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."
is it just me or is anyone else suprised?
even the desktops i order at work come with more than the minimum requirements (1gb ram, 2.4+ processor, geforce 4 (or equiv)).
but i suppose this is minimum requirements...recommended will be much more.
Capability
That's just a shorthand way of saying "we require pixel shaders".
--- I do not moderate.
http://www.linuxgames.com/news/feedback.php?identi ferID=6737&action=flatview/
Here's a good article on the technology behind Doom 3.
Essentially, it's geared towards a technology set that's already fairly well established. It relies heavily on normal mapping to produce seemingly high-polygon models when they're actually quite low-polygon. This is all done in OpenGL and not DirectX. Personally, I think it speaks highly of the ID developers that they can make an engine that looks so good on so many PCs.
No ... In fact, I remember Carmack being annoyed with the naming scheme for the GF4 MX cards. Their performance is hardly comparable with a "real" GF4 ... and I don't honestly think an MX is up to par -- at all -- for Doom III.
Who doesn't like free music?
Is the Geforce 4 MX supported?
Yes. Presumably the Chronicle reporter either didn't understand or didn't want to confuse his readers by explaining that the GF4 MX has less advanced functionality than the "lower-numbered" GF3.
I know that origionally Carmak wanted to require programable shaders, is that still the case, or did he relent and support the fixed function pipline that the Geforce 4 MX line inherited from the Geforce 2?
The Doom 3 engine does not and was never conceived of as requiring general-purpose programable fragment shaders. From the beginning Carmack targeted it at the "register-combiner" fragment pipeline of the GeForce 1 (NV1x) family, which allows for restricted combinations of pixel operations but not the programmability of even the very simple PS 1.0-1.3 style shader languages introduced in DX8. (So it's something of a halfway point between the DX7- style fixed-function pixel pipeline and the DX8+ style programmable pipeline. The NV1x register-combiner pipeline did not have an analogue in the Radeon 7x00 series (R1x0) and was not exposed in DX7, so ironically Doom 3--written in OpenGL of course, so using Nvidia's proprietary extensions is allowed--will be one of the first and only games to use the technology.)
Except for some minor effects in the ARB2 (PS 2.0+ level functionality) path, Doom 3 will not be exercising any fragment level functionality that can't be done with register combiners; the only difference is the number of passes required per fragment (5 or more for NV1x in common situations; 2 or 3 for NV2x; and 1 for NV3x+ and R2x0+).
So, leaving performance--and possibly memory size limitations--out of it, Doom 3 is perfectly compatible with any NV1x card, all the way down to the GeForce 1 SDR. Of course this is like saying that you can run Windows XP on a 386; it doesn't address whether the thing is playable or not. Last I heard, id intended on including at least some GF4 MX cards on the minimum requirements list, which would indicate that a GF2 or GF2-Ultra would be even more playable (which is to say not very).
OK. Just want to really quickly disspell some inaccuracies in your post, probably the result of believing Slashdot anti-Microsoft FUD.
try again - longhorn won't be out until at least 2007, and many are saying 2008 or later
Many on Slashdot are saying this -- many who have absolutely no frame of reference and no idea what they're talking about. Microsoft has always said Longhorn would be out in 2006. As far as I know, they're still saying 2006 and they're right on track for 2006, based on the work they've been showing. Expecting a machine to run two years from now is NOT absurd.
the "suggested" specs for a longhorn machine,
What you're talking about...the absurd specs of 4 GHz, terabyte of hard drive, etc...were disspelled as soon as Slashdot "reported" them. Right now, the recommended specs for a development build of Longhorn -- DEVELOPMENT, mind you, not "just running it" but actively writing, debugging and profiling software -- are 1.6GHz and 1GB of RAM, and suggested DirectX 9 support with 64MB of VRAM. Nearly identical speed to the Doom 3 requirements with a nice ram boost.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The problem with your speech is that D3 was written in C++.