Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Specs For id's Next Game After Doom 3 Calculated

Posted by simoniker on from the clever-boy dept.

jvm writes "Since my current PC is beefy enough to play Doom 3, I began planning for id Software's next game, the one that will come out _after_ Doom 3, so I've worked out the release date and minimum system requirements. It looks like a 3GHz processor and 1.5Gb of RAM just won't cut it in 2007, although the hard disk requirement doesn't hurt too much. Where's this information coming from? From id Software's past game requirements, a couple of exponential and linear models, and some pretty graphs. Start saving for that upgrade now! (Slashdot recently covered the Doom 3 system requirements.)"

62 comments

  1. Wow. by iMMersE · · Score: 1, Troll

    You Sir, have way too much time on your hands!

    --
    codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
  2. I think we should all just give up by Dh2000 · · Score: 1

    Upgrading every year is for the nerds^Wbirds.

    1. Re:I think we should all just give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I would assume by your use of notation that you'll be upgrading, then?

  3. Start saving nothing... by skermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I paid over $3000 for a P-90w/64mb of ram back when it was the top of the line... now you can get a top of the line computer for roughly half that. The bleeding edge price of computer hardware has been dropping steadily, so by the time we need all that computing power, it'll cheap enough to own.

    --
    -Christopher Wu
    http://www.christopherwu.net/
    1. Re:Start saving nothing... by Dragoon412 · · Score: 1

      It's true that you can get a competant gaming PC for $1500, but it'd be a far cry from top-of-the-line.

      RAID, high-speed SATA drives, high-performance video cards, high-performance memory, a top-end CPU with a mainboard to match, with a quality case and the PSU that'll handle it all... you're looking more at a $2000+ price tag.

      Nevermind that you could easily rack up a couple thousand more going for a bleeding edge CPU and a display unit worthy of such a system. ...and that's self or custom-built. If you ordered that system from the likes of Dell or Alienware, you're looking at $4-5000, easy.

    2. Re:Start saving nothing... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do I really need all that for a gaming machine, though? I mean, are save-games so important that I really need RAID?

      Another thing to consider is inflation. I realize skermit's info is anecdotal, but let's use it as a demonstration. This site says the Pentium 90 appeared in 1994. The Inflation Calculator says that $3000 in 1994 dollars is $3645.04 in 2003 dollars (the most recent data available).

      Assuming you aren't just putting stuff in your PC because it's possible to do so, I'm pretty sure a top gaming PC today is certainly no more expensive than the analogous PC of a decade ago, and I suspect it'll be cheaper.

      Anyone care to compile actual numbers, instead of relying on skermit's and Dragoon412's estimates?

    3. Re:Start saving nothing... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Do I really need all that for a gaming machine, though? I mean, are save-games so important that I really need RAID?"

      Games hit the harddrive for 3 reasons:
      1) Save-games (no big deal)
      2) Loading maps (sometimes a pain in the ass)
      3) Accessing the resources (it does it more if you have less ram).

      RAID would only come in handy if the game you're playing has really long load-times, or if you're hitting a cache-file a lot.

      For saved games, yeh, it's pretty useless.

      But as far as price goes, RAID is pretty cheap. A lot of motherboards come with it now, particularly those with SATA ports.

      At that point, you'd just need to buy 2 SATA drives (like, 2 80GB drives), and you'd have a fast RAID solution storing 160GB.

      I'm considering going that route with my next PC. RAID 2 smallish SATA hard drives together for my main system, and back stuff up on a 3rd drive (probably a slow 5,200 RPM drive).

    4. Re:Start saving nothing... by Paladin128 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do I really need all that for a gaming machine, though? I mean, are save-games so important that I really need RAID?
      I'm assuming the parent is refering to RAID-0 striping, which would buy you performance rather than redundancy. And seeing as iD recommends defragging before installing Doom 3 (because it has 2 GB of content, and hard disk speeds have not improved at the same rate as CPU and RAM speeds), a 4-way RAID-0 virtual disk using 10K RPM SATA drives would be damn useful. Think about it: 2 GB of game data. A single scene uses 80+ MB of textures. That's a LOT of reading.

