Slashdot Mirror
Doom 3 System Requirements Revealed
The Llama King writes "The Houston Chronicle's Computing column has got the Doom 3 minimum system requirements. Biggest eye-opener: 384 MB of memory. Lots of mainstream PCs have been sold with 256 MB of RAM, so upgrades will be in order. RAM chip manufacturers should be salivating about now. You'll also need a 1.5-GHz processor and a GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 graphics card or better."
>But if you do need a new chip, unless you take joy in swapping out a motherboard or building your own system, Doom 3 is probably as good an excuse as any to buy a new PC.
Who the hell wrote that, a Mac user?
You don't buy a new fucking computer, you take it down to your local computer shop and get them to upgrade it if you don't want to do it yourself.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
I don't want to burst your bubble, but a Radeon 9600, isn't going to give you the best graphical performance for D3. Of course if you will settle for the revolutionary ground breaking gameplay of D3 and its new original storyline and all, then you should be satisfied.
Please insert the correct use of sarcasm and sense of humor as appropriate.
It was written in Java, right? Then the breakdown would be:
- Windows XP : uses 256 of your 384, leaving 128 MB.
- Java VM : Uses 96 MB of your remaining 128, leaving 32.
- Actual DOOM graphics, maps, tiles and program code: 32 MB.
There, that sounds about right.Why they think they need 384 MB and a 1.5 GHz Pentium III is beyond me. Only the most inefficient of rendering techniques would require this kind of horsepower - heck, Descent only needed 586k! Maybe they're rendering scenes by voxel, rather than using polygon or wireframe models...
Here's what I would expect:
- For 32 bit color rendered at 1600x1200 you would need a frame buffer of 7.68MB (approx)
- You would probably want two, or possibly three framebuffers. 24MB so far.
- Each 64x64 bitmapped tile would take up 16k. If you had even 2,000 of these, you'd still only use up an additional 32MB.
So, if you use 8MB for your maps, code, and data structures, the combined total is still only 64 MB.What are they doing that takes so much memory? Even with an 800MHz FSB, rendering 100 fps leaves only enough time to access 32 MB per frame. Why would they need 384 MB?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
*FOOOOOOOMMMMM* What's that? It's the sound of the joke flying right over your head.
Get a spellchecker, ass pirate.
Here is the issue. First, your comment is pointless. It states what pretty much all slashdot readers know (that Linux is still a small time player in the mass consumer desktop audience). If they don't know anything about Linux, they don't need to hear it from someone on slashdot making an -off the top of their head- estimate about its usage.
"...you should be happy..." is really just pessimistic. Without demands, where is progress?
Also, as a side note, Linux can and more than likely will be the future gaming platform OS. Gaming companies do not want MS to have any amount of control over them. We should all do our best to encourage gaming on Linux so that this transition is easier and faster. The longer one stays with MS, the more time MS has to create "innovative" ways of locking in the software running on their OS.
Your comment serves no purpose other than to discourage those who feel Linux is a better choice than Windows(tm) and choose to voice their opinions.
no they need shooting, especially this one
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It was a fucking joke. "-1 Flamebait?" Geez, I even referenced Barney Doom for the old players around here. I've been a Doom fan longer than a lot of you have been playing Counterstrike.
Pull your head out of your ass. I look forward to the reverse meta-moderations on this one.