DOOM PC System Requirements

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Bethesda has posted the PC system requirements for DOOM along with the launch date and times for the game. Here's the rundown:

Minimum:
  • Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit versions); Intel Core i5-2400/AMD FX-8320 or better;
  • 8 GB RAM; 55 GB free HDD space; NVIDIA GTX 670 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or better
  • Contains a single disc. Download of additional files from Steam (total amount 45 GB) is required to run the game.
  • Requires Steam activation and broadband internet connection for Multiplayer and SnapMap.

Recommended:
  • Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit versions); Intel Core i7-3770/AMD FX-8350 or better;
  • 8 GB RAM; 55 GB free HDD space; NVIDIA GTX 970 4GB/AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB or better
  • Contains a single disc. Download of additional files from Steam (total amount 45 GB) is required to run the game.
  • Requires Steam activation and broadband internet connection for Multiplayer and SnapMap.
 
Getting close to the time for me to upgrade my CPU & GPU. I'm just a tad better than minimum for now.
 
They need to stop that shit. I was going to get doom for pc but not now, my connection can't handle a 45gb download.

And since when has a radeon 7870 and a 670 been equal parts?
 
azuza001 said:
They need to stop that shit. I was going to get doom for pc but not now, my connection can't handle a 45gb download.

And since when has a radeon 7870 and a 670 been equal parts?
Click to expand...

After reading so much about caps from multiple providers across the country, I feel lucky that I live in a FIOS area; just yesterday downloading Battlefront wasted 80GB of bandwidth because something was wrong with the initial download, and after 'verifying' the files it downloaded THE ENTIRE PACKAGE AGAIN. Same thing happened at least twice on that garbage Arkham Knight... I really wish these companies would consider how prevalent caps are, not even including slow speeds across the country.

But then again, why would they? It's the consumer's job to eat that cost, I guess...
 
Wow, people with caps are going to hate this. Whatever happened to games fitting on a cd or DVDs. This is getting out of hand.

I remember conversations 30 years ago that basically programmers will get more sloppy and use up whatever resources are available. The days of tight code are gone.
 
This would require a major upgrade to my PC, glad I don't do much computer based gaming any more.
 
Nukester said:
Wow, people with caps are going to hate this. Whatever happened to games fitting on a cd or DVDs. This is getting out of hand.

I remember conversations 30 years ago that basically programmers will get more sloppy and use up whatever resources are available. The days of tight code are gone.
Click to expand...


Well, the game could come on a Blu-ray, but people haven't really invested in those as PC drives. If they were more prevalent, you might see the entire game on disc.


You gotta put those textures and effects somewhere.
 
Nukester said:
Wow, people with caps are going to hate this. Whatever happened to games fitting on a cd or DVDs. This is getting out of hand.

I remember conversations 30 years ago that basically programmers will get more sloppy and use up whatever resources are available. The days of tight code are gone.
Click to expand...

On top of it, there is a lot more overhead in 64-bit code than 32-bit code, at least in general.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Well, the game could come on a Blu-ray, but people haven't really invested in those as PC drives. If they were more prevalent, you might see the entire game on disc.

You gotta put those textures and effects somewhere.
Click to expand...
It's more like uncompressed textures and sound. Titanfall would have been all but 15GB if it didn't force you to download and decompress audio files in 7 different languages... I want to know what happened for developers to believe all of the sudden that compression was a bad thing. We have a myriad of lossless compression algorithm for all types of files these days, so if anything compression has only gotten better over time.

Though I think a better physical medium for this day and age would be a USB stick: weighs very little, 64GB capacity is common these days, and takes up a lot less space than a disc. In bulk I don't think it would cost much more than Blu-ray, either.
 
Red Falcon said:
On top of it, there is a lot more overhead in 64-bit code than 32-bit code, at least in general.
Click to expand...

Not really.

You can still compile a program as x64 and not have one bit of 64-bit code in it. The compiler will do some optimizations though that may actually help.

And if you do need 64-bit stuff, then it will run a lot faster than the same code made to work on 32-bit systems does.

And if you can actually use 64-bit variables properly, etc. then not only do you gain speed, but you will also reduce some overhead.

The compiled size is only slightly bigger as a 64-bit program compared to a 32-bit program when done properly.

If you compile as a debug release then yeah, the 64-bit executable will be larger, but the same goes for the 32-bit executable when compiled as a debug release.
 
Wow... been a long time since my PC has been at the 'minimum' specs. Hurts tha hiney! =D

But they really do need to release a blue-ray option.
 
cyclone3d said:
Not really.

You can still compile a program as x64 and not have one bit of 64-bit code in it. The compiler will do some optimizations though that may actually help.

And if you do need 64-bit stuff, then it will run a lot faster than the same code made to work on 32-bit systems does.

And if you can actually use 64-bit variables properly, etc. then not only do you gain speed, but you will also reduce some overhead.

The compiled size is only slightly bigger as a 64-bit program compared to a 32-bit program when done properly.

If you compile as a debug release then yeah, the 64-bit executable will be larger, but the same goes for the 32-bit executable when compiled as a debug release.
Click to expand...

