Half Life 2 & Doom 3, Excuse to build a new computer. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

JBX · 08-02-2003, 01:59 PM

I don't know which game I'm in anticipation more, but it will probably require a new system or at least a new video card. A Nvidia 5900 Pro has 256 Meg of ram. Holy Crap. I remember back when I upgraded my system from 8 Meg to 16 and had a 1 Meg Trident video card. My buddy said why the hell do you need so much ram? Anyway, I like having a kick ass computer and a game that pushes the envelope is a perfect excuse.

Stare At The Sun · 08-02-2003, 02:35 PM

What will those need? HL2 and Doom 3, im really behind on this kinda news...

JBX · 08-02-2003, 02:44 PM

Early indications suggest that the target system for Doom 3 will be a 700 mhz system with 128 megabytes of RAM and a "high-end" video card (assumably GeForce-level or higher). However, these specs are very tentative and will probably change multiple times. There will probably be versions released for Windows, Linux, and Mac.

Halflife2: While the new engine has all sorts of fancy features, it's still designed to scale and work on lower-end machines. Apparently a 700mhz processor and a video card capable of running DX6 is enough, although a 2ghz with a GeForce4 is recommended.

Reality, I think a 2.8 Ghz, 256 Meg RAM, Geforce 4 or Higher ATI 9200 or Higher. For all the bells and whistles. GeForce 5900, ATI 9800. IMHO

The_Dude · 08-02-2003, 02:44 PM

i know that hl 2 needs at LEAST a 2 ghz processor.

Redjake · 08-02-2003, 04:37 PM

I have the Doom 3 Electronic Entertainment Expo playable demo on my computer. It runs nicely when no enemies are around, but as soon as more than one enemy comes on the screen, my computer is burned alive. We're talking like 5 frames per second. I have the following:

AMD Athlon XP 1900+ Processor (1.6 GHz)
768 MB PC2100 DDR RAM
GeForce 4 Ti4200 128 MB video card

Those are the main contendors in graphics. Those specs run Doom 3 without enemies, but it turns those specs into shit when enemies come in the game. Hope you can gauge it with your new computer.

mrquackers · 08-02-2003, 04:49 PM

Yeah, but Redjake, that "demo" (really a pre-alpha piece of code) was leaked illegally more than a year before the game has even come close to going gold. By the time the game hits shelves, it will have likely been two years since that "demo" hit Kazzaa, etc.

Using it to gauge the dependability of your PC for the finished game is just silly.

Redjake · 08-02-2003, 06:18 PM

Just because it's a "pre-alpha piece of code" as you so lovingly call it doesn't mean you can't gauge the type of PC you will need. The fact that my computer barely runs the demo that isn't anywhere near the completed game can show a lot. I never said that the finished game would be like that, hence the term I used - "Demo." It's just a way of showing that you will need a considerable amount of power to run Doom 3 when it launches. Because even the demo is tearing new assholes. So go pick on someone else, this time with a valid argument

Mephisto2 · 08-02-2003, 06:37 PM

redjake,

Your first post was useful and interesting. But your response to someone who was just commenting was a bit touchy, don't you think?

Sheesh... relax dude.

Mr Mephisto

Mr.Deflok · 08-02-2003, 06:55 PM

Relax dudes, it's bad enough that we're all going to pulling out our hair when we have to troubleshoot the games into working, let's conserve our testiness!

cheerios · 08-02-2003, 10:48 PM

Redjake, 2 things.

#1: you're wrong.

#2: you're rude about being wrong.

the first is totally fine, it happens to everyone. the second is not. So, have some respect.

now, why you're wrong: The Doom 3 "demo" that was leaked, is going to be NOWHERE near as refined, repaired, and pared down as the final will be. in this case, the software you run will likely be MUCH more demanding of your system than the final product, much like many betas. point in case was the WarCraft 3 expantion demo, which had higher system requirements than the final game, purely because all the bugs weren't worked out yet. code starts out ineffitient, and is pared down as development and testing continue. code becomes faster, and less current systems are able to perform better. that's the way these things work.

now, JBX: some frinedly advice: if you can buy hardware today that will run these games fine, why not wait till they come out, so that you can purchase the same hardware, cheaper? this is the broke-college-student approach to hardware upgrades.

hope it helps a tad.

