specs say.

At what resolution? Old-tech speed goes way up when you drop the resolution to 800x600 or 640x480. A gf1 and 1 GHz certainly won't do 1280x1024 with AA and high quality, but it might do 640x480 at "quake 3 quality." Not that I'd want to play with that much comprimising

I'm more curious to see what the minimum is for good and maximum quality -- are people upgrading their 1.6 - 2 GHz systems needlessly, and do we really need a fx5900 to see all the eye candy?

 

[Schadenfroh]

i notice you have a parhelia, tell us about it. Is it any good?

 

[Corporate Thug]

like i said, 2ghz cpu, 9500 pro or better, 512 ram and you're set

 

[Pete]

Remember that the rule of thumb is twice the recommended specs for flawless performance. I don't think that minimum spec will be too much fun, but we'll see. I'm willing to swap my 9100 into my P3-866 to see what minimum spec feels like. Going by my experience, I'd guess not much fun.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yeah notice the note they put in

so double those figures if you want to play it like it's meant to be

yeah they cover the bases... Peeps, minimum specs is just that, anything lower and the game may not even load up. Some poor blokes out there somehow find ways to put up with such terrible performance with such low end systems but they do exist.

2GHz, 512MB of ram and a GF3/4 Rad8500+ and you should be sitting pretty at 1024x768 and up provided your hardware gets faster from there.

 

[BFG10K]

GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series card

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing those specs at all. A Radeon 7000 is too slow to run GLQuake, much less Doom 3.

Remember that the rule of thumb is twice the recommended specs for flawless performance.

Sounds familiar.

 

[Bateluer]

The CPU and Memory reqs are believable, but Carmack is on record saying 'Do not buy a GF4 MX for Doom 3"' Are we to believe 4 year old cards like the GF1 and Radeon 7000, which choke on Quake 3 will be able to run Doom3? Pfft, marketing BS.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i'm just gonna copy and past what i posted in the general hardware thread...


yes, Doom 3 and HL2 is being developed so that ONLY 5900 Ultra 256 mb and 9800 pro 256mb combined with a 3.2 Ghz p4 can run it smoothly. you see, ID and Sierra (are they doin HL2???) have no want or need to make a profit from these releases so they are just making it so that 1% of 1% of all the computers in the world can run it...

 

[Bateluer]

Isn't Sierra is serious financial trouble? They closed a number of studios a while back.

 

[Confused]

Jeez, how many more of these damn threads are going to be needed. I think i'm gonna make a thread and get the Mods to sticky them! However that still won't work because everyone will still make threads, even with 18 stickies

We have no way of knowing how the game will run on specific hardware, until it is released.

Look at the Q3 specs, and see whether you would like to run it on that rig. No, i didn't think so. These game engines (from Valve and id) are going to be the engines for the games of the next 3-4 years, so they will need to scale. They will not run at full speed on current hardware, with the details and res right up. For that to happen, it will be shooting themselves, and hardware manufacturers in the foot. They need the game engine to require better hardware so newer and better hardware will be made, and bought.

It will probably run, albeit very slowly, at 640x480 with lowest details on the min spec, and at a few fps. They only said it would run, they didn't say how well.

Think how long it took for hardware to come out that can run Q3 based games at 16x12x32 with 4xAA and 16xAF. These cards have only just come out, and this is for an engine about 4 years old.


Confused

 

[FluxCap]

We have no way of knowing how the game will run on specific hardware, until it is released.

Actually I will know at Quakecon next month. Not much longer now.

 

[ramazorg]

those system requirements are just to OPEN the game. I have 1.8 ghz p4 and geforce 4 ti4200 and Raven Shield chokes like mad. Now Doom 3 takes up way more resources.

I remember minimum requirements for q3 are like 200 mghz and some videocard but in reality you need at least 500 mghz to play it on like 640 x 480..

so if you want high quality graphics in d3 I think it's best to wait for 6 ghz cpus and geforce 6 or 7.. They will be able to run the game the way it was meant to be played...


by the way games for pc are badly optimized, they could do same things with smaller hardware specs

 

[McArra]

Very pesimistic people over here.

 

[Regs]

those system requirements are just to OPEN the game. I have 1.8 ghz p4 and geforce 4 ti4200 and Raven Shield chokes like mad. Now Doom 3 takes up way more resources

Get rid of that wille core !

 

[Jeff7181]

These game engines (from Valve and id) are going to be the engines for the games of the next 3-4 years, so they will need to scale. They will not run at full speed on current hardware, with the details and res right up.

Very good point. I'm sure you'll be able to just not use DX9 optimizations and play it fine on a GeForce4, or even a GeForce3. All you have to do is look to the past to figure out what's going to happen in the future. Sure hardware has jumped slightly ahead of software right now... with 9800 Pro's and FX5900 Ultra's running Quake 3 at over 400 frames per second. But Doom 3 is the software catching up, and passing the hardware. Don't kid yourself, you're gonna need the best of the best to run Doom 3 at full detail and AA and AF turned on at a decent rate, and even at that, it's not going to be what you're used to with Quake 3 based games, and UT2k3. I shoot for 85 frames per second in games I play because that's my monitor's refresh rate. I highly doubt any hardware combo that is available right now will be able to run Doom 3 in full detail at 85 frames per second.
Be realistic... we've got new hardware ready to come out just months from now... THAT is what you're gonna need to play Doom 3 at a decent rate with full details. If you don't need all the special effects like shadows from 16 different light sources, and 2,000 shell casings and bullet holes in walls... then you'll probably be able to run it just fine on today's hardware. I don't plan to spend $2000 to upgrade just so I can run Doom 3 in full detail... I plan to check it out on my current rig, and then upgrade as prices drop when the new GPU cores come out, and the Athlon-64, and DDR2, etc etc.