Got this excerpt from here: Size of 64-bit dll 50% larger than 32-bit

Here’s an anecdote to demonstrate “space is speed” that recently hit my compiler team. The compiler uses the same source base for the 32-bit and 64-bit compilers; the code is just compiled as either a 32-bit process or a 64-bit one. The 64-bit compiler gained a great deal of baseline performance by running on a 64-bit CPU, principally because the 64-bit CPU had many more registers to work with and had other code performance features. All well and good. But what about data? Going to 64 bits didn’t change the size of most of the data in memory, except that of course pointers in particular were now twice the size they were before. As it happens, our compiler uses pointers much more heavily in its internal data structures than most other kinds of applications ever would. Because pointers were now 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes, a pure data size increase, we saw a significant increase in the 64-bit compiler’s working set. That bigger working set caused a performance penalty that almost exactly offset the code execution performance increase we’d gained from going to the faster processor with more registers. As of this writing, the 64-bit compiler runs at the same speed as the 32-bit compiler, even though the source base is the same for both and the 64-bit processor offers better raw processing throughput. Space is speed.)
 
Remember back when games would ship on multiple disks if they couldn't fit on a single disk?
 
If there were less GB people would be crying about low res textures...

There are only a few recent games that I play that have used less than 30GB of space...
 
STrAYeR said:
55GB and will still look like console garbage.
Click to expand...

Eh, the video looked pretty good, and assuming this won't be bait-and-switch like Aliens: CM, this should look pretty good, at least on PC.
Consoles are what they are, though, low-cost low-end proprietary PCs.
 
Am I the only one who gets confused by the CPU listings on these? The difference between a 2400 and 3770, at stock speeds, and unless the game is using HT, is almost trivial... same with the 8320 and 8350. Am I missing something? :confused:
 
KazeoHin said:
Remember back when games would ship on multiple disks if they couldn't fit on a single disk?
Click to expand...

Not very far back either. When I first purchased Half-Life 2 I believe it came on... 5 discs if I remember. Then the Orange Box came out and now all the files on it are worthless because Steam just downloads everything regardless. F.E.A.R. wasn't too far back either, having 5 or something discs as well.

Actually makes me laugh a bit, because I remember installing games on an old 4X CDROM (8X was just WAY to rich) and being pissed about how long it took. Now I have to wait 10 hours, add to a data cap while slowing down all other productivity in the mean time on a 5 meg down connection just to install a game I will probably end up hating and uninstalling. Woo!!! Progress!
 
SuicidalGoat said:
If there were less GB people would be crying about low res textures...

There are only a few recent games that I play that have used less than 30GB of space...
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with texture size and more to do with how crappy the engine is. Every game that's been released on this engine has had poor textures yet has massive space requirements.
 
the graphics and textures do not look like the amount to the 55 gigs worth of data here. More uncompressed audio?
 
Ehren8879 said:
Well, the game could come on a Blu-ray, but people haven't really invested in those as PC drives. If they were more prevalent, you might see the entire game on disc.


You gotta put those textures and effects somewhere.
Click to expand...

games have come out on multiple disk before. no reasone why it couldt be that againt. with and improved and propper compresison im thinkihn the game could fit 10 disc. Same as phantasmagoria
 
Armenius said:
It's more like uncompressed textures and sound. Titanfall would have been all but 15GB if it didn't force you to download and decompress audio files in 7 different languages... I want to know what happened for developers to believe all of the sudden that compression was a bad thing. We have a myriad of lossless compression algorithm for all types of files these days, so if anything compression has only gotten better over time.

Though I think a better physical medium for this day and age would be a USB stick: weighs very little, 64GB capacity is common these days, and takes up a lot less space than a disc. In bulk I don't think it would cost much more than Blu-ray, either.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and Cheap!
 
SvenBent said:
games have come out on multiple disk before. no reasone why it couldt be that againt. with and improved and propper compresison im thinkihn the game could fit 10 disc. Same as phantasmagoria
Click to expand...

With the prevalance of huge patches on DAY1 and game size updates, multiple disc installs (including usb drives) are a thing of the past. It's all about the benjamins and reality.
 
Last edited:
I bought GTA V on disk and it came on DVDs, like 5 or 6 of them.. 90% of the data was from disk then some updates and patches, etc.. 55G! And folks were complaining about Rage.. haha. I have a 300G cap I am pretty sure with xfinity.. this will put a dent in that.

So I am wondering right about now how my 980ti will hand this.. I will probably have to play at 1440p.. I doubt 4k with any decent image quality will be quick enough.
 
Well with the news that Comcast is upping their caps to 1TB this should be more palatable. I'm in the area of no caps so not worried about it. Looking forward to this game!
 
I have my original DOOM floppies next to me. I don't know that any purchase before or since has given me the number of hours of fun that did, back in the day.

I would estimate at least a 50/50 chance to me STILL preferring that game (dated as it is) to the new one, but I'd love nothing more than for Bethesda to somehow hit this out of the park.
 
azuza001 said:
And since when has a radeon 7870 and a 670 been equal parts?
Click to expand...

Uhm, since GCN is still receiving Driver-level enhancements but Kepler was literally abandoned the nanosecond Maxwell was released.

seriously, have a look at modern benchmarks.
 
The game doesn't look any better than 3 year old CoD from playing the demo... which all run nearly 60fps on my surface book i7 w/ the nvidia 940 (at 900p). I'm hoping the final product has some significant improvements with these specs. Definitely willing to wait to see how the SP portion plays out; MP was fun for the hour I played, but could grow old very quick.

Edit: Shitty nvidia 940 (it's a custom chip with 64-bit memory in the surface book)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top