The_Dude · 08-02-2003, 10:55 PM

ok, here's the system req's

1GHz CPU
256MB RAM
GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series card

that's the min req's and if that is a starting point, you (Redjake) should be able to play the game pretty well with the system you have.

YaWhateva · 08-02-2003, 11:23 PM

Red Jack, i have the Doom 3 "demo" (really a pre alpha) and it runs like shit on my 2.8 GHZ p4 with hyper threading and radeon 9800. Its the alpha itself that is shit. nothing is compiled on it. it has to do it manually and its not good. Not at all a good source to look at to see if you need a new comp. And dont take other peoples comments to heart, they are trying to help.

mrquackers · 08-03-2003, 03:48 AM

Redjake, my post wasn't meant to enrage, just to note that the pre-alpha was never meant to be run on current machines. The reason id was so upset about the leak was because it was afraid people would get the impression you seemed to have - that the final game would take a processor rarely seen outside of NASA.

On a side note: 'preciate the back-up from my fellow TFP-ers.

JBX · 08-03-2003, 06:07 AM

cheerios, I usually wait until the latest and greatest is one generation behind before I upgrade. However when I play these new games, I want to play them how they were ment to be played. Not at 800 x 600 16 bit, but at a high resolution with all the features of DX9 running. I don't know how long or if you are a gamer, but when GL Quake came out and you saw how it should look you couldn't go back to regular Quake. I game as a hobby, when my system can no longer handle a game -- as it is ment --to be played, I upgrade. I enjoy the visuals as much as I enjoy the game. {sigh} I'm a hardware fiend too.

Redjake · 08-03-2003, 10:15 AM

Well, if I offended anyone I'm sorry, but the "is just silly" comment was definitely intended to make me look uneducated either way. I think some of you who have been here a while need to stop instantly backing up the ones you have known for a while, and try to see both sides of the story. And the reason it doesn't run good on your 2.8 GHz, Radeon-setup is because it's being formulated to work with Nvidia at the time, much like Unreal Tournament 2003. I'm not saying it won't work, but the demo probably doesn't work with Radeon's as good as with Nvidia's.

Like I said before, I was just trying to educate, and instantly my information is being called "silly." Try to lighten up the responses. Maybe a better choice of words? Perhaps "the pre-alpha blah blah code being gauged at how good a computer you need isn't the best choice."

Lastly, whether you like it or not, the Doom 3 "pre alpha code whatever" does in fact show how good a computer you will need. You don't seem to comprehend what I am saying. Whether or not the demo is encoded like the final game or not, it is giving a lot of systems a meltdown from the graphics, nonetheless. I seriously doubt that the engine will be "completely restructured and built up from scratch" by the time it goes gold. The game will indeed use the basic code that the demo is running, or else the demo wouldn't be here. I seriously doubt that Doom 3's developers created a mock demo using a game engine that they weren't even going to use for the final game. That being said, you will probably need something around the specs on my computer to run Doom 3 when it launches. The bugs will hopefully be deminished, and the game's engine will run easier on systems. This doesn't change the fact that the demo is a good way to tell what computer you will need. It sure as hell won't run on a 533 Celeron with onboard video.

tronims · 08-03-2003, 11:31 AM

All I know is that when I ran the demo there were no settings that could be changed, as their didnt need to be. Obviously it was set at what they wanted you to see at E3. If you did have a lower comp you can turn down the details, lower the resolution from 1024 (I think i remeber it at that). Obviously your comp although good wouldnt be able to handle the highest settings. My comp XP2500 with a Radeon 7200 (soon to be upgraded) could only manage 1 fps. Also about the it is made with nividia so obvisouly it wont run on a 9800 is complete bull.

LNCPapa · 08-03-2003, 11:38 AM

Carmack himself said that in it's current state (as of the leak) it runs best on ATI hardware.