 

[Regs]

I highly doubt any hardware combo that is available right now will be able to run Doom 3 in full detail at 85 frames per second.

And may not absolutely need to. Just as long as it isn't choppy. Unlike Half life 2 and Quake 3 with 10 other human opponents jumping around and doing back flips while shooting a plasma gun.

 

[FluxCap]

Don't kid yourself, you're gonna need the best of the best to run Doom 3 at full detail and AA and AF turned on at a decent rate, and even at that, it's not going to be what you're used to with Quake 3 based games, and UT2k3. I shoot for 85 frames per second in games I play because that's my monitor's refresh rate. I highly doubt any hardware combo that is available right now will be able to run Doom 3 in full detail at 85 frames per second.

All speculation, so no point in saying it. Seriously. With your post count people might actually take that as gold and it may influence them to spend money they feel they "need" to spend when they don't need to. Help the community, don't hurt it I am not trying to attack your personally but waiting until the demo is out next month is probably the best bet before anymore comments about performance are made.

 

[NYHoustonman]

yes, Doom 3 and HL2 is being developed so that ONLY 5900 Ultra 256 mb and 9800 pro 256mb combined with a 3.2 Ghz p4 can run it smoothly. you see, ID and Sierra (are they doin HL2???) have no want or need to make a profit from these releases so they are just making it so that 1% of 1% of all the computers in the world can run it...

You're joking, right?

I have 1.8 ghz p4 and geforce 4 ti4200 and Raven Shield chokes like mad.

Raven Shield runs just fine on my second computer, an Athlon 1.3 ghz with an MX420, and my first computer, an Athlon XP 2400+ with a ti4400, tears it apart. Therefore, there must be something wrong. I actually thought it was one of the easier games to run of late.

Side note, the fps level where your eyes can't distinguish anything higher is 60. Whaddyaneed 85 for? I feel that those specs could probably run the game with bare minimum settings, and that my computer could handle it alright sans DX9 (but by then I will have upgraded-another story though)...

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series card

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing those specs at all. A Radeon 7000 is too slow to run GLQuake, much less Doom 3.

Remember that the rule of thumb is twice the recommended specs for flawless performance.

Sounds familiar.

Hmmn, weird, but when I had my Radeon VE 32MB(aka Radeon 7000) on my HTPC with an Athlon Tbird 1.4GHz CPU, it ran Q3A just fine at 1024x768, so I would think GLQuake would be a breeze. Heck, GLQuake would be a breeze with my old Voodoo3

Oh and even UT2K3 ran pretty decently on the HTPC at that resolution, albeit without the eye candy options turned on.

 

[Pete]

To: NYHoustonman
Re: Sarcasm

Look into it.

 

[BFG10K]

ery pesimistic people over here.

When it comes to system requirements (especially for unreleased games) that's the only way to go as minimum requirements for games are always ridiculously low.

Side note, the fps level where your eyes can't distinguish anything higher is 60.

No it isn't. In fact that comment is meaningless since the concept of "you don't need anything more than X FPS" is also meaningless.

Hmmn, weird, but when I had my Radeon VE 32MB(aka Radeon 7000) on my HTPC with an Athlon Tbird 1.4GHz CPU, it ran Q3A just fine at 1024x768,

1024 x 768 x 32? My GTS used to struggle at times at that setting on the bigger maps so I ran it at 800 x 600 x 32 instead. IIRC my Radeon 7000 only gets 90 FPS average at 640 x 480 x 32 in Quake 3, which is pretty pathetic.

Heck, GLQuake would be a breeze with my old Voodoo3

16 bit colour helps the Voodoo3 a lot, unlike the Radeon 7000 which is probably being requested to do 32 bit colour.

 

[Goi]

Yeah, 1024x768x32bit...I'm definitely getting way more than 90FPS average if I set it to 640x480, heck even my V3 did 70+ at 800x600, albeit with 16bit color and no FSAA/AF.

 

[railer]

<yawn>

The min specs are certainly not just to "open" the game.
Those are the min specs that are needed to run the game satisfactorily, albeit at a relatively low res. (say 800x600) with AA and AF off, at medium detail levels.

Not doubt a GF3 and a ghz+ chip will be sufficient.

Those of you who feel the need to blow $400 on a video card feel free....I think you're all pretty funny.

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: railer
<yawn>

The min specs are certainly not just to "open" the game.
Those are the min specs that are needed to run the game satisfactorily, albeit at a relatively low res. (say 800x600) with AA and AF off, at medium detail levels.

Not doubt a GF3 and a ghz+ chip will be sufficient.

Those of you who feel the need to blow $400 on a video card feel free....I think you're all pretty funny.

The min specs are what will be be able to run it at the lowest res, with the lowest details, and at a few FPS. I know someone who has a GF4MX, and plays Unreal 2 at about 15FPS, and he's happy.

Would I or you be happy with that, probably not.

We have been spoiled in the past year or so with faster hardware than the games really need, but with these new engines coming out which, as I said earlier, will be the engines for the next few years, they will be shooting themselves in the feet if they don't require faster hardware to run it.


Confused