Considing that the Alpha demoed on a P2.4 -9700Pro at 45FPS at 800x600 medium detail, no AA, I think Doom3's requirements will be huge. I can't see code optimization giving more than 50% more performance, so I expect sub 60's at 1024x768, no AA, medium detail on a 3Ghz machine. Buying hardware now for a game that won't see the light of day until next Fall is a dicey move. The 128meg 9800Pro should be enough power for Doom3, but for HL2? It's anyone's guess.
Must...fight...urge...to...insult...stupid...comments...Quote:
Originally posted by rhettro
Considing that the Alpha demoed on a P2.4 -9700Pro at 45FPS at 800x600 medium detail, no AA, I think Doom3's requirements will be huge. I can't see code optimization giving more than 50% more performance, so I expect sub 60's at 1024x768, no AA, medium detail on a 3Ghz machine. Buying hardware now for a game that won't see the light of day until next Fall is a dicey move. The 128meg 9800Pro should be enough power for Doom3, but for HL2? It's anyone's guess.
1) The demonstration at E3 was not the alpha that was leaked.
2) It was on a 2.2 ghz system with a PROTOTYPE 9700 pro.
3) You have no facts to prove the fps level at E3 or if there was AA or not. Don't tell me "Carmack said it" because he didn't, I know all the info on D3 so far, I'm a Doom freak, and there was no mentioning about it at all.
4) The alpha is so unoptimized, I mean hell, the menu's don't even work. The demonstration at E3, they did. Different version of the game at a different stage.
5) The game will more then likely not have requirements much bigger then that of UT2K3. I doubt it will take a 9800 pro and 3 ghz machine to run the game at medium detail, at a low res, with no AA. Carmack stated at Macworld in 2001 it would be targeted at running low res, on a Geforce 3, though there was no mention of the processor. Since it was around that time, we can assume a 1+ ghz P3. Expect a high amd or intel solution with a good amount of ram and a good video card to be able to run it smoothly no problem.
6) You know nothing about the release dates at all. Saying it's coming out in the fall with no backup of facts is stupid. The only thing we have been told is it will be a 2003 release. That's all John said in his .plan updates.
7) Speculation is that HL2's engine is a heavily reworked Quake 3 engine. It makes sense, after all the immense success they had with the modified Quake 2 engine for Half life. I doubt it will have higher requirements then Doom 3 will.
8) Again, the alpha that got out is so unoptimized it isn't even funny. I'd tell you what's wrong with it but you wouldn't understand all the technical talk most likely. In simple words, the alpha is a joke of a product and I wouldn't even relate it to Doom 3, it's from so early in the stages of developement when they were primarily just trying to get commands and textures working correctly, as well as testing out the floating point, lighting and shadowing, and bump mapping, masking away of lights, etc.
if the final doom3 is as intenstive as ut2003 or unreal2 then ill be running 1600x1200, max details :D
Sorry your computer would keel over and die. Only way you will be running it at that res at the highest detail levels is with a good processor, a lot of ram, and a 9700 pro or higher.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
if the final doom3 is as intenstive as ut2003 or unreal2 then ill be running 1600x1200, max details :D
No, it probably won't be able to run anywhere near those settings at highest quality...if history is any indication it'll take cards to come later to run this engine like butter at the highest settings, because the engine is meant to be forward thinking as it will likely be the basis for games for the next 4-5 years and would be outdated too quickly without "pushing the envelope". High end cards weren't running quake 3 at high res(for the time)at the highest settings when it came out either...or quake 2, or quake.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
So can anyone answer my question?
I'd comment to my fullest... but I'd probably get banned...Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
if the final doom3 is as intenstive as ut2003 or unreal2 then ill be running 1600x1200, max details :D
I'll just say this... the more and more you talk, TB1GHZ... the more and more I think that you're getting your information out of a bubble gum machine... and this is me talking nice. You need to rethink what you say.
Funny, Funny thread. Tbird, you REALLY need to learn when NOT to post.Quote:
Originally posted by BL1NK
Doom3 Will be an OpenGL game :)
lostlilchild6, that's just plain cold :D ;)Quote:
Originally posted by lostlilchild6
Tbird... what DX version is Doom III based on?
t-bird, i was wondering why ppl have their opinons stacked against you as they are. then i read the thread about you wanting to buy a 5200, and that removed all doubt.....
the only thing that carmack may use directx for is the sound and nothing else. i think quake 3 used directx for the sound, not sure though.
who remembers "fahrenheit"? it was supposed to bring OGL and directx together as a single api. what happened to it? it obviously has been killed off, but why?
UT2K3 runs full res, 1280x1024 on a 3.06, 512 mb ram, 9700 pro at 60-70 fps. I think Doom 3 will run the same on a 9800 proQuote:
Originally posted by steppy76
No, it probably won't be able to run anywhere near those settings at highest quality...if history is any indication it'll take cards to come later to run this engine like butter at the highest settings, because the engine is meant to be forward thinking as it will likely be the basis for games for the next 4-5 years and would be outdated too quickly without "pushing the envelope". High end cards weren't running quake 3 at high res(for the time)at the highest settings when it came out either...or quake 2, or quake.
Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
UT2K3 runs full res, 1280x1024 on a 3.06, 512 mb ram, 9700 pro at 60-70 fps. I think Doom 3 will run the same on a 9800 pro
ok so with a cpu 2/3 as fast as yours, as much ram as you and a video card with a little less than half the memory bandwith? Would I be looking at 30fps in 1280x960 max details? I could always run 1600x1200 medium details and 16 bit textures
........daaamn....ive been wondering what the fuss was abotu so i came here....oh man. Guys...i dont think im ready yet. Ill sit back and watch for a while! :D :D :D
Not sure dude, I'm building a system so I can play Doom 3 the way it was meant to be played :DQuote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
ok so with a cpu 2/3 as fast as yours, as much ram as you and a video card with a little less than half the memory bandwith? Would I be looking at 30fps in 1280x960 max details? I could always run 1600x1200 medium details and 16 bit textures
Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
Not sure dude, I'm building a system so I can play Doom 3 the way it was meant to be played :D
from 1.6 to 2.4GHz youd get like 35% more performance. Youd bottleneck such a fast video card too. Since you dont like high res, youd run 1024x768 with fsaa and aa while I run 1600x1200 without. Only difference is your minimum and maximum fps will be 35% higher than mine and youll see whatever fsaa does for you. a fast cpu is far more important
*sighs* Alright listen, this isn't unreal 2 where it's very CPU dependant. It's been stated numerous times that the game will be more GPU dependant if anything. A 2.4 ghz 2100+ is faster then a stock 3.06. Trust me it'll run fine also I'll be at 1280x1024 not 1024x768Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
from 1.6 to 2.4GHz youd get like 35% more performance. Youd bottleneck such a fast video card too. Since you dont like high res, youd run 1024x768 with fsaa and aa while I run 1600x1200 without. Only difference is your minimum and maximum fps will be 35% higher than mine and youll see whatever fsaa does for you. a fast cpu is far more important
[t-bird mode]Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
Not sure dude, I'm building a system so I can play Doom 3 the way it was meant to be played :D
then buy a GFFX it blows the 9800pro away, even the 256mb version :D
[/t-bird mode]
;) :p :cool: (smily flood, sorry)
I think it's funny how he bashes the fx 5200 (look in his sig) then in another thread says hes gonna buy oneQuote:
Originally posted by Reign
[t-bird mode]
then buy a GFFX it blows the 9800pro away, even the 256mb version :D
[/t-bird mode]
;) :p :cool: (smily flood, sorry)
.So you guys think he is doing this on purpose or its for real? :D :D :D BTW, small question, anyone hear any estimates on how much the 9800Pro will cost early June? Ill be getting mine then, if the 256meg is cheap enough ill shoto for that.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
I think it's funny how he bashes the fx 5200 (look in his sig) then in another thread says hes gonna buy one
Actually, Half-Life was more Quake 1 than Quake 2. It did have Q2 code, but not an awful lot of it.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
7) Speculation is that HL2's engine is a heavily reworked Quake 3 engine. It makes sense, after all the immense success they had with the modified Quake 2 engine for Half life. I doubt it will have higher requirements then Doom 3 will.
on topic......
no probably not enough for highest details.
off topic, jeez thats a lot of flames, need to tell burger king about this thread!:D
Since we don't yet know the nature of the Doom III engine, we can't say what will be more important. The Q3 engine responded well to bandwidth increases, even if CPU/GPU clock speeds did not increase at all. UT2K3, like the original Unreall and UT, is a very CPU intensive game, and really doesn't respond as well to GPU increases as much as CPU increases.
The bottom line is this. Anything regarding what kind of hardware you would want/need, and the type of performance you can expect, are all speculation until we have a more refined version of the program to test with.
speculation is the whole point of the game, but we do know this much: you will need a geforce, possibily a geforce2. If this game isnt cpu intensive, then wouldnt like 600MHz be enough? every game I have played scaled in low res. not much in high res due to fill rate limitations though :( now is a ti4200 without fsaa as fast as a radeon 9800 pro with 4x fsaa and 16x aa?
I dont think 600Mhz would be Doom3s minimal requirement.. I havent seen many games require such a low processor in sometime :)
I would think it would be more around a 1Ghz processor with a Geforce card and 128MB of ram :)
Now I dont even want to think about what the recommended specs would be :)
Not even close.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
now is a ti4200 without fsaa as fast as a radeon 9800 pro with 4x fsaa and 16x aa?
My guess is...Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dont think 600Mhz would be Doom3s minimal requirement.. I havent seen many games require such a low processor in sometime :)
I would think it would be more around a 1Ghz processor with a Geforce card and 128MB of ram :)
Now I dont even want to think about what the recommended specs would be :)
2GHz CPU
+256MB mem
128MB video
Is that a guess of minimal or recommended???? :)