Redjake · 08-03-2003, 11:58 AM

I'm not talking about the current state, I'm talking about the E3 demo. And they stated that Nvidia's cards would run it the best, and they do. I have been to many a LAN party because I'm a nerd, and a majority of the ATI's present didn't run it as good as the Nvidias. Hell, one of my best friends has a 9700 Pro, and it barely ran the demo. The big dog-robot thing was a big, one-colored block of pink. At that time, it wasn't very nice to ATI. Things probably have changed since then, though. And it's not bull.

And I didn't say it WOULDN'T run on a 9800, I just said it would run better on a Nvidia at the time.

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...pecial_preview There's a link to Tom's Hardware. It has the graphs and stuff. It looks like Nvidia's cards do better the higher you crank the graphics. Can't tell me that Nvidia isn't being formulated into the code, especially at that time. They say now, though, that ATI and Nvidia are both getting their own designs for the game, so you can enable each setting for your own card. But at the E3 demo, the Nvidia was the only one that was working.

YaWhateva · 08-03-2003, 12:32 PM

That just goes to show you that you cannot base anything on how the game ran, if it was meant to be run on an nvidia card at the time and there were all these specific things that had to be in a certain order for it to work. But hell if you wanna spend a lot of money on a new computer, by all means, do it. Just dont base it on that. I have actually seen the opposite of what you have seen. Every nvidia card i have seen run it, even the fx5900, has been slower than even the 9700Pro. And what LNCPapa said, is correct, when the e3 "demo" came out, Carmack did say that the game runs much better on an ATI based card. As me and many other people said, the leaked demo means nothing. Hell the game wasnt even coded. the computer has to use most of its processing power coding the game to play it, so there is a big factor as to why it doesnt work so well. When the game comes out and is properly coded, you wont have your processor being used up like that.

Even though UT2k3 was optimized for nvidia cards, my Radeon 9800 gets much better framerates than my friends fx5900 and thats the only difference between our computers. I get way better benchmarks in the UT2k3 benchmark program too.

there are big differences between a beta test of a game and the final finished product, and this isnt even close to a beta, there will be huge changes to optimize the game for lower end systems, The developers would not be so stupid as to make a game only people with top end systems could run. That would not be good business, they would be drastically limiting the amount of games get sold. Not gonna happen.

BTW when you said we shouldnt just take the side of the person we have known for a long time, i have no idea who any of these people are, i am just stating the facts.

The_Dude · 08-03-2003, 12:58 PM

i think we can all settle this when the game comes out

cheerios · 08-03-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JBX
cheerios, I usually wait until the latest and greatest is one generation behind before I upgrade. However when I play these new games, I want to play them how they were ment to be played. Not at 800 x 600 16 bit, but at a high resolution with all the features of DX9 running. I don't know how long or if you are a gamer, but when GL Quake came out and you saw how it should look you couldn't go back to regular Quake. I game as a hobby, when my system can no longer handle a game -- as it is ment --to be played, I upgrade. I enjoy the visuals as much as I enjoy the game. {sigh} I'm a hardware fiend too.

heh, point taken. I'm SLOWLY building myself a "gaming" machine. it's currently got a 1 gig duron in it, which is gonna be replaced by a 2100+ to give you an idea of how much I care about having the latest and greatest hardware.

Hope the games live up to your expectations, and that you hvae enough money left for lunch after you rebuild your system.

Redjake · 08-03-2003, 04:56 PM

I think Doom 3 is gonna be awesome as crap! Just the demo gave me chills

Jesus Pimp · 08-03-2003, 05:17 PM

I'm all set. I don't need to upgrade my computer.

1.8gig Athlon
1 gig DDR ram
ATI AIW 9700 Pro

chainsawred · 08-03-2003, 07:01 PM

I'm hoping I wont need to upgrade.

Athlon XP 2400+
512mb RAM
Radeon 9200

It runs Unreal 2K3 in 1024x768 just fine...

JBX · 08-04-2003, 06:50 AM

From Tom's Hardware Site:

-Snip-
Conclusion, DOOM III

As was to be expected, DOOM III will only be playable at acceptable framerates on the latest generation of graphics cards. While older cards will naturally also be able to run the game, the level of detail will be greatly reduced. When it comes to speed, NVIDIA's GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is currently unbeatable, at least in 4xFSAA. In the remainder of the tests, its direct predecessor, the FX 5800 Ultra, is also its closest competitor. The Radeon 9800 PRO, on the other hand, can only win the tests at high detail levels in low resolutions.

