not smoothly, but with minimum details it could work. I dont expect them to be much higher than Titan Quest in graphics power. Only the cpu should be stronger because of the physics and all.
1) It's being released for Mac simultaneously so obviously it doesn't require windows Vista or an 8800.
2) That processor is going to be way overkill. It will run fine on any modern processor I think. I am currently using an old 3800+ X2 processor which I bought for like $150 7 years ago. It is nowhere NEAR as fast as the core 2 duos, about 10 times less compute power IIRC,and it has absolutely no problem handling the physics in games like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Spore, Doom 3, etc...so I see no reason why it won't work on D3 as well.
3) It's not going to require an 8800 video card. A 6600 will most likely work fine.
dont forget its going to be released in about 1-2 years. Blizzard traditionally supports systems that were top 4-5 years ago, but even that way, a system you suggest isnt top right now. In fact its about 5 years old already. In such a computer even Titan Quest would have performance issues. I seriously doubt that Diablo 3 will run there properly, no matter how perfect Blizzard programs the game.
dont forget its going to be released in about 1-2 years. Blizzard traditionally supports systems that were top 4-5 years ago, but even that way, a system you suggest isnt top right now. In fact its about 5 years old already. In such a computer even Titan Quest would have performance issues. I seriously doubt that Diablo 3 will run there properly, no matter how perfect Blizzard programs the game.
Yes my processor is many years outdated but you don't seem to get the fact that computer games rarely require top of the line processors. I upgraded my graphics card because that is what handles almost all the complex processing in modern computer games. Just because D3 is coming out in 1-2 years doesn't mean it's going to have higher system reqs than any game out now -- it just means they do a lot of testing.
The fact is, my crappy old fashioned processor is capable of running all the latest next-gen games without hiccuping -- Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Doom 3, HL2, GW, WoW, Spore, SinsOfSolar, Hellgate:London, all these games run totally smoothly because games just dont need that much processor. I know it won't have a problem with D3 either, because I can tell from the screenshots its not going to be any more demanding than current games -- more likely, it will be less demanding.
As far as the recommended specs that they put on the box, well...I'm sure they will "recommend" a better processor, as do all of these other games, but that doesn't mean it actually makes the slightest difference.
you dont seem to get my point, really.
what i said is that Blizzard games rarely require a very modern system to run smooth (talking about medium-low setting of course). Crysis requires a very good system for medium for example, while it can run on low at more outdated computers but without such greatness in graphics.
My point was that the Blizzard games work fine on older systems ON TIME OF THEIR RELEASE.
Meaning that a 2 year good system that even today wouldnt cost too little, in the 1-2 years we're guessing that Diablo 3 will be out will be the a "low requirement". An old system as we think single core computers now! Dont say things based on today, but try to consider how things will be by the time of release. Diablo 3 isnt coming this year. We'll be lucky if it comes in the next.
Krow, I'm aware that most games do not use video cards to process physics, although it is not true to say that "video cards do not process physics." Video cards have been used many times to calculate physics, including fluid simulation on a grid, n-body particle interactions (also can be used as a method for fluid solving), etc. While physics is still usually calculated on the CPU, and while it is the most demanding thing in most games (excepting perhaps some complex graphics techniques such as shadow volumes, etc), newer processors are still overkill for what is needed, which is why my old processor can run the physics of modern games easily.
Fingolfin, it's not that I don't get your point -- it's that you're not correct. First of all, about Crysis, I run it on all medium settings (default I believe), and this does not affect the level of physics in the game. The only things I cant run are the highly intensive shaders. But thats not a cpu issue!
Secondly, the number of years that have elapsed are completely irrelevent. You cannot use historical estimates on system specs to make forward projections like that because computer advancements have changed. We are not longer following Moore's law on processor speed, we have branched out more into parallization, and most importantly games are not CPU bound like they used to be 10 years ago -- instead they are GPU bound.
Finally, the D3 graphics and physics engines are complete. They are working on content generation and they aren't going to be doing anything that increases system requirements in the next 1-2 years. As you can see from the screenshots, it doesn't even appear to use normal maps...we are talking flat shading + some bloom post effect, hard shadows, and not particularly complex geometry. In other words, its going to have a low requirement on the GPU, too.
mahamoti, if you read my post really carefully, i'm not mentioning the word CPU at all. I'm always saying "System". And what i'm saying about them is a historical fact, based on the requirements of all Blizzard games released so far AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE.
I know, we dont know when Diablo III will be released exactly, but the components most people are suggesting (most likely hoping to run smoothly) will be antiques at the time of the release. The 6600 chipset from nVidia for example is an antique even on SLi right now (i know because i'm using it). CPUs will hardly have that many issues (mostly because the technology for 8+ core processors isnt out right now) and the Core 2 Duo and especially the stronger Core 2 Quad should be more than enough for the next 4-5 years.