      Man, 80MB of textures, about 15 MB for a 1600x1200 frame buffer (upwards of 4-16 times that if FSAA is used...), insane amounts of geometry data, complex shader code... it actually justifies graphics cards with 256MB VRAM on board.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    5. Re:Start saving nothing... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      A single scene uses 80+ MB of textures. That's a LOT of reading.

      Not really. Modern mid-range 7200 rpm HDs have a peak sustained read of more than 30 MB/s - up to twice that speed actually, but that'd be the best case scenario. At that speed, it'd take all of 3 seconds to load the textures into memory. Loading times of 5 seconds would be more than acceptable to me...

      Now, I won't disagree with your point on graphics cards needing a lot of internal memory, that much is certainly true. Although Doom 3's maximum supported (ie. used) graphics memory of 512 MB is kind of perverse considering it's twice as much as many low-end desktops and many high-end laptops ship with on their main memory banks.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    6. Re:Start saving nothing... by Paladin128 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Modern mid-range 7200 rpm HDs have a peak sustained read of more than 30 MB/s - up to twice that speed actually, but that'd be the best case scenario. At that speed, it'd take all of 3 seconds to load the textures into memory. Loading times of 5 seconds would be more than acceptable to me...

      Key words: peak sustained. That's assuming everything is nice and close together, and usually one large file rather than lots of little ones. In addition to texture data, there's also the geometry for the level, AI, physics code, character models, etc. Quake III takes more than 5 seconds to load a level on my machine (Athlon XP 2400+, 512MB, GeForceFX 5200, 7200rpm hard drive, Linux 2.6).

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    7. Re:Start saving nothing... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      So defrag it and it should be close together, and possibly in one big file. That ought to give you something close to 30 MB/s, which like I said is really the lower bound for sustained read on modern HDs. That said, I'm sure Q3 takes more than 5 seconds to load a level, but I'm not so sure if installing a RAID would help there in any significant way.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    8. Re:Start saving nothing... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      VRAM? You probably don't need 256MB of dual-ported memory. It should be enough to have 32 or 64MB of that, and the rest be ordinary DDR for texture storage. It is not unusual for high-end graphics systems to have one type of ram for video memory, and another type for textures...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Start saving nothing... by Pandaemonium · · Score: 1

      When they say '80 MB per scene', they mean when you stop and look at a single frame render. A whole level will have hundreds of megs of textures to load- all while you are still trying to play the game at 60 FPS. Low-overhead or processing-offloaded storage controllers are a boon for this sort of situation- it's where SATA will shine.

      The faster you can load the data, the less opportunity it has to slow down the rest of the I/O in the system.

    10. Re:Start saving nothing... by Paladin128 · · Score: 1

      I was stating VRAM to mean a generic term for video RAM, as opposed to main memory.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
  4. System Reqs by Plake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, for what it matters I've always found ID to make the best performing games for their minimum requirements. I had a 233mhz for running Quake 3 and that was even low for back when it was released, but it still ran and well I must say (30fps or so, with low res options).

    Just think what Half-Life (3?), or any other major FPS's requirements will be at the time.

    --
    Check out Mon and Mon.cgi
    1. Re:System Reqs by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tell me about it.

      I had a PII 233 when Quake 3 came out. But I had a VOODOO 3 card in there. That game ran like silk on my machine.

      Meanwhile, my friends were bragging to me that their machines were faster (PII 300's with stock video cards). They nearly sh!t a brick when they saw it run on mine (their puny 8MB Rage cards sucked).

      However, you're only siting one example. Quake (the original) really needed a Pentium to play well. At that time, 486's were still more common than the Pentiums, and Quake crawled on them.

      DOOM 1 & 2 REQUIRED a 386 w/ 4MB Ram, but it ran pretty choppy. A 486 ran it like silk.

      In the end, I don't know.

      On one hand, we have previewers saying it runs well on low-end systems, and that the engine is very scalable.