08-02-2003, 01:59 PM	#1 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Half Life 2 & Doom 3, Excuse to build a new computer. I don't know which game I'm in anticipation more, but it will probably require a new system or at least a new video card. A Nvidia 5900 Pro has 256 Meg of ram. Holy Crap. I remember back when I upgraded my system from 8 Meg to 16 and had a 1 Meg Trident video card. My buddy said why the hell do you need so much ram? Anyway, I like having a kick ass computer and a game that pushes the envelope is a perfect excuse.

08-02-2003, 02:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Early indications suggest that the target system for Doom 3 will be a 700 mhz system with 128 megabytes of RAM and a "high-end" video card (assumably GeForce-level or higher). However, these specs are very tentative and will probably change multiple times. There will probably be versions released for Windows, Linux, and Mac. Halflife2: While the new engine has all sorts of fancy features, it's still designed to scale and work on lower-end machines. Apparently a 700mhz processor and a video card capable of running DX6 is enough, although a 2ghz with a GeForce4 is recommended. Reality, I think a 2.8 Ghz, 256 Meg RAM, Geforce 4 or Higher ATI 9200 or Higher. For all the bells and whistles. GeForce 5900, ATI 9800. IMHO __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

08-02-2003, 02:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i know that hl 2 needs at LEAST a 2 ghz processor. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-02-2003, 04:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
mrquackers Exhausted Location: Northeastern US - please send help!	Yeah, but Redjake, that "demo" (really a pre-alpha piece of code) was leaked illegally more than a year before the game has even come close to going gold. By the time the game hits shelves, it will have likely been two years since that "demo" hit Kazzaa, etc. Using it to gauge the dependability of your PC for the finished game is just silly. __________________ "If you're walking on thin ice, you may as well go ahead and dance."

08-02-2003, 06:18 PM	#7 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	Just because it's a "pre-alpha piece of code" as you so lovingly call it doesn't mean you can't gauge the type of PC you will need. The fact that <b>my computer <i>barely runs</i> the demo that isn't anywhere near the completed game</b> can show a lot. I never said that the finished game would be like that, hence the term I used - "Demo." It's just a way of showing that you will need a considerable amount of power to run Doom 3 when it launches. Because even the demo is tearing new assholes. So go pick on someone else, this time with a valid argument __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

08-02-2003, 02:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	What will those need? HL2 and Doom 3, im really behind on this kinda news...

08-02-2003, 04:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	I have the Doom 3 Electronic Entertainment Expo playable demo on my computer. It runs nicely when no enemies are around, but as soon as more than one enemy comes on the screen, my computer is burned alive. We're talking like 5 frames per second. I have the following: AMD Athlon XP 1900+ Processor (1.6 GHz) 768 MB PC2100 DDR RAM GeForce 4 Ti4200 128 MB video card Those are the main contendors in graphics. Those specs run Doom 3 without enemies, but it turns those specs into shit when enemies come in the game. Hope you can gauge it with your new computer.

08-02-2003, 06:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	redjake, Your first post was useful and interesting. But your response to someone who was just commenting was a bit touchy, don't you think? Sheesh... relax dude. Mr Mephisto

08-02-2003, 06:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mr.Deflok Blood + Fire Location: New Zealand	Relax dudes, it's bad enough that we're all going to pulling out our hair when we have to troubleshoot the games into working, let's conserve our testiness!

08-02-2003, 10:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	Redjake, 2 things. #1: you're wrong. #2: you're rude about being wrong. the first is totally fine, it happens to everyone. the second is not. So, have some respect. now, why you're wrong: The Doom 3 "demo" that was leaked, is going to be NOWHERE near as refined, repaired, and pared down as the final will be. in this case, the software you run will likely be MUCH more demanding of your system than the final product, much like many betas. point in case was the WarCraft 3 expantion demo, which had higher system requirements than the final game, purely because all the bugs weren't worked out yet. code starts out ineffitient, and is pared down as development and testing continue. code becomes faster, and less current systems are able to perform better. that's the way these things work. now, JBX: some frinedly advice: if you can buy hardware today that will run these games fine, why not wait till they come out, so that you can purchase the same hardware, cheaper? this is the broke-college-student approach to hardware upgrades. hope it helps a tad.

08-02-2003, 10:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	ok, here's the system req's 1GHz CPU 256MB RAM GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series card that's the min req's and if that is a starting point, you (Redjake) should be able to play the game pretty well with the system you have. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-02-2003, 11:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
YaWhateva Friend Location: New Mexico	Red Jack, i have the Doom 3 "demo" (really a pre alpha) and it runs like shit on my 2.8 GHZ p4 with hyper threading and radeon 9800. Its the alpha itself that is shit. nothing is compiled on it. it has to do it manually and its not good. Not at all a good source to look at to see if you need a new comp. And dont take other peoples comments to heart, they are trying to help. __________________ “If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly "This is my United States of Whateva!"

08-03-2003, 03:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
mrquackers Exhausted Location: Northeastern US - please send help!	Redjake, my post wasn't meant to enrage, just to note that the pre-alpha was never meant to be run on current machines. The reason id was so upset about the leak was because it was afraid people would get the impression you seemed to have - that the final game would take a processor rarely seen outside of NASA. On a side note: 'preciate the back-up from my fellow TFP-ers. __________________ "If you're walking on thin ice, you may as well go ahead and dance."

08-03-2003, 06:07 AM	#14 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	cheerios, I usually wait until the latest and greatest is one generation behind before I upgrade. However when I play these new games, I want to play them how they were ment to be played. Not at 800 x 600 16 bit, but at a high resolution with all the features of DX9 running. I don't know how long or if you are a gamer, but when GL Quake came out and you saw how it should look you couldn't go back to regular Quake. I game as a hobby, when my system can no longer handle a game -- as it is ment --to be played, I upgrade. I enjoy the visuals as much as I enjoy the game. {sigh} I'm a hardware fiend too. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

08-03-2003, 10:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	Well, if I offended anyone I'm sorry, but the "is just silly" comment was definitely intended to make me look uneducated either way. I think some of you who have been here a while need to stop instantly backing up the ones you have known for a while, and try to see both sides of the story. And the reason it doesn't run good on your 2.8 GHz, Radeon-setup is because it's being formulated to work with Nvidia at the time, much like Unreal Tournament 2003. I'm not saying it won't work, but the demo probably doesn't work with Radeon's as good as with Nvidia's. Like I said before, I was just trying to educate, and instantly my information is being called "silly." Try to lighten up the responses. Maybe a better choice of words? Perhaps "the pre-alpha blah blah code being gauged at how good a computer you need isn't the best choice." Lastly, whether you like it or not, the Doom 3 "pre alpha code whatever" does in fact show how good a computer you will need. You don't seem to comprehend what I am saying. <b>Whether or not the demo is encoded like the final game or not,</b> it is giving a lot of systems a meltdown from the graphics, nonetheless. I seriously doubt that the engine will be "completely restructured and built up from scratch" by the time it goes gold. The game will indeed use the basic code that the demo is running, or else the demo wouldn't be here. I seriously doubt that Doom 3's developers created a mock demo using a game engine that they weren't even going to use for the final game. That being said, you will probably need something around the specs on my computer to run Doom 3 when it launches. The bugs will hopefully be deminished, and the game's engine will run easier on systems. This doesn't change the fact that the demo is a good way to tell what computer you will need. It sure as hell won't run on a 533 Celeron with onboard video.

08-03-2003, 11:31 AM	#16 (permalink)
tronims Tilted	All I know is that when I ran the demo there were no settings that could be changed, as their didnt need to be. Obviously it was set at what they wanted you to see at E3. If you did have a lower comp you can turn down the details, lower the resolution from 1024 (I think i remeber it at that). Obviously your comp although good wouldnt be able to handle the highest settings. My comp XP2500 with a Radeon 7200 (soon to be upgraded) could only manage 1 fps. Also about the it is made with nividia so obvisouly it wont run on a 9800 is complete bull.

