But 2gb for non-XP windows is BAD. Its good for XP, but if you have something else get 3 gb. Though I'm not sure about Windows 7 but Vista, you WILL need 1 more gb of ram just to be safe on that side.
Memory is just -the- most important thing on a computer. It makes the biggest different ever to always have enough and I find that 2gb with XP is perfect. I still remember the days with 512mb. God, that was so horrible.
A GeForce serie 6 card is also pretty ridiculously low, do they even sell these now...? My 8500 card is still serving me well and will run D3 no doubt as it runs SC2... but I bought it like 2 years ago. For 60$. So seriously, aim a little bit higher than that, unless you're not willing to pay more than 20$ for a card or something.
I still say "if you can run SC2, you'll run D3". The requirements will not be the exact same but I don't think they will be very different. Also better have a single core above 3.0 or a dual at least.
I'm running Windows XP. I'll never go Vista, and possibly never go to 7.
But I'd prefer to run the game full screen just like I did with Diablo 2, in which case my maximum screen resolution is 1440 x 900. So I guess what I'm really wondering is what graphics card I'll need. I'm running an eMachine T3085. After a little research I believe the best thing for me to go with is a Geforce 7600GS 512MB (Agp). But I actually came to that conclusion by reading a forum elsewhere posted by someone who happened to be using the same model computer I was. I'm below the rank of a novice when it comes to all the numbers and such. I don't want to get something my computer won't be able to handle.
EDIT: Also, according to what I've read, my computer has a 2 gb maximum when it comes to RAM.
well I have a 2.5 quad from AMD and it works amazingly I have 4 gb of high performance ram(only ddr2 tho :() also on top of that i only have xp so only can run max of 3.25 SUCKS!!. I have a 9800 Nvidea GForce video card superclocked ethier 512 or 1g ddr3 (cant remember) LOL. But anyways.. what I'm saying is it dose me quite fine was inexpensive for the performance I get out of it and it will last me at least till after first expansion.next time I upgrade getting a I7 but thats a few years from now...
Because you need to pay buckets of money for a piece of crap software that is not actually needed and has minimal improvements if not is actually worse compared to older versions.
Did you knew that they are making a Windows 8 already? It's key point if for business but they will tweak it a bit and release it for general public. And you will need to buy it yada yada.
I don't play that game, I just use the OS the pc I bought came with.
he said it all...id rather pay 200 bucks or more to upgrade my computer then to spend on a program that i can get at half price in a year anyways...with less bugs in it overall too....but W7 is a good program better then vista i can tell u that(gaming wise vista hade a VERY big problem with games) a friend had it and had to waste about a hour of his time to make just diablo 2 work right on there. (hes a computer geek too so he knew what he was doing).
On that note forums are kinda dead arent they?
anyone got new juicy info at all? besides the vomit and that(old news now LOL)
Most games I play improved their performance with just RAM upgrades... some games will not run well even if you have an amazing CPU/GPU if you lack the RAM (Gothic 3). My dad couldn't run a lot of stuff properly (non-game related) and his PC took ages to load anything because he lacked the RAM (and he had 2 GB), when he got more, it got better, despite his old CPU and old GPU. In fact there are some CPU or GPU that require more RAM to work properly. RAM is probably the most underrated component in a system. Even if it doesn't get directly or completely utilized by any specific game (it can still be utilized by the OS) doesn't mean it doesn't improve things by quite a margin, games are not the only things that eat your RAM, and not all games are perfectly optimized in a way that they only use the precise amount of RAM, in fact, most aren't. Especially those I play.
Now, it doesn't have anything to do with DIII because DIII will probably get optimized under low-end computers, so I doubt you'd have to worry about the Gothic 3 syndrome here...
I think it's absolutely foolish to state that XX RAM or anything of the sort will be enough, or that 'it's not that intense of a game' considering...well, we haven't seen the system requirements yet, nor have we even seen a beta version of what the game will look like. Our educated guesses even, at this point, aren't entirely all that educated.
Will the requirements probably be comparable to those of Starcraft 2? Yes. Past that, no one has any answers on this topic.
