21 replies to this topic

[hifiboi]

Upon reading the system requirements of Diablo I realised that my computer wasn't going to meet the basic requirements (I have a 4 year old HP laptop with a 8400m gs graphics card, 2gb ram), but once again the old war horse is fighting above its weight.

I've been meaning to upgrade for some time, but honestly it runs fine. I didn't even think it would let me play at all, yet I defeated the SK with all characters and only had a framerate issue during the 4 columns fight before the SK.

Possibly later in the game my computer won't be able to hack it, but I am pleasantly suprised.

I don't even know if I will upgrade now, I was only going to do it for Diablo. I almost dropped $2000 on an Alienware 17x, just for Diablo (I require a laptop beacause I live in Japan and travel a lot).

Anybody else running on a system below recommended requirements?

I even upped the graphics to max and it was playable, no choppiness, just slow.

Edited by hifiboi, 22 April 2012 - 04:37 PM.

[TheAchoo]

Hehe,  i'm about in the same boat as you..  The 4 columns gets me bogged down every time!  Hopefully on final release with more graphic options we'll be able to overcome that!

[Ocean]

Good to hear!

[Trebis]

I love that Blizzard can make their games so accessible to older computers.

I wouldn't be surprised if you find a lot of situations to lag out in, though. Especially in later acts, with bigger bosses and multiple players. Go for the upgrade It's worth it.

[morc1us]

Upgrade it , you wont regret. I tell you man you gonna get into much more worse fights then 4 columns action in later acts or difficulty also never forget about more shiny spells as you unlock more powerful abilities ,all that shining armor ,and even consider enemy abilities, and all the destruction of environment ,i suppose we gonna see on later acts , also imagine if you played 2 or 4 player coop game and stuff like that if you ever consider minimizing your game and checking forums for certain strategy etc that would case old computers to crash the game often IMO.

[Frank2312]

Don't forget that the beta is also not optimized yet. The final release product will run even smoother than a beta client.

Edited by Frank2312, 22 April 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[hifiboi]

Yeah, I'm sure things will get more intense later on, but it's nice that I can at least play for now. I have to order a laptop to get one with a UK keyboard (easier said than done), plus there is the never ending 'when to buy' situation with the new GPU's coming out.

I think Blizzard have done an awesome job with the game architecture, the lag is still smooth, not choppy or unplayable like with other games. I'm going to test the water before upgrading, I have a trip to Tokyo next week which will wipe out some of my savings. Maybe Akihabara will entice me.

This laptop cost me less than $500 4 years ago and I've played COD MW2, Batman AA, Fallout 3&NV along with many others, and now Diablo 3. I remember focusing on getting and dedicated GPU, which has paid of massively.

[hifiboi]

Frank2312, on 22 April 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Don't forget that the beta is also not optimized yet. The final release product will run even smoother than a beta client.

I was thinking that as well, the servers should be better too. My computer coluld use a reboot also, I'm sure I could squeeze some more performance our of it.

[tommmmmm]

Frank2312, on 22 April 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Don't forget that the beta is also not optimized yet. The final release product will run even smoother than a beta client.

I count on it, because now, with full party, at really intensive scene with 1080p monitor and max graphical settings my fps drops to 25 and it's noticable.

[Equinox]

hifiboi, on 22 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I don't even know if I will upgrade now, I was only going to do it for Diablo. I almost dropped $2000 on an Alienware 17x, just for Diablo (I require a laptop beacause I live in Japan and travel a lot).

Please upgrade to something cheaper if you will.

My $661 laptop runs DIII fine...

[Ruppgu]

funny... I just ordered a new graphics card because I wasn't satisfied with how the game played on my decent computer. I was thinking the exact opposite of you... the game doesn't run very well on decent computers.

I have a Core2Duo 3ghz (overclocked to 3.6), GeForce GTS 250, 4 gigs ram. It can't handle multiplayer. Hopefully the GTX 480 I ordered will be enough!

It played the game flawlessly if I played single player but playing multiplayer was way too laggy for my tastes. Even if I decrease the options or res it still stutters a lot.

If you get pretty bad slowdown on the pillar event, I'd upgrade. It's going to get much worse than that during the later acts.

[Analogkid]

Ruppgu, on 22 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

funny... I just ordered a new graphics card because I wasn't satisfied with how the game played on my decent computer. I was thinking the exact opposite of you... the game doesn't run very well on decent computers.

I have a Core2Duo 3ghz (overclocked to 3.6), GeForce GTS 250, 4 gigs ram. It can't handle multiplayer. Hopefully the GTX 480 I ordered will be enough!

It played the game flawlessly if I played single player but playing multiplayer was way too laggy for my tastes. Even if I decrease the options or res it still stutters a lot.

If you get pretty bad slowdown on the pillar event, I'd upgrade. It's going to get much worse than that during the later acts.

The best part is that with your new video card you'll have a room heater AND a hair dryer.  Get a 580 if you can...they're getting less expensive.

Edit:  I think RAM might be a worthwhile investigation too- it's really cheap.  It helped with WoW quite a bit.

[hifiboi]

Unfortunately I can't just upgrade my graphics, I have to buy an entire new computer.

I'm a bit of an antisocial gamer because my friends don't like these styles of games and I don't really enjoy teaming up with to begin with because I want to enjoy the story and atmosphere at my own pace.

I'm going to try out the full game and if it's unacceptable then I'll upgrade. I looked at some MSI laptops, they look pretty great, either that or bite the Mac bullet.