      On the other hand, the "benchmarks" were running HIGH end rigs (obscene amount of RAM, very fast CPU's), and the benchmarks were good, but not great.

      I'm torn as to whether or not I should upgrade now. I have the funds put away for almost a whole new HIGH END system, but I don't know if it's worth it. While a high-end machine will handle DOOM3, can we say the same about the later games that will utilize the engine? They might not be as efficient with their maps and what-not, and you might need like a 4GHz rig to run them in all their glory.

      I want to get a "PCI Express" capable motherboard now, so I can upgrade it later if needed, but it's hard to find them in retail.

      I have a P4 2.4 w. 533 MHz FSB, 1GB Ram, and ATI 9800XT; I consider it a mid-range machine capable of handling mostly anything out there today. The closest system they had to mine in the "benchmarks" TROUNCED my specs, and yet 1024x768 at medium quality (with no AA or AF) ran at like 50FPS. That means mine will be lucky to get like 40FPS at low settings.

    2. Re:System Reqs by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      CORRECTION...

      I meant "PCI Express video cards are hard to find in retail."

      I already know which motherboard I'm getting, and from where. But I'm having a hard time finding the PCI Express video card I want (nVidia 6800 series).

    3. Re:System Reqs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the same way. I'll be building a new PC this fall, and I'd like PCI-Express, but the video cards aren't common at all, yet. I'm hoping there will be a lot more choices when I'm ready to buy. What motherboard did you choose?

    4. Re:System Reqs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the review on HardOCP, they said that the benchmarks, to be fair, locked the engine to using the same quality level for the rendering, while the full game will have older hardware take shortcuts that slightly reduce the quality (for example, shiny stuff will have banding on the old GeForce 3 and 4s [because of the old Pixel Shader 1.0 mode]) and increase the speed dramatically.

    5. Re:System Reqs by dave-tx · · Score: 1

      I think that's an interesting point that many gamers on a budget forget - By turning of just a few of the detail options, you can often get very satisfactory performance running a state-of-the-art game on previous-generation hardware.

      --

      >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

  5. Nope. by fr0dicus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What were the Xbox 2 specs supposed to be again? Seriously, how long can this sustain itself, can't we reach a level where we decide the hardware is good enough, and allow it to trickle down so enough people have it and it starts to become viable to make original games again?

    PC gaming died when GL code was added to Quake, it's a one-trick pony. Now consoles are eating its lunch (you can see it in the sales). Expect further fragmentation if Linux continues to make inroads. Is there a killer app on the horizon that will come into its own when this kind of power becomes available? I can't even see Longhorn needing this kind of ridiculous power.

    1. Re:Nope. by Teancom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ridiculous power? Where I work, we are buying 3.4Ghz P4s with 4 Gigs of RAM for all of our engineers. Granted, I work at a memory manufacturer so the RAMs easy to come by, but we're only paying about $1K for the machines themselves. So I don't think its a stretch at *all* to say that in '07, a top-of-the-line machine from today will be the minimum reqs for a top-of-the-line game then. That's the "thing" about computers: today's overpowered monster is tomorrow's weakling.

      Oh, and the speed of the machine has jack-all to do with making original games or not. If you can make an original game for a 1Mhz C64, or an Apple II, or a 286, then you can make one for any desktop machine in use today.

    2. Re:Nope. by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      PC gaming died when GL code was added to Quake, it's a one-trick pony.

      Ehh, I sort of agree, and sort of disagree. I didn't find Quake all that enjoyable. Technology-wise, it was neat, but I found "Duke Nukem 3d" way more enjoyable, and nicer to look at (even using a 3dFX card with Quake).

      I think developers are focusing too much on eye candy and less on gameplay, with few notable exceptions like "Thief 3." And yes, most PC games aren't THAT original anymore.

      A lot of console games are fun, but most (except Nintendo stuff) are also available on PC.

      I think the reason consoles are doing so well is the same reason they've always done so well: it's easy to jump into.

      With a console, there's no worrying about upgrading, will this support it, do I need new drivers, etc. Joe Sixpack just has to worry he's buying the game for the correct console, and he's set to play. Even people who know nothing about PC's know they can be overly complicated to run and maintain.

