Specs For id's Next Game After Doom 3 Calculated 62
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.)"
Wow. (Score:1, Troll)
I think we should all just give up (Score:1)
Start saving nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Start saving nothing... (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 [john1701a.com] says the Pentium 90 appeared in 1994. The Inflation Calculator [westegg.com] 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 P
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 d
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
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 max
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
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 l
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:1)
The faster you can load the data, the less opportunity it has to slow down the rest of the I/O in the system.
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
Re:Start saving nothing... (Score:2)
Pff... (Score:2)
System Reqs (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think what Half-Life (3?), or any other major FPS's requirements will be at the time.
Re:System Reqs (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:System Reqs (Score:1)
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).
Re:System Reqs (Score:1)
Nope. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 horiz
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Nope. (Score:1)
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 mos
Re:Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Nope. (Score:1)
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
Re:wtf (Score:2, Funny)
Re:wtf (Score:1)
Graphics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Graphics (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:Graphics (Score:1)
Re:Graphics (Score:2)
Re:Graphics (Score:2)
Re:Graphics (Score:4, Funny)
The Mooninites' GPU (obligatory ATHF) (Score:1)
Convincing.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Convincing.. (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Not too bad, really (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.
seriously, who cares ? (Score:2)
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
Re:seriously, who cares ? (Score:2)
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
Last year's Macintosh should handle it. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Last year's Macintosh should handle it. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Last year's Macintosh should handle it. (Score:2)
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
impressive curve-fits (Score:2)
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.
His math is off (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends utterly on what tech id uses.
Doom -> Doom 2. Took 1 year apart. Why? Same engine.
Doom2 -> Quake
Quake 3 -> Doom 3
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
Re:His math is off (Score:1)
Re:His math is off (Score:2)
Many Quake fans are Linux users, and they make up a considerable portion of the fanbase.
Nice quote from there (Score:1)
onoes! (Score:1)
Obvious flaws (Score:1)
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