DOOM Minimum And Recommended PC Specs

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you scroll down towards the bottom of the DOOM Beta FAQ page, you will find a list of minimum and recommended PC specs for the game. I'm not sure if these specs will change between now and the time the final game ships but, either way, it gives you a rough idea what you will need to run the game.

Minimum Spec (720p):
  • Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
  • Intel Core i5-2400 or better / AMD FX-8320 or better
  • 8 GB RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) or better / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB) or better
  • Up to 22GB HDD space
  • Steam account
  • Broadband internet connection

Recommended Spec (1080p):
  • Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
  • Intel Core i7-3770 or better / AMD FX-8350 or better
  • 8GB RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4GB) or better / AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB) or better
  • Up to 22GB HDD space
  • Steam account
  • Broadband internet connection
 
I like how the IVY I-7 3770 is way better then the FX-8350

Just means the game is GPU heavy
 
I like how the IVY I-7 3770 is way better then the FX-8350

Just means the game is GPU heavy

I cant think of a game I have played in over 15 years that wasn't GPU limited before it was CPU limited, even on high end GPU's, once you tun up the quality settings.
 
Lol thats what i thought when I saw that, are they saying the difference between an i5 2400 and an i7 3770 is the same as the difference between a fx 8320 and a fx 8350? Hell, is a fx 8350 that much better than an i5 2400?

There really needs to be a better way to explain what type of hardware is needed. I garuntee my i7 965 is fast enough....
 
I cant think of a game I have played in over 15 years that wasn't GPU limited before it was CPU limited, even on high end GPU's, once you tun up the quality settings.

You have to look to building games/large simulations to really see CPU limitations - space engineers with planets and large ships, some of the bigger modpacks for minecraft, cities skylines when your city gets huge, fallout 4 with big settlements.

Doom - it doesn't look like there's a lot going on there - it will probably work fine with something as old as a Core 2 Duo, maybe even older.
 
If you scroll down towards the bottom of the DOOM Beta FAQ page, you will find a list of minimum and recommended PC specs for the game. I'm not sure if these specs will change between now and the time the final game ships but, either way, it gives you a rough idea what you will need to run the game.

Minimum Spec (720p):



    • Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
    • Intel Core i5-2400 or better / AMD FX-8320 or better
    • 8 GB RAM
    • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) or better / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB) or better
    • Up to 22GB HDD space
    • Steam account
    • Broadband internet connection
Recommended Spec (1080p):



    • Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
    • Intel Core i7-3770 or better / AMD FX-8350 or better
    • 8GB RAM
    • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4GB) or better / AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB) or better
    • Up to 22GB HDD space
    • Steam account
    • Broadband internet connection
Those are pretty hefty recommended specs... :wideyed:
 
Lol thats what i thought when I saw that, are they saying the difference between an i5 2400 and an i7 3770 is the same as the difference between a fx 8320 and a fx 8350? Hell, is a fx 8350 that much better than an i5 2400?

There really needs to be a better way to explain what type of hardware is needed. I garuntee my i7 965 is fast enough....

FX8320 vs. FX8350 (Difference is rather small)

i5 2400 vs. i7-3770K (Difference is slightly larger)

i5 2400 vs. FX8350 (i5 2400 spanks the AMD chip in core for core tests, but the FX 8350 beats the i5 2400 handily when it can use all of its cores)

i7-965 compared to FX8320, FX8350, and the i5-2400 I'd say you'll probably do OK.

An interesting thing that stood out to me was that the 965 and 2400 have the same amount of cores, but the 2400 does better in single core tests, and worse when all cores are loaded, like you would expect if comparign it to a CPU with more cores.

I'm guessing this must be because the 2400 is a newer design and can turbo up one core more when the others are idle, than the 965 can. Just a guess though.
 
Very odd that a 670 is minimum for 720 but a 970 is fine for 1080. The performance jump is rather big but not that big. I'd think if a 670 was running that slowly a 970 would still be struggling at a higher res. Then again, system requirements tend to mean little aside from storage space and other absolutes like DX or Windows supported. :p
 
Very odd that a 670 is minimum for 720 but a 970 is fine for 1080. The performance jump is rather big but not that big. I'd think if a 670 was running that slowly a 970 would still be struggling at a higher res. Then again, system requirements tend to mean little aside from storage space and other absolutes like DX or Windows supported. :p

I'd argue that the difference between a 670 and a 970 is rather large... Almost double in some cases.