      Consoles are cheaper, require little / no maintenance, and can be run by their 6-year-olds. If, a few years down the line they want to "upgrade," they buy the next version for a few hunded dollars.

      If PC's want to trounce on Console sales, they need to compete in SOME way. PC's (the unit itself) are way more expensive than consoles and more complicated. Right now, PC games are around as expensive as console games. Also, you can easily rent games for the consoles, or join renting clubs, to play a game and discard it without shelling out the full price.

      If PC's want to compete (and let's ignore the obvious "make better games" solution), they need to make games cheaper, or offer more good demos on CD's or something to get the word out.

    3. Re:Nope. by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there a killer app on the horizon that will come into its own when this kind of power becomes available

      There was for every other major leap forward in computer power (and every time someone declared the evolution of technology was over, not just in computers). What makes you think the future will be any different?

    4. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your /. user URL is broken.

    5. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed. Thanks!

    6. Re:Nope. by Ty_Webb · · Score: 1

      What fr0dicus is referring to, in my opinion, is the fact that gaming drives hardware improvements/upgrading, not applications. I could run Windows XP (gasp) on a laptop that was ways behind the times (300 some mhz processor). Could it run a game released in the past 2-3 years? Not a chance.

    7. Re:Nope. by fr0dicus · · Score: 1
      A bit of both really. Windows' requirements in the past have been of significant jumps that help to justify that purchase of a new gaming machine - that 300mhz processor laptop will still need to meet the minimum memory and hard drive requirements, which were a large leap over Windows 98 (probably what it shipped with), and even then it will be an unpleasant experience (I found XP an unpleasant experience on a K6-2-500). Clearly there is some complicity between Windows and its hardware manufacturers to continue selling hardware, and Microsoft are not necessarily a fine example of efficient coding, but surely there are limits.

      I'm envisioning a day when the average PC has an 8Ghz processor whose average use is about 1% when not playing a game.

  6. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, it's slowed down.

  7. Graphics by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about graphical requirements? That's a big piece of the picture that's missing from these calculations.

    1. Re:Graphics by Paladin128 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not something that could be plotted easily, as:

      a) only in Quake II was 3D accelleration actually required
      b) a lot of the changes have to do with features rather than clock speed, memory, and fillrate.

      For instance, up until Doom3, no vertex or fragment shaders were required for the card. We don't know what tomorrow will bring in terms of on-chip components and language change. This would be like trying to plot OpenGL version requirements...

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    2. Re:Graphics by reptilezero · · Score: 1

      Quake 2 didn't require hardware acceleration; it had a software renderer as well as a hardware renderer.

    3. Re:Graphics by Paladin128 · · Score: 1

      My bad, but that further illustrates my point. Only QIII, RTCW, and Doom3 required anything special from the graphics card.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    4. Re:Graphics by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Quake II didn't require hardware 3D acceleration-- I played it on a Pentium 133MHz MMX laptop, in software.

    5. Re:Graphics by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 3, Funny

      A simple linear model reveals that a minimum requirement for id's next game after doom 3 will be graphics card with 5d-acceleration.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
  8. Convincing.. by mZam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But i think something that's being left out is the fact that all of these new releases are based on new engines each time.

    Each set of ID games listed.. (D1-3 Q1-3 etc.) Are all based on entirely new engines created for the respecive games (except for doom2).

    In recent interviews about the new ID game, they all said that their new game in the works would utilize an enhanced D3 engine, not an entirely new coded one (like RTCW uses an enhanced q3 engine). They also said that since they have the engine already, release time wont take remotely near as long as it did for D3.

    This is the same for Quake4, which I would assume, uses the D3 engine as well.

    1. Re:Convincing.. by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do list RTCW, and it follows the pattern. So, yeah. :)

      --
      Lalala
  9. Finally... by hal2814 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I'll have something to run on my Longhorn system.