08-03-2003, 11:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
LNCPapa Crazy Location: Notre Dame	Carmack himself said that in it's current state (as of the leak) it runs best on ATI hardware. __________________ No mercy for the bandwidth impaired

08-03-2003, 11:58 AM	#18 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	I'm not talking about the current state, I'm talking about the E3 demo. And they stated that Nvidia's cards would run it the best, and they do. I have been to many a LAN party because I'm a nerd, and a majority of the ATI's present didn't run it as good as the Nvidias. Hell, one of my best friends has a 9700 Pro, and it barely ran the demo. The big dog-robot thing was a big, one-colored block of pink. At that time, it wasn't very nice to ATI. Things probably have changed since then, though. And it's not bull. And I didn't say it WOULDN'T run on a 9800, I just said it would run better on a Nvidia at the time. http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...pecial_preview There's a link to Tom's Hardware. It has the graphs and stuff. It looks like Nvidia's cards do better the higher you crank the graphics. Can't tell me that Nvidia isn't being formulated into the code, especially at that time. They say now, though, that ATI and Nvidia are both getting their own designs for the game, so you can enable each setting for your own card. But at the E3 demo, the Nvidia was the only one that was working. Last edited by Redjake; 08-03-2003 at 12:07 PM..

08-03-2003, 12:32 PM	#19 (permalink)
YaWhateva Friend Location: New Mexico	That just goes to show you that you cannot base anything on how the game ran, if it was meant to be run on an nvidia card at the time and there were all these specific things that had to be in a certain order for it to work. But hell if you wanna spend a lot of money on a new computer, by all means, do it. Just dont base it on that. I have actually seen the opposite of what you have seen. Every nvidia card i have seen run it, even the fx5900, has been slower than even the 9700Pro. And what LNCPapa said, is correct, when the e3 "demo" came out, Carmack did say that the game runs much better on an ATI based card. As me and many other people said, the leaked demo means nothing. Hell the game wasnt even coded. the computer has to use most of its processing power coding the game to play it, so there is a big factor as to why it doesnt work so well. When the game comes out and is properly coded, you wont have your processor being used up like that. Even though UT2k3 was optimized for nvidia cards, my Radeon 9800 gets much better framerates than my friends fx5900 and thats the only difference between our computers. I get way better benchmarks in the UT2k3 benchmark program too. there are big differences between a beta test of a game and the final finished product, and this isnt even close to a beta, there will be huge changes to optimize the game for lower end systems, The developers would not be so stupid as to make a game only people with top end systems could run. That would not be good business, they would be drastically limiting the amount of games get sold. Not gonna happen. BTW when you said we shouldnt just take the side of the person we have known for a long time, i have no idea who any of these people are, i am just stating the facts. __________________ “If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly "This is my United States of Whateva!" Last edited by YaWhateva; 08-03-2003 at 12:37 PM..

08-03-2003, 12:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i think we can all settle this when the game comes out __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-03-2003, 04:56 PM	#22 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	I think Doom 3 is gonna be awesome as crap! Just the demo gave me chills

08-03-2003, 05:17 PM	#23 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	I'm all set. I don't need to upgrade my computer. 1.8gig Athlon 1 gig DDR ram ATI AIW 9700 Pro __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

08-03-2003, 07:01 PM	#24 (permalink)
chainsawred Tilted Location: the hills of kentucky	I'm hoping I wont need to upgrade. Athlon XP 2400+ 512mb RAM Radeon 9200 It runs Unreal 2K3 in 1024x768 just fine...

08-04-2003, 06:50 AM	#25 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	From Tom's Hardware Site: -Snip- Conclusion, DOOM III As was to be expected, DOOM III will only be playable at acceptable framerates on the latest generation of graphics cards. While older cards will naturally also be able to run the game, the level of detail will be greatly reduced. When it comes to speed, NVIDIA's GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is currently unbeatable, at least in 4xFSAA. In the remainder of the tests, its direct predecessor, the FX 5800 Ultra, is also its closest competitor. The Radeon 9800 PRO, on the other hand, can only win the tests at high detail levels in low resolutions. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"