doom3 half life 2 system req's?

dpagan · May 28, 2004, 07:05 PM

does any one have any info on system requierments for these game has any one here a tester that might be any to shed some light on performance?

Chaos · May 28, 2004, 07:26 PM

My guess would be 1.5 GHz CPU, XP with 512 MB Ram, 128 Meg DX9 capable video card

Chaos · May 28, 2004, 07:28 PM

recommended 2GHz+ CPU with 1 GB Ram, 256 MB DX9 Video card

dpagan · May 28, 2004, 07:47 PM

so if i can play far cry i should have no problems playing any of these games, i'm not to concern with half life 2 to much due to the fact that i believe they will optimize there game to run on mid hardware due to fact that they have been the only ones that have taken the time to see what is the majority of systems out there, chaos have you beta tested any of these games? my set up is more of less like yours if you have, how was the performance?

xp2500@2.164
abit nf7-s rev2.0
1024gb corsair @5-3-3-2.0
80gb maxtor 8mb cache
ati 128 mb 9800 pro o/c 400/700
windows xp

Chaos · May 28, 2004, 07:52 PM

nope have not tested them but figure a system like that will play them but at what detail is the question

dpagan · May 28, 2004, 08:11 PM

thanks for the help, i hope a demo and or benchmark come out soon

Vidmaster23 · May 28, 2004, 08:22 PM

I read somewhere John Carmack said the min requirements would be in the range of a 2.4 ghz pentium cpu... I forget what the requirements for the video card and ram were.

Markius · May 28, 2004, 08:40 PM

lol the game will run on a 1.5 ghz and a g-force3 (just not on full settings)
people are getting all excited over nothing.
there was the same hype over quake 3 and it ran fine on a p3 450 and a 12 mb voodoo 2 (what i had at the time) i remember every one saying youd need a p3600 and a TNT 2 32mb.

Just remember they want to sell copys of the games

they are just 2 new games coming out....nothing more

BiGBrOwNPimpsta · May 28, 2004, 08:43 PM

i think im gonna buy another stick of 512

SaberZ · May 29, 2004, 09:42 AM

lets just say that both ran fine on my athlon 2500+ with radeon 9500 pro an 1 gig of memory. Even on my 1.2ghz T-bird with the radeon 9500 pro they ran decent, albeit at 1024res with medium settings. That was unoptimized. Final product i think would run a lot better than alpha...

swimtech · May 29, 2004, 11:19 AM

Thanks for the input SaberZ, as this was talked about earlier in the news thread from which I was thinking...

An inexpensive machine purchased today includes a 2.8G processor, 512M ram, and a 7200 rpm drive with an inexpensive 19" monitor for less than a grand. The key to assisting this system for gameplay would be to equip it with hardware based sound, and give it a four pipe 9550. It should theoretically run the new stuff well at low resolution (1024x768 or less), with much better performance during gameplay than any competing video solution. Drop the rez down and it should even do the Doom3/HL2 thing with aa off - and ATI's hardware doesn't take a big hit using 32bit color and some AF - and look (and feel - control wise) good doing it.

I'm just excited some by the possibility that a really inexpensive computer should - by my estimation - be able to play the good stuff. The only way to know for sure though would be to test...

From this thread:

ATI makes DirectX 9 breakthrough for $89

earlier this week.

There's hope for this old T'bird (with a video upgrade...) after all!

SaberZ · May 29, 2004, 11:33 AM

Yup, I remember everyone was making a fuss about SOF2 and UT2k3 possibly bogging systems down. They ran fine on machines lower than spec, just like someone above said about Quake with a Voodoo. It's made to run on different lvls of hardware, and im sure most machines will be able to run it fine. Think of their requirements as a measure of getting the most eye candy out of it. Graphics aside, the gameplay is where the most important aspect of any game is. From what I played on various machines, specifically Half Life 2 it runs quite smooth, Doom 3 in alpha form was smooth as well, just gotta know what you can do without. It's sad that todays PC games have been getting more sloppy in terms of coding. But as with everything in technology its a double edged sword, its improving so fast, they don't hve the time to optimize the code to run properly on a multitude of machines.

dpagan · May 29, 2004, 12:00 PM

I agree with you in regards to sloppy coding take far cry, great game but it has a lot of bugs i know many will argue the fact but i believe this game needed more time to optimize before release, i know patching it will help but whats the point in waiting to two months on a patch to fix all the problems when you already played the game thats why i don't complain (much) about id and valve taking the neccesary time to make sure the experience is enjoyed from the first time you play the game plus i can't wait to play counter strike and half life source which will also be included with the release of half life2

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 29, 2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos
My guess would be 1.5 GHz CPU, XP with 512 MB Ram, 128 Meg DX9 capable video card

9600xt or better should push the games ok just not at hi resolutions and hi IQ (not with high aa/af) unless you happened to find a 9800 pro, or maybe x800 pro lying around (that’s mine gime! gime! gime!)

I've played the doom 3 beta 2 on my system and it was playable at over 30+ fps! (minimum)
My specs 2500+ (1.83ghz)/9600xt/1gb ram

What you need depends on kind of the eye candy you want to see...

EDITED FOR SPELLING
-Neon

pr0digal jenius · May 29, 2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dpagan
thanks for the help, i hope a demo and or benchmark come out soon

no luck for you....

id says no demo will come out until the game is released, as they want to put all efforts into finish ti w/o the distractions of a demo...and as for benchmarks i was reading they may very well cap it at 60FPS, so a benchie is unlikely if that is so as you could 'max' it out