Doom III system requirements

[NYHoustonman]

At rates above 60 FPS the situation changes: if your PC is delivering 60 FPS or more then your eye is fully fooled into believing non-flickering motion. Many people believe that frame rates above 60 per second are a waste of time and money as the eye can't detect all those extra frames. However, when frame rates climb into the triple digits the human eye can detect differences in quality, not quantity. Ultimately, only you can decide how many FPS is enough...


This from a random article I looked up...So you can see details a tiny bit better, but really you won't notice any difference in how jerky the motion is. It's just a fact, please don't try and argue it...

 

[Lonyo]

Once I bought a game that had min specs of something like P166 with 32MB RAM and I ran it OK on a P120 with 24MB RAM. Just FYI

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
This from a random article I looked up...So you can see details a tiny bit better, but really you won't notice any difference in how jerky the motion is. It's just a fact, please don't try and argue it...

This is how I'm going to end my arguments from now on. Rather than provide tangible proof, I'm going to quote some random article without a link, all the while proclaiming that "it's a fact" and that any further discussion is a waste of time.

Here is a crazy thought: I can plainly see with my very own eyes the difference between 60fps and 120fps both in smoothness and quality during high speed movement. It's just a fact, please don't try and argue it...

 

[Dark4ng3l]

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.[/quote]

You cant run GLQuake in 32 bit color........

 

[NYHoustonman]

Touchy, Touchy...I didn't have the time to do any more than that, don't be such an asshole about it...

http://www.planetdescent.com/d3help/framerate.shtml
http://home.columbus.rr.com/luna/crusher/
http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm

A few examples. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything, I just wasn't in the mood for an argument. But don't be such an ass about it, seriously...I suppose it could vary from person to person, but above 60 there really isn't any difference except for, apparently, details.

 

[BFG10K]

Yeah, 1024x768x32bit...

Quake 3 must've been crawling at that setting. No matter which way you cut it the Radeon 7000 is completely obsolete now, much less when Doom3 arrives.

if your PC is delivering 60 FPS or more then your eye is fully fooled into believing non-flickering motion.

Almost everyone can see 60 Hz flicker.

Many people believe that frame rates above 60 per second are a waste of time and money as the eye can't detect all those extra

And many people are wrong.

It's just a fact, please don't try and argue it...

No, it's not a fact, I myself can easily see the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS.

Also I'll say it again: the statement "the human eye can only see X FPS" is wrong on so many levels that the number you use is irrelevant. The situation is far more complex than just picking a simple number out of the sky.

You cant run GLQuake in 32 bit color........

You most certainly can.

 

[Goi]

Erm, actually, Quake3 wasn't at all crawling at 1024x768@32bit color on the Radeon VE(effectively a 7000) on a Thunderbird 1.4GHz. Seriously, its quite playable, as long as you disable FSAA/AF and apply a bit of moderation on the other eye candy settings, and I'm not even talking about disabling everything

 

[NYHoustonman]

http://www.joz3d.net/html/fps.html

I suppose all the links I posted are wrong, then...I guess maybe max framerate could also depend on the resolution you're playing at, or maybe I'm wrong entirely...First place I heard it was PC World a while back. No need to get so heated about it, though

...

 

[CraigRT]

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.

Totally agree... I have a Radeon 7000 at work and it's pretty much useless for anything, let alone DOOM 3.....

 

[Kaama]

jeez, how badly do you guys set up your machines/games configs?

I played GL Quake on my Voodoo1 and it ran fine. I played Q3 for the first year on my celery 450 with 128mb and TNT2U, no probs. When I got my Tbird 1ghz and GF2mx it just flew along, and still does.

Have recently upgraded to P4 2.4C but still have GF2mx, happily playin Q3 800x600 with lightmap and picmip 1 and get 70 -120 fps solid on 16 player servers. How anyone could think that Q3 would crawl with Gforce1/2mx is beyond me and frankly misinformed. Of course it will not be much cop at todays games res of 1024 + but I even play Unreal 2 happily at 640x480 obv. with low eye candy, no slow up probs.

I fully agree with you there Goi. its gonna be no HL2/D3 card, but Q3 ... please.

 

[rbV5]

I suppose all the links I posted are wrong, then...I guess maybe max framerate could also depend on the resolution you're playing at, or maybe I'm wrong entirely...First place I heard it was PC World a while back. No need to get so heated about it, though ...

Yes, they are wrong, dated, and when you say

It's just a fact, please don't try and argue it...

You just open yourself up to heated exchange. The articles you link are hardly the definative last word on the subject and are in fact fraught with errors and based on virtually the same common misconceptions. These are your proofs?...bah!

 

[ultimatebob]

These system requirements sound totally reasonable, considering that the game will not be released until early 2004. By then, we should be able to get a system with a 3 Ghz+ processor and a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra equivalent video card for under $1,000.

 

[BFG10K]

Erm, actually, Quake3 wasn't at all crawling at 1024x768@32bit color on the Radeon VE(effectively a 7000) on a Thunderbird 1.4GHz.

Can you run some benchmarks along with the settings you used? I definitely remember ~90 FPS average on my Radeon 7000 at 640 x 480 x 32 with 0x AF and 0x AA. At 1024 x 768 I'm sure the card would easilly dip far below an unplayable 60 FPS average.

jeez, how badly do you guys set up your machines/games configs?