[Azunaii]

Ruppgu, on 22 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

funny... I just ordered a new graphics card because I wasn't satisfied with how the game played on my decent computer. I was thinking the exact opposite of you... the game doesn't run very well on decent computers.

I have a Core2Duo 3ghz (overclocked to 3.6), GeForce GTS 250, 4 gigs ram. It can't handle multiplayer. Hopefully the GTX 480 I ordered will be enough!

It played the game flawlessly if I played single player but playing multiplayer was way too laggy for my tastes. Even if I decrease the options or res it still stutters a lot.

If you get pretty bad slowdown on the pillar event, I'd upgrade. It's going to get much worse than that during the later acts.

Ouch...

Blizzard have already stated that you can experience some performance loss (not latency lag, but FPS lag) on the beta which arrises when events (skill usage, monsters etc) first occur in your gaming session. The loading process isn't optimized or something. This will be gone in the live version, so I hope you didn't base your purchase decision on that ;-)

[Wingless]

On a Core2 DUO 3.2Ghz with 4GB RAM and a Radeon HD 6970 OC I run into trouble (with everything on max). I'm also counting on later parts of the game demanding more of your computer.

Right now I'm just waiting for the Ivy bridge processors to come out, so I can put it in my new rig ><

[Leeodin]

I said this much earlier elsewhere.

But in it's current state, you need an absolute beast of a machine to get the game smooth on max settings.

I have a pretty decent computer:

Q6600 quadcore 2.4 (OCed 3.0)
6GB DDR2 @ 800Mhz
P5k-e wi-fi edit. MB (built for gaming)
460GTX+ 2GB model (Fully OCed)

(Monitor runs at 1920 x 1080)

Even with this rig; I get slow downs on the lowest settings in Single player. Not sure why exactly; perhaps its because I am honest? As people with lesser computers often claim the game is smooth at max. Hopefully once the optimization process is complete; I will have a cleaner experience.

I am not ready to do a full upgrade just yet seeing as my PC handles things fine still; including stuff like Skyrim which was a pleasant shock actually.

[Ruppgu]

Analogkid, on 22 April 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Ruppgu, on 22 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

funny... I just ordered a new graphics card because I wasn't satisfied with how the game played on my decent computer. I was thinking the exact opposite of you... the game doesn't run very well on decent computers.

I have a Core2Duo 3ghz (overclocked to 3.6), GeForce GTS 250, 4 gigs ram. It can't handle multiplayer. Hopefully the GTX 480 I ordered will be enough!

It played the game flawlessly if I played single player but playing multiplayer was way too laggy for my tastes. Even if I decrease the options or res it still stutters a lot.

If you get pretty bad slowdown on the pillar event, I'd upgrade. It's going to get much worse than that during the later acts.

The best part is that with your new video card you'll have a room heater AND a hair dryer.  Get a 580 if you can...they're getting less expensive.

Edit:  I think RAM might be a worthwhile investigation too- it's really cheap.  It helped with WoW quite a bit.

The 480 was the best value for the money. I don't care about heat or power consumption. I'm not going to spend $400 on a graphics card when I can get a card that performs only slightly worse than a 580 for half the price (the 480 is only $200 right now). The options where 480, 570 but pay $100 for little to no performance gain (mostly heat and noise gain), or pay $200 more for a 580. I think I made the right decision for what I am after.

I'm hoping for everyone that the game runs MUCH better than the beta. Even in single player, I get the "asset loading" lag on new skills. I assume that will be fixed but I doubt the normal slowdown I experience in 4 player games will go away with the retail game. The way I see it, Diablo 3 only comes out once I just hope my 3.6 core2duo can handle it fine... that's a bit too expensive to replace just for a game.

[Xezz]

I haven't experienced any issues with my rig, but I guess it's also overkill for d3
i5 2400 (stock clocked)
4gb ddr3
gtx 560 (which is btw absolutely silent)
and a samsung ssd (which might be the reason I dont see any stuttering since loading times are "instant")

Don't really think more than 4gb ram is needed, as there is not so much to load.
I'd rather guess that CPU for calculating physic effects and the graphic-card have the most impact, with a ssd being nice for the fast loading screens

[ApeironPrime]

My 8800 GT OC is more than 5 years old, with out of date drivers and it still runs like a boss. Crysis 1 and 2, Cod 1-4, Battlefield 2 and 3, Diablo 3: it eats it all!!

Edited by ApeironPrime, 23 April 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[Kyra]

I don't think the game need much of ram and CPU at all, maybe need better graphic.
I am runing on: CPU Type: Intel® Core™ i5 CPU 760 @ 2.80GHz CPU Speed: 2.81 GHz System Memory: 3.99 GB Video Card Model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Video Card Memory: 2.72 GB Video Card Driver: nvd3dum.dll Desktop Resolution: 1920x1080 Download Speed: 1.26 MB/s (10.6 mbps) My computer is not bad, but not the great one, Had the cpu and ram meter runing the whole time and only use up about 50% to 60% of the cpu and ram. but the funy thing is I was lagging on the first 2 hour game play, I thought was my computer problem, but after that, it wasn't lagging at all. maybe just because is beta. How do you check ingame FPS anyway?

Oh by the way,  with graphic card numbers, usually the even numbers  are the high proforming ones. forexample if you have 460, 470 and 480, you will either get 460 or 480, the odd numbers like 470 they are not good for gaming.

Edited by Kyra, 23 April 2012 - 02:29 PM.