I just bought a laptop and am wondering if I will be able to run Diablo 3 relatively smooth. I don't care about graphics too much, I just wanna know if I can run it wide screen and smooth (without lag).
Here are my specs:
Intel I3
2.13 GHz
4GB DDR3 RAM
16" Screen
Mobile Intel HM55 Express Chipset
1366 x 768 Native Resolution
It runs Doom 3 pretty well and condition zero is alright when I use D3D settings. I'm hoping that I can run Diablo 3 on minimum wide screen graphics.
Please help, thanks!
You'll be able to run it three times over presuming the programmers who worked on Diablo II haven't got their hands on it; tongue in cheek
Yet another ignorant person. Can a mod close this thread?
The issue can not be resolved because there is not enough information as of yet. And the things we do know are ignored by 90% of the people claiming that D3 will run on anything. >.>
My assertion is based on my observations inferred from experience in developing 3D rendering software; what exactly gives you authority on this subject?
Have being in the mod 'industry' for wc3.
I know both a great deal about models and materials and how much they would strain a video card.
This one cracks me up. Hey guys! I skinned a model for WC3 once! Am I in the biz yet?
But we can tell at the very least that the requirements for D3 will be higher then those of WoW.
We... can? I'd say requirements for Diablo 3 look to be about what WoW is now, if only maybe a little higher.
We also need to take in mind that the game seems to need pixel shader 2.0 (officially confirmed) and most likely dx9 as a minimum (they will try to target xp computers).
So a smart guess would be the GeForce 5 (also called the GeForce FX) series. Though a 6 series will be better if you don't want to gamble around and play with a decent resolution.
This just in: not all integrated graphic chipsets are the same. OP said he could run Doom 3 smoothly. Dude said SC2 runs smoothly. I don't know the specific benchmarks of the chip, but I think it's becoming quite obvious he will have no problem running Diablo 3. Diablo 3 will not be a demanding game. You act as if it's the Crysis of hack and slash games.
Technology advances very very fast.
Gasp!
As a side note, laptop chipsets are horrible for gaming.
Laptops in general are not the best option to pick when you want to game.
This is entirely dependent on the hardware, and the OP has already explained that his laptop runs SC2 smoothly. Just because a game is on a laptop does not mean it will run worse than if the exact same hardware were in a desktop PC.
I did not got pwnd in any way. For all you know he just lied using fancy words.
It is the internet after all.
You did, in fact, got pwned. IIRC Matt.J has developed a few extraneous b.net utilities, which requires, at least, a competent knowledge of programming. I'd take his word over your rampant guessing any day.
Anyway you can believe all you want, it's silly to debate if you can play it or not because computers that will play it in 2012 will be within a 300 dollar budget.
Besides I have a 4870HD so I'm in the save zone for even highest quality settings lol.
So... we can't debate what the sys requirements are for Diablo 3 yet because it's too far away, but you seem to know for sure that the OP will be unable to play it. Logic much?
Hell I worked with 3dmax and what not, but I don;t have proof of that do I?
Oh man, 3dsmax??? That's like, some elite, hacker-tier professional hardcore program, right? I didn't even know that shit was legal. You're right, I am so sorry for doubting your credibility.
Most non-indie games will support 4:3: 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions up to 1900x1200 at the very least. Those are standard sizes nowadays. (I actually tried and in my local stores there are no screens with lower resolutions then 1600x1000.)
Cool! I just updated my computer with a new screen and Win 7, I will try to install D1 and D2+exp tomorrow. I hope it works..
Have being in the mod 'industry' for wc3.
I know both a great deal about models and materials and how much they would strain a video card.
Just knowing what software they use does not mean that you know how much polygons the models have, how many of these polygons will be active on this screen.
So let me get this straight; all you've done is design a few models for a proprietary engine that you had no hand in the development of?
The techniques and algorithms resposible for rendering the scene containing these models, the performance of which the topic of discussion, is not relevant?
After reviewing your earlier posts it seems a common theme, well the only theme, is references to polygon count and skin resolution neither of which are a significant performance metric.
Your meagor knowledge of very high-level concepts really does not warrant this authoritarian attitude of yours.
There is no need to explain all the complicated stuff if these people if they even fail to understand basics about computer hardware.
It's like explaining something like politics to a 3y old.