  10. Not too bad, really by smartalecvt · · Score: 1

    Seriously, those requirements aren't too bad. The hard drive space is nothing (comare it too UT2k4!), and these days having a gig of RAM is no stretch. And P4s are already churning at 3gigs. I do wonder what the video cards will be like in 07. You'll probably need a separate tower case just for it.

  11. seriously, who cares ? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
    We first have to see what -really- makes Doom 3 run well.

    Also, a quick view through the article seems that the writer does not recognise the statements made by id that their next game most likely won't take as much development time as D3 took ,as they will only be using a modified D3 engine by that time : and also, they will re-use alot of assets currently in D3 (did a quick google, but can't seem to find that interview in which John Carmack said that).

    All and all, this looked like an article done by some guy , with alot of time on his hands... Then again, I'm posting on this thread...

    1. Re:seriously, who cares ? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      And in addition to this mythical next project from id Software, John Carmack has said that he has at least one more game engine in him.

      Although Doom3 is right around the corner, I can't wait to see their next project(s). The stuff id makes are always jam-packed with goodness :)

      --
      Eat the rich.
  12. Last year's Macintosh should handle it. by dbirchall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't really think Id is being unreasonable, since the specs are well below the Macintosh I bought last year.

    A 3.16GHz x86 is only a smidge (if that) faster than a 64-bit 2GHz PPC970. And I've got dual...

    1.6GB of RAM... well, I've only got 1.5GB right now - but I've got space for 8GB.

    3GB of disk... I think I've still got 50GB or so free on my main 250GB SATA drive... and then there's the second 250GB SATA drive...

    I wonder how many FPS I can get on it running at 1920x1200. :)

    1. Re:Last year's Macintosh should handle it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      probably not a lot since you'll have to run it in a virtual machine.

    2. Re:Last year's Macintosh should handle it. by LordPixie · · Score: 1

      I don't really think Id is being unreasonable

      I don't really think ID is being anything at all. This is baseless extrapolation based on previous history. It's analagous to looking at Valve's release dates, and figuring out that HalfLife3 will be released in 2025. It RandomInternetGeek's comedic guestimation, not a company press release.


      --LordPixie

    3. Re:Last year's Macintosh should handle it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing how ID will release their game for OS X (as so many of their previous games, such as Quake 1,2,3 etc), I don't see why you're not moded moron.

  13. impressive curve-fits by javaxman · · Score: 1
    I mean really, it's shocking how well those log curves fit.

    Moore's law looks pretty well supported by these results, huh?

    I do feel that GPU memory/speed specs are missing, but I can see how they might be hard to quantify, as they often don't show up in game specs in the same manner.

  14. His math is off by inkless1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He isn't taking into account the correct variables.

    It depends utterly on what tech id uses.

    Doom -> Doom 2. Took 1 year apart. Why? Same engine.

    Doom2 -> Quake ... 2 years. Different engine.

    Quake 3 -> Doom 3 ... 5 years. Different engine.

    So if, as rumored, id Project X uses the same engine (or a mildly improved one), we'll probably see it 2005, 2006 at the latest.

    Not 2007

    1. Re:His math is off by frission · · Score: 1

      Yes, the next "id" game will actually not be from id. Raven Software is working on Quake IV with a tweaked Doom 3 engine, that should probably be out next year sometime. Raven has done a lot of great things with the id engines. I think Heretic and Hexen both used the doom/doom2 engine, and Heretic 2 used the quake or quake2 engine, and all those games looked much better than the id games with the same engines, i can't wait!

    2. Re:His math is off by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope Raven remembers Linux support. A Quake game without Linux support would be a very bad move.

      Many Quake fans are Linux users, and they make up a considerable portion of the fanbase.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  15. Half-life 2 release date calculated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if we map the titles that valve has already shipped we can see that half-life came out in year 5769 since creation. Applying the following to our linear model we can predict that half-life 2 will be out in year 11538 since creation or year 7768 AD.

  16. This logic is flawed by space_jake · · Score: 0

    This guy needs to figure video cards into the equation which he hasn't done and would be tricky with past titles. Since video cards now have their own GPU's which lessen the strain on the CPU. This hardware option wasnt around for all of the id titles before quake 3. They are generally new and will be a major factor in determining future requirements.