So, a 970 is just under double as capable as a 670.

1080p has just OVER double as many pixels as 720p.

This suggests that a 970 will run slightly slower at 1080p than a 670 will run at 720p, that is true, but I still think the specs hold up, because as we know, things don't always scale linearly with pixel count. It's an imperfect estimation.
 
Looks like my 4GB 770 will do just fine. Seems that the 970 is becoming a popular recommended card for AAA releases these days for NVIDIA.
 
What kind of gamer doesn't have a Steam account?

Yeah, that comment feels so 2005, back when not having a physical copy of a game was supposedly going to ruin gaming forever :p

Now, personally I refuse to get Origin, but Steam is a must.
 
Yeah, that comment feels so 2005, back when not having a physical copy of a game was supposedly going to ruin gaming forever :p

Now, personally I refuse to get Origin, but Steam is a must.

I'm no fan of EA, but I actually like Origin better than Steam. I prefer the interface. It's a shit load better for buying DLC and managing it. What I don't like is that it isn't as easy to move to other drives without re-downloading your games. Although this is less of a concern since I got gigabit internet.
 
I'm no fan of EA, but I actually like Origin better than Steam. I prefer the interface. It's a shit load better for buying DLC and managing it. What I don't like is that it isn't as easy to move to other drives without re-downloading your games. Although this is less of a concern since I got gigabit internet.

My stepson recently wanted Battlefront. I didn't necessarily want to give EA my money, but it IS Star Wars, and I'm supportive of that.

I spent a ridiculous about of time trying to set up a restricted account for him, I could gift the game into, and in the end never succeeded.

I created an account for myself, and a restricted account for him, used the reference "parental email" thing to try to link the two, and it never worked. His account never showed up in mine and vice versa..

Doing this in Steam was dead simple.

Adding a secondary game download source would be a difficult sell even if they were even in their offerings and usability. It's a pain to have to deal with multiple services. I want a single unified interface.

When Origin is a literal disaster to get working, like it was for me, and add in some ethical concerns surrounding EA, it becomes a near impossible sell.

I'm happy passing on the games that are part of Origin if that is what it takes, though I would prefer if I could just get them all in Steam...
 
Last edited:
My stepson recently wanted Battlefront. I didn't necessarily want to give EA my money, but it IS Star Wars, and in supportive of that.

I spent a ridiculous about of time trying to set up a restricted account for him, I could gift the game into, and in the end never succeeded.

I created an account for myself, and a restricted account for him, used the reference "parental email" thing to try to link the two, and it never worked. His account never showed up in mine and vice versa..

Doing this in Steam was dead simple.

Adding a secondary game download source would be a difficult sell even if they were even in their offerings and usability. It's a pain to have to deal with multiple services. I want a single unified interface.

When Origin is a literal disaster to get working, like it was for me, and add in some ethical concerns surrounding EA, it becomes a near impossible sell.

I'm happy passing on the games that are part of Origin if that is what it takes, though I would prefer if I could just get them all in Steam...

I can understand that. I feel similarly towards UPlay. I would have avoided Origin for similar reasons, but ME3 and a few other games were Origin exclusives so I did what I had to do.
 
Yeah, that comment feels so 2005, back when not having a physical copy of a game was supposedly going to ruin gaming forever :p

Now, personally I refuse to get Origin, but Steam is a must.

i do have an account, but it won't let me install the client on this machine and won't log me in on another

i play my games the old skool way if you know what i mean ;)
 
I'm no fan of EA, but I actually like Origin better than Steam. I prefer the interface. It's a shit load better for buying DLC and managing it. What I don't like is that it isn't as easy to move to other drives without re-downloading your games. Although this is less of a concern since I got gigabit internet.

IMHO, Origin is a shitshow for one main reason:

When you buy and install the game, you download the gold release version. Not the most up to date version. So once you install the game, you still have to install the installers for the patches then install the patches.

Steam? Buy the game, download the latest patched version at that time. When downloaded, it's installed save for OS runtimes.
 