I will definitely need a new computer my big bad Intel(R)82865 Graphics controller does not even support vertex shader at all and best of all the its integrated so I cant put a new one in....WOOOOOOOOO Cant even play Sc2 on this hunk of crap. I feel like my computer is so behind everyone elses lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
So any other recommendations as far as a graphics card goes? I don't need the best of the best, but somewhere halfways decent would be great for me. As far as RAM goes I hope I won't need 3, as my computer has a 2gb minimum, and I don't have the money right now to buy a new computer or to fully upgrade everything from the mother board to the hard drive.
I will help you with that, can you check for me what kind of slot you have for a graphic card? AGP, PCI or PCI-e.
This is usually written on the motherboard next to the graphic card slots, if not give the name of the motherboard (should be written on it) and the current graphic card you have.
Next to that tell me what your CPU is so we can scale your new GPU along with the CPU.
That way we can get you a nice GPU for a decent prise, instead of most idiots that would just rant getting one of the best cards. Also what is your native resolution (check your screen or gpu if your current gpu can handle the native resolution.) and do you want to play at this resolution?
At the very least the minimum bar will be set at 128 MB NVidia GeForce 6600 GT/ATI Radeon 9800 PRO.
I'm pretty certain it's AGP from what I've read about it online. I've been using a cheap $70 graphics card I bought from Wal-Mart years ago. All I really know is that it's a Visiontek Radeon, however I can't remember which one exactly. If it helps, I found a list of all the technical lingo of my CPU here: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/emachines-t3085/1707-3118_7-30826600.html
RAM = Random-Access Memory, interm any program you want to run on your computer takes a certian amount of ram. If you have 3 different windows up with 2 different games then yes you need lots of ram. Having enough ram is just as important as your motherboard/cpu/video card. The main things you need to have a decent computer running things at a decent FPS(frames per second) and not have a ram/cpu lag (not a internet lag) then you need a good cpu/motherboard and a effecient amount of ram as well. If you are any type of gamer what so ever on the computer ram is just as important as everything else that you need to run a good computer with high end graphics (even ones that arent demanding but take the graphics settings up/down). You dont want any game no matter the graphics it has, taking down graphics because you only have 1gb of ram is still lower graphics then someone who would be running them on the highest setting possible even if its a low end graphics game (like D3).
having 4gb ram is enough for everything with todays standards.
thing is how you want to play the game. everything maxed out or to just be able to?
i was tricked into thinking it would be released this year (at least i'll get some StarCraft II love very soon) and got myself a new computer by the end of 2009. Cost me around 950 euro (without monitor/mouse/keyboard) and is able to play everything in max details, anti-alising/anisotropic, DirectX11 effects etc. i bought it so i'd play Diablo 3 with everything maxed out, even though i'm positive Diablo 3 would be able to play on a 3-4 year old system decently.
Blizzard games are always very well optimized, i love how they manage it
World of Warcraft runs on 1.5gb of memory with all but shadow settings maxed. I refuse to keep the shadow settings in Diablo 3 below max. It won't show miles of land, so it shouldn't take over a GB.
will not show miles of land, but will have many more enemies at the same time and many more spell/ability effects. add the physics effects to it (especially if you dont have a Nvidia graphics card - and luckily WoW doesnt support physix effects but will get directX11 yay) and it will make it bit harder on your system too. oh, and the shadows on WoW only appear for things at certain range, not for all of the horizon you can see (i know i checked - playing at everything ultra lately)
but 2gb should be enough to play without many issues. and its pretty much a standard for 3-4 year old systems. Blizzard is awesome when it comes to optimizing for older computers!
I don't know what country the guys who're moaning about Win7 being "loads of money" are from, but here in the U.K at least, you can get a perfectly legitimate Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit upgrade version for £57.99. Or, if you're seriously tight-assed, you could go for Windows 7 Professional 32-bit Upgrade Edition, for £42.95, almost as cheap as some games, and definitely cheaper than some "Collector's Edition" crap. Seriously, do some research before writing it off.
...and I've yet to come across any program that simply does not work in 7. Not a one. Any time a prog has caused grief, the littlest bit of tweaking has fixed it.
...aaaand, 7 runs several magnitudes better than Vista, in any given PC. I had installed a pre-release we received from MS through the partner program, on a machine in work, and was gob-smacked to see how well it ran. The PC was a Sempron 2400+, with 512MB RAM, and an old, clunky 40GB Maxtor heap-o-crap HD. A 5-year-old PC, and a not-so-hi-spec one at that.