My rig is setup very well for gaming.

I played GL Quake on my Voodoo1 and it ran fine.

Being able to run GLQuake at 640 x 480 x 16 is not fine and is also a lot different to running it at 1024 x 768 x 32.

GLQuake is such an old game that I'd expect at least 150 FPS average at 1600 x 1200 x 32 from a card in order for it to have even the slightest hope of being able to manage Doom3.

How anyone could think that Q3 would crawl with Gforce1/2mx is beyond me and frankly misinformed.

800 x 600 is a sub-par resolution, that's why; cards like the GTS and original Radeon made 1024 x 768 a standard resolution three years ago.

The bare minimum these days is 1024 x 768 and my personal minimum is 1152 x 864 x 32. 1280 x 960 is a standard resolution these days while my standard resolutions are 1600 x 1200 and 1792 x 1344.

 

[Goi]

I don't have the Radeon VE anymore, I've sold it and upgraded the HTPC rig to a Radeon 8500, but I clearly remember many happy hours of Q3A fragging at 1024x768x32bit color on that rig. Not miserably fragging, but happy fragging, with good framerates. Q3A was released at a time when the V3/TNT2 were king, and those were probably even beyond the "recommended system requirements". The Radeon VE is like twice their performance, and I really don't see why you have trouble believing that it would deliver good performance in a 4 year old game. Perhaps you're asking too much if you expect 200FPS, but personally I don't need 200FPS for it to be playable.

 

[BFG10K]

The Radeon VE is like twice their performance, and I really don't see why you have trouble believing that it would deliver good performance in a 4 year old game.

Because I have one and when it was in my rig I tested it extensively.

From my results I wouldn't even recommend it to play GLQuake and instead I'd only recommend it to someone who wants cheap DVD and dual-display support.

 

[Goi]

Erm, ok man, if you need 1600x1200 at 300FPS at the highest graphical settings then I can't help you there. Whatever floats your boat dude, but meanwhile I'm sure there are still many other people having lotsa fun with their Radeon VEs and GF2MXs

 

[Kaama]

BFG10K

A Radeon 7000 is too slow to run GLQuake, much less Doom 3.

Kaama

I played GL Quake on my Voodoo1 and it ran fine.

If you do not want to inspire a backlash then you need to qualify your statements.

Being able to run GLQuake at 640 x 480 x 16 is not fine

As far as I am concerened, it 'ran' fine. To say it didn't is just a matter of opinion. It is pointless to compare this to todays hardware and games. 640x480 back in the Quake days of 15" monitors was a decent resolution. Many, many people now, including myself, only have 17" monitors where 1600x1200 is an absolute maximum rather than a desired gaming resolution.

Just for fun - I used the benchmark demo pack from here. Both are designed to represent worst case.

800x600
demo1 - 82fps
demo2 - 94.4fps

1024x768
demo1 - 65fps
demo2 - 73fps

 

[BFG10K]

640x480 back in the Quake days of 15" monitors was a decent resolution.

Exactly. But a Radeon 7000 isn't from the Quake days, it's from the UT2003 days. You can't take hardware, resolutions and games from 1998 and use them to determine that today's hardware is good. A good card today should run GLQuake something like ten times faster than the old hardware, not just two or three times faster like the Radeon 7000 does. A good card today should be running today's games at today's resolutions well, not yesterday's games at yesterday's resolutions.

Just for fun - I used the benchmark demo pack from here. Both are designed to represent worst case.

Wonderful. Now instead of just reporting the averages would you also like to comment on your minimum framerate too?

I guarantee you that even at 800 x 600 (which is a sub-par resolution these days) your framerate will drop to unplayable levels with those averages.

 

[Ferocious]

Any Quake 2 expert will tell you that there is indeed a very noticeable difference between 60 and say 120 fps.

There are jumps that (although possible at 60 fps) are much easier done at 120fps and up.

 

[Goi]

Not all Quake2 players are Quake2 experts, and experts probably won't buy a Radeon VE. The 'V' in VE stands for Value, and so this card caters to budget conscious gamers rather than hardcore gamers. It does its job fine in that area. btw the Radeon 7000 isn't from the UT2003 days at all. It was released like 2-3 years ago. That's the year 2000/2001, not 2003, so I don't know how you thought it was ever meant to play UT2003 in its full glory when the game was released 2-3 years after the card was. Its like expecting a GF4MX to play Doom3 in its full glory when it comes out. However, the Radeon VE can play games from its era pretty well, as long as you apply a bit of sensibility in the graphical settings and expectations. Bottom line is, many people are happy with 60-100FPS average, so stop acting like 60FPS is a slide show, coz it isn't to most people.

 

[Kaama]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Wonderful. Now instead of just reporting the averages would you also like to comment on your minimum framerate too?

Those demos represent worst case scenario. Those framerates will be the lowest average I should experience. A momentary drop is not representative of the cards performance and the gaming experience, I could just as easily put my highest fps of 180+ but it would be just as meaningless. Show me a review site that records the lowest frame rate of any benchmark rather than the average rates over a variety of demos/resolutions.

I have my fps displayed on screen all the time, as I said it is nearly always between 70, at worst, and my cap of 125, most commonly being at 90+. Your experience with a similar card sounds unfortunate, which is why I questioned your setup as I enjoy much better performance than you proclaim.