IMHO, Origin is a shitshow for one main reason:

When you buy and install the game, you download the gold release version. Not the most up to date version. So once you install the game, you still have to install the installers for the patches then install the patches.

Steam? Buy the game, download the latest patched version at that time. When downloaded, it's installed save for OS runtimes.

My internet connection has always been good enough that I've never really noticed this.
 
IMHO, Origin is a shitshow for one main reason:

When you buy and install the game, you download the gold release version. Not the most up to date version. So once you install the game, you still have to install the installers for the patches then install the patches.

Steam? Buy the game, download the latest patched version at that time. When downloaded, it's installed save for OS runtimes.



Huh? I dont...I never had an issue.

I install the game just like Steam..it updates, just like steam.

I don't run anything else additionally to installing. Not sure what origin you have...
 
Huh? I dont...I never had an issue.

I install the game just like Steam..it updates, just like steam.

I don't run anything else additionally to installing. Not sure what origin you have...

Don't know if they changed it or if you're just installing a game without any updates.

When I installed The Sims 4 on Origin, I had to download the install ISO, actually install the game, install an update within the game to install more updates to the game before I could play it.

Took several hours all said and done.
 
I'm no fan of EA, but I actually like Origin better than Steam. I prefer the interface. It's a shit load better for buying DLC and managing it. What I don't like is that it isn't as easy to move to other drives without re-downloading your games. Although this is less of a concern since I got gigabit internet.

Depends heavily on the game actually.

For example, Mass Effect DLC's were a nightmare to get (had to buy bioware points first, THEN buy the DLC, why can't they just put a price tag on the said DLC and call it a day is beyond me). At least the entire Steam DLC system is standardised

However, MANAGEMENT of the DLC's I'd agree Origin is better. Presentation of the available DLC's is again found wanting.

Nothing beats uPlay in terms of absolute garbage. I have spent hours trying to even redeem my PYP codes. Ultimately though I don't think there is anything else I hate more than GFWL, but that one is purely my fault since I didn't realise there is an offline mode for it.... :p
 
Depends heavily on the game actually.

For example, Mass Effect DLC's were a nightmare to get (had to buy bioware points first, THEN buy the DLC, why can't they just put a price tag on the said DLC and call it a day is beyond me). At least the entire Steam DLC system is standardised

However, MANAGEMENT of the DLC's I'd agree Origin is better. Presentation of the available DLC's is again found wanting.

Nothing beats uPlay in terms of absolute garbage. I have spent hours trying to even redeem my PYP codes. Ultimately though I don't think there is anything else I hate more than GFWL, but that one is purely my fault since I didn't realise there is an offline mode for it.... :p

Mass Effect 1 & 2 were both created prior to Origin. I believe ME2 is now handled like everything else on Origin. ME3 was always handled well via Origin. I can't agree about presentation of DLC being lack luster as it simply shows you a list at the bottom of the game's properties as to what's available. Steam doesn't present DLC well or at all. I often have to search for it.

uPlay is shit. I've actually seen the install for that grenade the operating system. What a piece of shit that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorce
like this
I can understand that. I feel similarly towards UPlay. I would have avoided Origin for similar reasons, but ME3 and a few other games were Origin exclusives so I did what I had to do.

Ahh, I never got into the Mass Effect series, and i don't play Call of Modern Battlefield type games. I also don't play arcade style games like Battlefront, so my protest to not install it has been easy thus far :p

If they actually made an exclusive I really wanted, I'd probably wind up caving.
 
Mass Effect 1 & 2 were both created prior to Origin. I believe ME2 is now handled like everything else on Origin. ME3 was always handled well via Origin. I can't agree about presentation of DLC being lack luster as it simply shows you a list at the bottom of the game's properties as to what's available. Steam doesn't present DLC well or at all. I often have to search for it.

uPlay is shit. I've actually seen the install for that grenade the operating system. What a piece of shit that is.

The DLC presentation was actually referring to Steam, not Origin, which I found Origin to do better. On Steam you would have to manually check them, which is inconvenient at best.
 
I'm not interested because this will be yet-another compilation of hours of unskippable cutscenes from Zenimax/ID.
 
Back
Top