  17. Pff... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    I just built a top of the line (but no where near near bleeding edge...) general purpose gaming/multimedia rig for about $4k with display (although that display is an apple 20" cinema :P). Athlon XP3200, 1GB Corsair XMSPro, DFI LANParty MoBo, AIW Radeon 9800, 74GB raptor and 2 250GB SATA drives, DVD ROM and DVD burner... You can build a decent rig for $1500, but bleeding edge will always be around $5k.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Pff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay away from that DFI motherboard... Mine gives me no end of weird quirks. Go with the ASUS. Trust me. I mean, sure, it looks fast, and kinda cool. But when you have to go through a 2 minute ritual (that must be performed precisely) if you do something as simple as shut down your computer improperly, you know something's wrong. But re-reading your comment, it seems that it's too late. My recommendation: Get a "BIOS Savior". It's a big help.

  18. Built to last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall Carmack saying something to the extent of this engine is expected to last 6 years or so before a title based on a completely new engine would surface.

  19. Nice quote from there by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Given the current trend any game that id Software releases after July 2024, a mere 20 years from this very month, will require a processor which won't even exist in consumer hardware: the 1.4 terahertz processor. It is unclear at this time how id Software plans to cope with this looming crisis, but signs currently point to a voyage to other planets in search of a civilization with sufficiently advanced technology 1o1

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  20. Depends what you're doing, as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Your 300 MHz processor can run word fine, sure.

    Compile code, yep.

    Run a size 300 oil brush on a 4500x4500 canvas in Painter without lagging by several seconds? Not a chance.

    I mention painter, specifically, because it's one of the few apps left where UI responsiveness, cursor responsiveness is still CPU bound. Other people would talk about processing digital video, which is fine, but it's no surprise that a batch file which takes several days to run can suck up everything you throw at it.

    There are still UI reasons to get a faster computer. I even use my iPod instead of iTunes on the PC to save that 6% of my processor for processsing my brushstrokes. (yada yada, iTunes is slow, I know... but even winamp can't compete with offloading the task)

  21. The Mooninites' GPU (obligatory ATHF) by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

    Would Inignokt and Err have a five-thousand-D-accelerated video card? I mean, you'd think they of all people would know their stuff when it comes to video games-just look at them!

    --
    Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
    http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  22. onoes! by NytzovNee · · Score: 1

    The data is false since it lacks data on the greatest ever range of ID games: Commander Keen

  23. Re:wtf by dyefade · · Score: 1

    chill the hell out. it was just a semi-interesting article with big numbers in it. it didn't make the front page, it's not in anyone's way, and I enjoyed reading the article for the sake of ir. It doesn't have to be accurate/useful whatever. why make a big fuss?

  24. Obvious flaws by pikkumyy · · Score: 1

    While the specs for minimum requirements have always been aimed at the clueless games, it is a fact that games become playable once you have a system that performs atleast twice as well as the minimum requirement (and still with lowest quality settings).

    Looking for instance at the memory requirements for Quake (8MB). You have got to be kidding. Well, I guess it would run with that much memory and as some of you state, it Quake3 "ran smooth as silk" on a 233MHz system. don't know what kind of silk you guys are used to, but anything less than an equal to 1.2GHz system with around half a gig of memory in inadequate to smoothly run it.

    Maybe for single player games 60fps is enough, but on multiplayer you really need to have around 100fps (independant of refreshrate, although higher is better.) Quake3 with 233MHz pII and 32MB of memory would be choppy as hell. 30fps? Inbareable.

    Id's games have always been "almost playable" on a "quite new" system while top notch high-end system is "almost there". It has been so since Quake. Doom3 most likely requires twice the processing power that a 2GHz system offers today and probably more available system memory than 512MB just for the game itself. 1.5GHz just makes me smile :)

  25. CPU, RAM & DISK are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What matters now, and certainly then is the video card. Extrapolating graphs wouldn't have predicted programmable pipelines when QIII came out.