Think the 9800 pro 128mb is enough for Doom 3 on highest detail level?

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 :)

---

I have seen no games to be honest with requirements higher than 500Mhz cpu, 256mb ram, 32mb video ram, geforce or radeon. This means games like lots of ram and a TL video card but 500MHz is fast cpu.



"Not even close."


this is amazing, meaning the radeon9800 is over 4 times the speed of a ti4200, since with 4x fsaa it still eats the ti4200

There are plenty of games with a requirement over 500Mhz...

Lets see:

Unreal2:
Min - P3 733Mhz+, 256MB ram, 32MB GF2 MX
Rec - P3 1.2Ghz+, 384MB ram, 64MB GF3 or 8500 and up

UT2003:
Min - P3 733Mhz+, 128MB ram, 16MB TNT2-Class and up
Rec - P3 733Mhz+, 256MB ram, 32MB GF2 or ATI Radeon

Morrowind:
Min - P3 500Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB Direct3D card
Rec - P3 800Mhz+, 256MB ram, GF2 GTS or Radeon 7500 and up

CliveBarker Undying
Min - P2 400Mhz+, 64MB ram, 16MB 3D Accelerator
Rec - P3 500Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB 3D Accelerator


BF1942
Min - P3 500Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB 3D Accelerator with HT&L
Rec - P3 800Mhz+, 256MB ram, 64MB 3D Accelerator with HT&L

Need I go on??????

daym those are insanely high requirements, especially unreal based games! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: but the other games need around 500MHz, not too bad though

You do know that Clive Barker and Morrowind is a few years old right????

Well Morrowind is from 5/2002
While Clive Barker is from 2/2001 :)

So yes there specs would be low!


More specs:

NFS:HP2
Min - P2 450Mhz+, 128MB ram, 16MB Direct3D card
Rec - P3 800Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB Direct3D card

C&C: Generals
Min - P3 800Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB AGP GF3 or Radeon 7500
Rec - P4 1.8Ghz+, 256MB ram, GF3 or better

Hitman 2:
Min - P2 450Mhz+, 128MB ram, 16MB Direct3D card
Rec - P3 1.0Ghz+, 256MB ram, 32MB Direct3D card

No One Lives Forever 2:
Min - P3 500Mhz+, 128MB ram, 32MB Direct3D card
Rec - P3 1.0Ghz+, 256MB ram, 64MB Direct3D card

Simcity 4.0
Min - P3 500Mhz+, 128MB ram, 16MB Direct3D card
Rec - P4 1.0Ghz+, 256MB ram, 32MB Direct3D card (didnt know P4 had a 1.0Ghz ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz




I have seen no games to be honest with requirements higher than 500Mhz cpu, 256mb ram, 32mb video ram, geforce or radeon. This means games like lots of ram and a TL video card but 500MHz is fast cpu.



"Not even close."


this is amazing, meaning the radeon9800 is over 4 times the speed of a ti4200, since with 4x fsaa it still eats the ti4200

---

mmmm...IIRC, 4x fsaa doesn't cut the fps rate in 4. so no, it's not necessarily that much faster, you just don't take so much of a performance hit for using AA on ati cards.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
Is that a guess of minimal or recommended???? :)

---

Recommended :)

hehehe, from what I had posted... I wouldnt doubt it!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
daym those are insanely high requirements, especially unreal based games! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: but the other games need around 500MHz, not too bad though

---

Where does he find the time to flood the forums with this kind of bull manure?

Edit: Corrected a typo

Also I have just noticed that a couple of my lasts posts have been solely to criticize this troll and have contributed nothing to the forums. I am going to try to lead by example and not respond to his stupidities anymore.

Hope I have the self-control and restraint to do so....

.....all you need is love......

Ut2003 runs on my rig (quincunux 2x AA)1024x768 at about 30-40 fps with 10 bots in one screen and if I go crazy with the old mouse, it drops down to about 25fps. Still I can still play quite comfortably (max everything). I am seeing this trend that even really big rigs are just giving you the advantage of higher res with more AA ending up at roughly the same frame rate +- 10-20fps. I just dont care. To me that's not why I play games and what I have looks good enough. Hell, I guess if I wanted to, I could overclock my card again and get even MORE fps but there is just no need.


One thing I did notice though is that games in these days look really shite with AA turned off whereas a 1-2 years back they still looked ok. Are they slowly going the optimised only for AA???? Would it make programing/coding easier?

I don't think so, I think it is just a matter of cognitive distortion.
Once we got used to being able to play with AA and AF, it is very difficult to see anything else as 'looking good'.

I can play f12k2 at 1600x1200 no AA/AF, but it looks so much better 1024x768 4AA/8AF that nothing can make me change it to the higher res.

Trying to answer the orginal question...way way wayyyyy back....
Will it run? As said dunno.....However I found this, and it might be helpful to this discussion. As...umm...who was it....ahhh...."I am a DOOM freak"....can't be bothered to check back through the pages....said, the E3 version and the Alpha leaked version are not the same, so this site seems to have that fact wrong.Apart from that I think its helpful.

