How real world is Diablo III's 'recommended' specs?

[JEDI]

Directly from Blizzard for their Beta:

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS

PC
OS: Windows Vista®/Windows® 7 (Latest Service Packs) | Processor: Intel® Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz
or AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 5600+ 2.8 GHz | Memory: 2 GB RAM | Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® 260 or
ATI Radeon™ HD 4870 or better


I'm assuming this is the real minimum specs since my 2009 computer meets all this already?
What does it get me? Medium everything?

And what would be the real world specs if i want to play at near max eye candy/bells + whistles?

 

[Barfo]

Wait until the game is released.

 

[JamesV]

Real world specs for all games now :

Min
Dual Core
2GB
260 (ish)

Recommended (high settings)
Quad Core
4GB
570 (ish)

Real world Max
Good quality Quad Core
Good quality 4GB
580 to SLI

Simple.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Directly from Blizzard for their Beta:

I'm assuming this is the real minimum specs since my 2009 computer meets all this already?
What does it get me? Medium everything?

And what would be the real world specs if i want to play at near max eye candy/bells + whistles?

Th recommended specs will probably get you max setting at a reasonable resolution. A gtx260 can easily play vanilla Crysis on high. This is a Blizzard game we're talking about and it honestly doesn't look that good graphically. There's a cracked beta floating around if you really want to test your system.

 

[Red Hawk]

Real world specs for all games now :

Min
Dual Core
2GB
260 (ish)

Recommended (high settings)
Quad Core
4GB
570 (ish)

Real world Max
Good quality Quad Core
Good quality 4GB
580 to SLI

Simple.

Nah, I'd say normal recommended for most games is a 260. For really high graphics quality games, it would be 570.

 

[Slew Foot]

Blizzards stuff is usually pretty low on the recommended specs.

 

[Elcs]

Maybe a company has finally grown a pair and decided to put realistic recommended specs on a game.

My current system (AMD X2 6000+ @ stock, 4Gb and an early 512mb HD4870 (cursing my early adopter stance that one time)) could handle it alright at decent settings at my resolution of choice 1080p I would have thought. As mentioned, Blizzard typically has support for a wide range of old technology and runs decently on stuff that's really old.

My X2 6000+ was purchased in October 2007 and my 512mb HD4870 was purchased as soon as they came out so, in June'ish 2008. So the recommended video card is a little over three years old and the recommended CPU is probably 5, nearly 6 years old at a guess.

 

[MrWizzard]

Blizzards stuff is usually pretty low on the recommended specs.

THIS, they try to keep it friendly as they miss out on sales when they crank it up to much.

 

[Skott]

Some people use the 'Recommended' as the minimum when it comes to games.

 

[imaheadcase]

If you can run WoW you can run diablo 3

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Some people use the 'Recommended' as the minimum when it comes to games.

It's a good idea; some companies "minimum" specs is just good enough to get to the the main menu eventually and nothing else : p

 

[Wuzup101]

It's a blizzard game. Don't expect the best graphics quality in the world... and don't expect to need much to run it. It'll probably run on a laptop with a mid range card fairly decently (at least at lower quality levels). You won't need a 580 to play it. A graphics card in the $150 - 200 range will probably max it out at 1920x1200 with most of the eye candy turned on.

Note: I am a bit of a blizzard fan... so don't take the above as a blizzard slam. Their games generally look good IMHO for what they are.

 

[JEDI]

Wait until the game is released.

i need time to research and build my rig.

It's a blizzard game. Don't expect the best graphics quality in the world... and don't expect to need much to run it. It'll probably run on a laptop with a mid range card fairly decently (at least at lower quality levels). You won't need a 580 to play it. A graphics card in the $150 - 200 range will probably max it out at 1920x1200 with most of the eye candy turned on.

Note: I am a bit of a blizzard fan... so don't take the above as a blizzard slam. Their games generally look good IMHO for what they are.

do u think the game will play at 2560x1440? (i have a 27" LCD).
and will a radeon 4850 suffice to play it on high graphics?

 

[Locut0s]

Blizzard aims for the low(est) common denominator. You will be fine with your computer.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Blizzard aims for the low(est) common denominator. You will be fine with your computer.

/thread

 

[BathroomFeeling]

According to articles posted on Incgamers, specs talked about in this thread appear to be about right. Dual core 2GHz processor, 4GB memory, and at the very least a 8800GT generation card for decent performance.

However there's a certain video posted where the player killed huge numbers in a single blow, and his framerates tanked big time. He was using an i7 920 @ 2.6GHz, 6GB RAM, & a GTX 460SE. They speculated it was likely due to massive physics calculations or some such. Obviously folks aren't going to be doing 200+ kills at once constantly, but one can't safely rule that situation out from higher difficulty levels. Thus, for the very best experience, you folks will probably require at least a decent quad, and a mid-range card of the current generation.

 

[Sonikku]

THIS, they try to keep it friendly as they miss out on sales when they crank it up to much.

That seems to be one of the downsides of PC gaming in general. Having several times the horsepower of consoles rarely translates into several times the polygons/graphics quality. It's just not much of a viable business model building an engine from the ground up with ultra high end 3 grand machines in mind when you limit the number of prospective users that can buy your product. Sadly, a game written for the lowest common denominator with a few enhancements for high end machines can never look as good as an engine that was so cutting edge that it would take a high end machine just to run it in medium settings.

 

[PrayForDeath]

That seems to be one of the downsides of PC gaming in general. Having several times the horsepower of consoles rarely translates into several times the polygons/graphics quality. It's just not much of a viable business model building an engine from the ground up with ultra high end 3 grand machines in mind when you limit the number of prospective users that can buy your product. Sadly, a game written for the lowest common denominator with a few enhancements for high end machines can never look as good as an engine that was so cutting edge that it would take a high end machine just to run it in medium settings.

I just don't see how writing a game for the lowest common denominator and adding high end features are mutually exclusive. If anything, the PC has the advantage of giving you the option to enable DX11 in case you have the hardware to support, or leaving them off if you have an old video card. The consoles don't have that luxury (forced to use 2006 hardware)

The problem here is that the developers are just getting lazier over time, and prefer to just code their games for consoles and then lazily port them to PC without giving much though to high end features.

 

[Locut0s]

I just don't see how writing a game for the lowest common denominator and adding high end features are mutually exclusive. If anything, the PC has the advantage of giving you the option to enable DX11 in case you have the hardware to support, or leaving them off if you have an old video card. The consoles don't have that luxury (forced to use 2006 hardware)

The problem here is that the developers are just getting lazier over time, and prefer to just code their games for consoles and then lazily port them to PC without giving much though to high end features.

This. One only has to look to ambitious games like Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins and undoubtedly Skyrim when it's released to see this. Look at any review that looks at the PC AND console versions of any of these games and they will all say the same thing. Looks MUCH better on the PC with the settings cranked up.