Anyway I know my stuff, read the above part of my post.
While I did decide to focus on management, I did enroll in CMD where designing and making games and working with programs to render 3d models etc you get the drill.
We had to create flash games, sites, 3d animations and games that used 3d models and much more.
Though it was all pretty easy stuff. Flash and html5 are easy. And C++ was also pretty easy if you think logical.
Though management is more my thing, I hate scripting things. And since I could not decide to drop the boring scrypting I decided to take the next best thing. Managing people that work with that kind of stuff.
Media and Entertainment Management. But might drop the gaming industry all together and just make my own broadcast channel.
You can believe me or not, I have proof of my enrollments at the NHL and CHN (Stenden University, well known for their Hotel Management) in the Netherlands Leeuwarden.
This is not about "those people", it's about your bizzare claim that knowing the polygon count of a specific model has more weight than the software that is actually responsible for rendering it.
If that's the case then why do you have such a seemingly novice understanding of 3D rendering? It's as if your entire knowledge of the domain has been gleamed from the user manual of a modelling program; the only concepts you make references to are trivial such polygon counts and skin resolution accompanied by all these fanciful claims based on of which.
If you have indeed developed or been involved in the development of a game; what is the fundamental problem with high-velocity objects in a simulation that operates at a constant frequency?
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer that anyone who has developed a game would know; graphic designers must also be aware of this problem to properly integrate their models into the system.
So what your saying is, you dont plan on upgrading in a year? still a single core processor? man my cpu is 2 years old, 2.3ghz quad core.
now you can pick em up for $130. save for a year and upgrade. Im sure you'd rather be seeing graphics that'll open your eyeballs instead of, "man i wish my pc was better" or "fuck this looks shit"
omfg, you cant use a laptop for gaming. unless you spend $3000+ but the bottom line is... throw $3000 into a desktop, and you have yourself a weapon for the next 5 years+
buy a $150 mobo, $150 CPU, 8GB RAM ($250 max) and a $3-400 gfx card and you've got no worries
w/e you do, do not buy from an OEM/Retailer go custom
good point, just providing some personal recommendations. Laptop's are designed for portability, not as gaming machines. =] Just saying he wont enjoy the gameplay if he plans on keeping his specs
Quite clear an answer isn't going to be provided, so for those of you wondering the answer is tunneling; roughly analogous to the natural phenomenon known as quantum tunneling wherein matter appears to penetrate a medium without resistance. In short, when using a fixed timestep simulation (ie., sampling the simulation state at fixed intervals) there is the possibility with [most often] fast, small-moving objects that a collision will not be detected due to the object's ability to traverse the extent of another between samplings.
So next time you observe a missile appearing to "go straight though" an object in a game then you know what to attribute it to; alot of older FPS's have this problem.
Quite clear an answer isn't going to be provided, so for those of you wondering the answer is tunneling; roughly analogous to the natural phenomenon known as quantum tunneling wherein matter appears to penetrate a medium without resistance. In short, when using a fixed timestep simulation (ie., sampling the simulation state at fixed intervals) there is the possibility with [most often] fast, small-moving objects that a collision will not be detected due to the object's ability to traverse the extent of another between samplings.
So next time you observe a missile appearing to "go straight though" an object in a game then you know what to attribute it to; alot of older FPS's have this problem.
Dude, I actually knew that! I wasn't sure if that was the answer you were looking for though, its been a long time since I took a modeling class.
@Crosby8766: Yes, you most likely will be able to play DIII, as long as Blizzard supports that graphics chip.
It is true that you won't need SLI or Crossfire for D3,
Where are your sources of information?
Quote from "Scipio" »
There are so many reasons why everybody should overclock.
Ofcourse, without cooling, watch you burn out your $500 card and void your warranty, gg.
Quote from "Scipio" »
Yes you might take it to the extremes and spend a lot of money on water cooling, OC motherboards like ASUS Rampage 2 Extreme and beyond, but there uses for such performance beyond gaming.
lol, for a few extra fps? are you kidding me? there has not been a game i have NOT been able to play on highest settings, 1920x1080. I bought mine over a year ago for $1400.
Dude, I actually knew that! I wasn't sure if that was the answer you were looking for though, its been a long time since I took a modeling class.
Well I did intentionally word the question in an abnormal fashion to avoid a Google answer. Anyone who understood the premise would still be able to recognise it, as you have.
Hey Scipio, I completely agree with ya. Obviously DIII won't require SLI/Xfire, and overclocking isn't dangerous at all, as long as you have decent cooling and keep your temps within a respectable range. I've OC'd my CPU from 3.1 to 3.8Ghz, and under full load in Prime95 it stays under 38. Air cooled with the Sunbeam 120 Core Contact.
Honestly, I wouldn't get too worked up over Romantix, he seems like a troll. 10 posts, his location says "Fucks it to ya?". And then he explodes at ya on simple obvious facts. Yep, sounds like a troll to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You'll be able to run it three times over presuming the programmers who worked on Diablo II haven't got their hands on it; tongue in cheek
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
This one cracks me up. Hey guys! I skinned a model for WC3 once! Am I in the biz yet?
We... can? I'd say requirements for Diablo 3 look to be about what WoW is now, if only maybe a little higher.
This just in: not all integrated graphic chipsets are the same. OP said he could run Doom 3 smoothly. Dude said SC2 runs smoothly. I don't know the specific benchmarks of the chip, but I think it's becoming quite obvious he will have no problem running Diablo 3. Diablo 3 will not be a demanding game. You act as if it's the Crysis of hack and slash games.
Gasp!
This is entirely dependent on the hardware, and the OP has already explained that his laptop runs SC2 smoothly. Just because a game is on a laptop does not mean it will run worse than if the exact same hardware were in a desktop PC.
You did, in fact, got pwned. IIRC Matt.J has developed a few extraneous b.net utilities, which requires, at least, a competent knowledge of programming. I'd take his word over your rampant guessing any day.
So... we can't debate what the sys requirements are for Diablo 3 yet because it's too far away, but you seem to know for sure that the OP will be unable to play it. Logic much?
I'm done here.
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
Oh man, 3dsmax??? That's like, some elite, hacker-tier professional hardcore program, right? I didn't even know that shit was legal. You're right, I am so sorry for doubting your credibility.
Cool! I just updated my computer with a new screen and Win 7, I will try to install D1 and D2+exp tomorrow. I hope it works..
:: Enkeria [Twitter / Twitch / Website / Tattoos]
The techniques and algorithms resposible for rendering the scene containing these models, the performance of which the topic of discussion, is not relevant?
After reviewing your earlier posts it seems a common theme, well the only theme, is references to polygon count and skin resolution neither of which are a significant performance metric.
Your meagor knowledge of very high-level concepts really does not warrant this authoritarian attitude of yours.
If that's the case then why do you have such a seemingly novice understanding of 3D rendering? It's as if your entire knowledge of the domain has been gleamed from the user manual of a modelling program; the only concepts you make references to are trivial such polygon counts and skin resolution accompanied by all these fanciful claims based on of which.
If you have indeed developed or been involved in the development of a game; what is the fundamental problem with high-velocity objects in a simulation that operates at a constant frequency?
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer that anyone who has developed a game would know; graphic designers must also be aware of this problem to properly integrate their models into the system.
now you can pick em up for $130. save for a year and upgrade. Im sure you'd rather be seeing graphics that'll open your eyeballs instead of, "man i wish my pc was better" or "fuck this looks shit"
do yourself a favour, and upgrade
buy a $150 mobo, $150 CPU, 8GB RAM ($250 max) and a $3-400 gfx card and you've got no worries
w/e you do, do not buy from an OEM/Retailer go custom
So next time you observe a missile appearing to "go straight though" an object in a game then you know what to attribute it to; alot of older FPS's have this problem.
Dude, I actually knew that! I wasn't sure if that was the answer you were looking for though, its been a long time since I took a modeling class.
@Crosby8766: Yes, you most likely will be able to play DIII, as long as Blizzard supports that graphics chip.
Where are your sources of information?
Ofcourse, without cooling, watch you burn out your $500 card and void your warranty, gg.
lol, for a few extra fps? are you kidding me? there has not been a game i have NOT been able to play on highest settings, 1920x1080. I bought mine over a year ago for $1400.
Honestly, I wouldn't get too worked up over Romantix, he seems like a troll. 10 posts, his location says "Fucks it to ya?". And then he explodes at ya on simple obvious facts. Yep, sounds like a troll to me.