What is it? Guru3d did a review of the Hercules 9800Pro (off record: abeauty of a card...even led fan cooler and all...niceness)...and they ran a test for the DOOM III Alpha. These are the fps they got for THAT test:

Doom III 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 1600x1200
GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE 14 9 6 4
Radeon 9700 Pro 50 34 23 17
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra 50 37 25 19
4xAA + 8xAF 25 18 12 9
Radeon 9800 Pro 57 39 26 19
Hercules Radeon 9800 Pro 57 38 25 19

Well if you can make out, with the un-optimized version, the 9800 Pro managed only 57 fps at 800x600.

Also quoting their page

Quote:

---

Hardware 'younger' than GeForce3 simply lack the flexibility and power to run Doom III with detailed features at an acceptable frame-rate. The engine is once again written in OpenGL.

---

The Test System was the following:

Quote:

---

Albatron KX400 8x (AGP 8x enabled)
512 MB DDR333
Radeon 9800 Pro, 9700 Pro GeForce FX 5800 Ultra
AMD Athlon 3000+
Windows XP Professional
DirectX 9
Latest reference chipset and graphics card drivers

---

Unfortunatly they didn't mention as to what the exact settings on the game were (i.e. fsaa, etc)...so I can't give you a clue on that...but you can check their screen shots, and maybe guesstimate for yrself, I am not that good, a pretty picture is a pretty picture to me...lol

Oh here is the link directly to the DOOM III Alpha part of the review:

http://content.guru3d.com/article.ph...&pagenumber=11

Hope that helped....

I was the guy who said I was a Doom freak and said it wasn't from E3, and I'm still right, it wasn't from E3. Also, there's been people actually making patches for the leak and it seems to run much faster with their optimizations. I have no doubts I'll be able to run the game 1280x1024 max details. Why? Well...

1) The final version will be much more optimized

2) I'll be on an xp 2100+ tbred B AIUHB overclocked to 2.4 ghz or so, faster then a 3000+ is, also a gig of 3500 kingston hyper x ram, etc. I just will have a much faster system then what they ran. I think I will be able to run it on the highest detail settings.

Yes.....I am agreeing with you.....the SITE is wrong.....you are right.
Also..yes...optimizations should make it a lot better......I saw the Alpha back in like November....good..but as you said...still a bit choppy......

But like I said....all I am giving is some numbers....there is no way of knowing the final product or percent optimization.

However, if You can run maybe the alpha at a half-decent fps, the final should run smoothly IMHO, casue like people have said, the patches and optimization should increase performance by at least 50% (again uoting...might have numbers slightly off the past posts...to many flames to keep track off...lol)....

Second, any company would have to be VERY VERY stupid to release a game that would require such a high standard that perhaps only a very small minoirty of gamers will be able to adequately play the game. Think about it...its economics. Like Colosseus guessed with his recommened settings, I think I will second that.

basic logic: You shouldn't need to oc yr comp to play a game decently.

I'm sure my rig will run it just fine.:D

Hell, I should be up to 23K-25K 3D Marks by the time it comes out in November. If that doesn't run it well then theres gonna be a lot of pissed of peeps.:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vertices
If that doesn't run it well then theres gonna be a lot of pissed of peeps.:D

---

Exactly my point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by saury316
Yes.....I am agreeing with you.....the SITE is wrong.....you are right.
Also..yes...optimizations should make it a lot better......I saw the Alpha back in like November....good..but as you said...still a bit choppy......

But like I said....all I am giving is some numbers....there is no way of knowing the final product or percent optimization.

However, if You can run maybe the alpha at a half-decent fps, the final should run smoothly IMHO, casue like people have said, the patches and optimization should increase performance by at least 50% (again uoting...might have numbers slightly off the past posts...to many flames to keep track off...lol)....

Second, any company would have to be VERY VERY stupid to release a game that would require such a high standard that perhaps only a very small minoirty of gamers will be able to adequately play the game. Think about it...its economics. Like Colosseus guessed with his recommened settings, I think I will second that.

basic logic: You shouldn't need to oc yr comp to play a game decently.

---

At normal settings no, but the question was specifically high res/highest settings @more than 60 FPS. I think most people will be able to play it with normal settings OK, higher end cards will run normal settings pretty good...but I don't think there was a card out at Q3's release that could run 1024x768 at full settings with great framerates(1024x768 was high res gaming back then).

those getting 20k marks have overkill rigs for all games, period. They cant lower their fps enough reguardless of what settings they run. I am getting 117fps now in quake3 at 1600x1200x32 max. thats insane! with all the upgrades and seeing a new mobo and perhaps an xp1700 at 2.2GHz getting me like 14k marks, ill be getting very very good performance in doom3

what is insane is that you think that a game which is more than 3 years old is ANYTHING to go by when judging how a game from the same developer, which is supposed to supercede Q3 engine.

But once again this is you we are talking about, so anything is to be expetcted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alientank

2) I'll be on an xp 2100+ tbred B AIUHB overclocked to 2.4 ghz or so, faster then a 3000+ is, also a gig of 3500 kingston hyper x ram, etc. I just will have a much faster system then what they ran.