And about how "heavy" the Diablo 3 engine is, think how they had to react about the corpses, having to lay a certain time limit at first, then a certain corpse limit on screen to manage and handle the physics without becoming too much. Because the game isnt just physics (that according to them even the blood spills would very much make the game heavier on the computers) but graphics aswell. And the new spells will most likely also add more effects. And the amounts of enemies displayed of course, that is almost like a Diablo trademark.
mahamoti, if you read my post really carefully, i'm not mentioning the word CPU at all. I'm always saying "System". And what i'm saying about them is a historical fact, based on the requirements of all Blizzard games released so far AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE.
I know, we dont know when Diablo III will be released exactly, but the components most people are suggesting (most likely hoping to run smoothly) will be antiques at the time of the release. The 6600 chipset from nVidia for example is an antique even on SLi right now (i know because i'm using it). CPUs will hardly has that many issues (mostly because the technology for 8+ core processors isnt out right now) and the Core 2 Duo and especially the stronger Core 2 Quad should be more than enough for the next 4-5 years.
And about how "heavy" the Diablo 3 engine is, think how they had to react about the corpses, having to lay a certain time limit at first, then a certain corpse limit on screen to manage and handle the physics without becoming too much. Because the game isnt just physics (that according to them even the blood spills would very much make the game heavier on the computers) but graphics aswell. And the new spells will most likely also add more effects. And the amounts of enemies displayed of course, that is almost like a Diablo trademark.
Exactly my point. By the time it's released, it will need at least a 7 series card, even an 8 series to run perfectly, on high settings. I don't really care, because by then, I'd be running an 8800 GTX in SLI, with a Core 2 Quad.
Well, it doesn't matter what their historical record is. We don't have to make guesses based on the historical average-number-of-years-old-a-system-is-supported-for-blizzard-games because we have better information at hand than that -- we can see their graphics and physics engine at work, and we know that processors and graphics cards are not changing in the same way as they were historically.
My predictions are based on being a computer science /electrical engineering graduate researcher who programs games as a hobby. I think I'm right but if you have a different prediction, that's fine. We'll see in 1-2 years who is right. And, if you're a gambling man, I'll bet you a D3 soj that I am able to play D3 (lol).
and we know that processors and graphics cards are not changing in the same way as they were historically.
are you serious? there's a new graphics card generation every year with several graphics card models apprearing per 3-6 months.
CPUs arent that different. 2 years ago "Core 2 Duo were the future". Now "Core 2 Quad are the future". In a year "8 core Processors will be the future" and so on.
What we need to hold on to, is how the developers of the game we're interested in (in this case Blizzard) work with the so very fast development of the hardware. And how they worked so far (and pretty successfully too) is that they kept balance by not being too "cutting edge" but not ancient in matters technic either. Such requirements would move too much for the latter and thats nothing like Blizzard.
Maybe it will run on very very low on 800x600, but thats not how a game should be played.
are you serious? there's a new graphics card generation every year with several graphics card models apprearing per 3-6 months.
CPUs arent that different. 2 years ago "Core 2 Duo were the future". Now "Core 2 Quad are the future". In a year "8 core Processors will be the future" and so on.
What we need to hold on to, is how the developers of the game we're interested in (in this case Blizzard) work with the so very fast development of the hardware. And how they worked so far (and pretty successfully too) is that they kept balance by not being too "cutting edge" but not ancient in matters technic either. Such requirements would move too much for the latter and thats nothing like Blizzard.
Maybe it will run on very very low on 800x600, but thats not how a game should be played.
You can run 4 Quad Cores with 16G RAM, but such stuff won't be needed for another 15 years or something..that's server strength right there. I'm 100% sure it won't require any processor that is stronger than the one I mentioned in my opening post. It also won't need a stronger graphics card.
I don't think the requirements will be all too hefty, I suspect that any 8 series Nvidia and 2 Ghz Duo Core will be able to run it on at least medium settings, and perhaps some choice high ones with good stability. Components like those will probably be featured in most 1200$ computers and up by the time it's out. The game will be very well optimized, being Blizzard made after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2.53 GHz E7200 Core 2 Duo Processor or better
2GB RAM or better
8800 GT Video Card or better
Windows Vista or XP
Anything more would be crazy for a Blizzard game IMO.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Yeah, those were the recommended. But you're gonna need more RAM for the minimum. 1G minimum, and a better graphics card, in the 7 series if anything.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
I think 6600 will work fine...
and yeah , mayb 1gram
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
2) That processor is going to be way overkill. It will run fine on any modern processor I think. I am currently using an old 3800+ X2 processor which I bought for like $150 7 years ago. It is nowhere NEAR as fast as the core 2 duos, about 10 times less compute power IIRC,and it has absolutely no problem handling the physics in games like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Spore, Doom 3, etc...so I see no reason why it won't work on D3 as well.