---

Much faster? How much faster is an Athlon XP at 2.4 Ghz than a P4 at 3 Ghz? I guess the RAM timings would be faster.

Way back when, I bought a Rendition card and overclocked it to play Quake 2 on my 233MX Pentium and I was happy to get 23 FPS at 640x480. The guys that could afford the Voodoo 1's were getting 29 FPS. I know times have changed but Id considered those to be playable framerates back then. I think the adverage 2.4Ghz owner with a 9700Pro is going to be lucky to get 50FPS at 1024 with high detail, everyone with GF4 or lower are going to be playing at 800x600. It's going to piss off a lot of people, but they'll be upgrading to 3.5Ghz CPU's with r400's and then they'll forget about the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alientank


Must...fight...urge...to...insult...stupid...comments...

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.

---

1. Umm... I didn't say it was.

2. I thought it was a 2.4Ghz, anyone care to post a link to prove me wrong?

3. Don't think I quoted Carmack anywhere. Just remember the article mentioning the FPS levels. In any event, in this very thread you can read the results of some newer hardware, with shipping drivers, with the LEAKED alpha and you notice the scores are pretty simular. So we can agree that 45FPS with the above machine is expected.

4. I don't think working menus will make the 3D engine work any faster. :), see my responce to #3 for more current system stats.

5. The requirements won't be more than UT2003? And you think I'm speculating? Considering that there will most likely be a year between their release, and the engines are developed by two distinct companies I don't see why that would be. One the game is released a 3Ghz machine paired with a 9800Pro might be playable with high detail, but we won't know that until we have the final game in hand. At this stage it is still a pipe dream. What Carmack say at MacWorld is very outdated. Most game developers pick what they think will be mid-range to high-range systems two years in advance and then hope that it is close. Historically, ID games have been the most demanding games at their release.

6.I know nothing at all, eh? Every publication that list a release date for Doom 3 says November. The Half-Life 2 article in PC Gamer magazine says that HL2 will come out in September mostlikely beating D3 to the shelves." I'm only repeating what people in the gaming business are saying. I have no special knowledge of it's actual release date, but neither did I invent that date.

7. I actually agree with you on this point. HL 2's requirements for Doom 3 will most likely be less. What I should of said is that new games based on Doom 3 engines will have requirements that are higher than Doom 3. So building a gaming machine now for Doom 3 (expecting a November release date) sort of makes your machine a one trick pony.

8. Thanks for that accessment of my techical ability and you efforts to keep it simple. "The alpha is a joke of a product and I wouldn't even relate it to Doom 3." Got it, one has nothing to do with the other.

I stopped reading a while back... part of me feels bad for people jumping all over Tbird... I just kinda chuckle now whenever I read one of his posts. It isn't worth getting mad about IMO. Anyho...

This is just my theory, but I think Carmack is trying to utilize as many neat features of DX9 as possible so with ALL the details maxed I don't even think cards that are released later this year will be able to run at MAX details in high rez. I *think* he is designing it in a way that it will look good on our high end cards now, but will have enough options that you can turn details up farther when newer cards are released. I don't think you should expect your 9700pro to run it like nobody's business at max details.

The bottom line is this, people : if you release a game that doesn't run smooth on hardware that's not even available yet (I've yet to see a 9800 Pro in shops here) you have a serious problem.
It's all about economics, and you want as much people to be able to play and enjoy your game.
The number of people with +3 GHz cpu's and Radeon 9700/9800 cards make up an obscenely small percentage of the gaming population.
That's why the upcoming HL2 game will look (and I quote) "evolutionary and not revolutionary" which you can read as "anyone with a half decent PC bought in the last 2 years will be able to enjoy this" :D
By the way take for instance Unreal 2 : amazing next gen graphics but ultimately a very poor and uninspiring FPS.
I'm very curious to find out what kind of GAME Doom3 will be once we get over the graphics rush...:cool:
Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Erwin Heiser
The bottom line is this, people : if you release a game that doesn't run smooth on hardware that's not even available yet (I've yet to see a 9800 Pro in shops here) you have a serious problem.

---

Ah, but it will run smooth, but at 800x600 res and medium detail. If the game magazines are right, D3 will ship in November. We'll most likely see another generation of graphics cards before it's release, so D3 steep requirements won't seem as steep by then. Id pretty much drives the industry, so they have the luxury of requiring a little more from the gaming public. Even as scaled back as HL2 is compared to D3, I'll still have to upgrade my system to play it enjoyably. That's the price of progress.

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

---

Wasn't the P2.4 the fastest chip Intel chip out at the time of UT2K3's release? The 3.06 is a bad example in this case.

I dont know why this threads gets so heated.. Well maybe I do but I wont say it :)

But, there is no way of knowing.. We can only assume and by what was stated by the developer...

I have to admit I didnt keep up with Doom3 as much as I would like, So I dont know if it is OpenGL or DX..

If it IS OpenGL, then ATI has a problem since OpenGL doesnt run that well on ATI :( Even there 9800Pro is slower then FX5800 when it comes to OpenGL...

If it is DX8 or DX9 then ATI sure has a lead on it :) But if there new version of nVidia Geforce series is released prior to Doom3.. Then who knows?