3) It's not going to require an 8800 video card. A 6600 will most likely work fine.
6/29/08 - A date you will remember forever.
Yes my processor is many years outdated but you don't seem to get the fact that computer games rarely require top of the line processors. I upgraded my graphics card because that is what handles almost all the complex processing in modern computer games. Just because D3 is coming out in 1-2 years doesn't mean it's going to have higher system reqs than any game out now -- it just means they do a lot of testing.
The fact is, my crappy old fashioned processor is capable of running all the latest next-gen games without hiccuping -- Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Doom 3, HL2, GW, WoW, Spore, SinsOfSolar, Hellgate:London, all these games run totally smoothly because games just dont need that much processor. I know it won't have a problem with D3 either, because I can tell from the screenshots its not going to be any more demanding than current games -- more likely, it will be less demanding.
As far as the recommended specs that they put on the box, well...I'm sure they will "recommend" a better processor, as do all of these other games, but that doesn't mean it actually makes the slightest difference.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
what i said is that Blizzard games rarely require a very modern system to run smooth (talking about medium-low setting of course). Crysis requires a very good system for medium for example, while it can run on low at more outdated computers but without such greatness in graphics.
My point was that the Blizzard games work fine on older systems ON TIME OF THEIR RELEASE.
Meaning that a 2 year good system that even today wouldnt cost too little, in the 1-2 years we're guessing that Diablo 3 will be out will be the a "low requirement". An old system as we think single core computers now! Dont say things based on today, but try to consider how things will be by the time of release. Diablo 3 isnt coming this year. We'll be lucky if it comes in the next.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Fingolfin, it's not that I don't get your point -- it's that you're not correct. First of all, about Crysis, I run it on all medium settings (default I believe), and this does not affect the level of physics in the game. The only things I cant run are the highly intensive shaders. But thats not a cpu issue!
Secondly, the number of years that have elapsed are completely irrelevent. You cannot use historical estimates on system specs to make forward projections like that because computer advancements have changed. We are not longer following Moore's law on processor speed, we have branched out more into parallization, and most importantly games are not CPU bound like they used to be 10 years ago -- instead they are GPU bound.
Finally, the D3 graphics and physics engines are complete. They are working on content generation and they aren't going to be doing anything that increases system requirements in the next 1-2 years. As you can see from the screenshots, it doesn't even appear to use normal maps...we are talking flat shading + some bloom post effect, hard shadows, and not particularly complex geometry. In other words, its going to have a low requirement on the GPU, too.
I know, we dont know when Diablo III will be released exactly, but the components most people are suggesting (most likely hoping to run smoothly) will be antiques at the time of the release. The 6600 chipset from nVidia for example is an antique even on SLi right now (i know because i'm using it). CPUs will hardly have that many issues (mostly because the technology for 8+ core processors isnt out right now) and the Core 2 Duo and especially the stronger Core 2 Quad should be more than enough for the next 4-5 years.
And about how "heavy" the Diablo 3 engine is, think how they had to react about the corpses, having to lay a certain time limit at first, then a certain corpse limit on screen to manage and handle the physics without becoming too much. Because the game isnt just physics (that according to them even the blood spills would very much make the game heavier on the computers) but graphics aswell. And the new spells will most likely also add more effects. And the amounts of enemies displayed of course, that is almost like a Diablo trademark.
Exactly my point. By the time it's released, it will need at least a 7 series card, even an 8 series to run perfectly, on high settings. I don't really care, because by then, I'd be running an 8800 GTX in SLI, with a Core 2 Quad.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
My predictions are based on being a computer science /electrical engineering graduate researcher who programs games as a hobby. I think I'm right but if you have a different prediction, that's fine. We'll see in 1-2 years who is right. And, if you're a gambling man, I'll bet you a D3 soj that I am able to play D3 (lol).
are you serious? there's a new graphics card generation every year with several graphics card models apprearing per 3-6 months.
CPUs arent that different. 2 years ago "Core 2 Duo were the future". Now "Core 2 Quad are the future". In a year "8 core Processors will be the future" and so on.
What we need to hold on to, is how the developers of the game we're interested in (in this case Blizzard) work with the so very fast development of the hardware. And how they worked so far (and pretty successfully too) is that they kept balance by not being too "cutting edge" but not ancient in matters technic either. Such requirements would move too much for the latter and thats nothing like Blizzard.
Maybe it will run on very very low on 800x600, but thats not how a game should be played.
You can run 4 Quad Cores with 16G RAM, but such stuff won't be needed for another 15 years or something..that's server strength right there. I'm 100% sure it won't require any processor that is stronger than the one I mentioned in my opening post. It also won't need a stronger graphics card.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions