Diablo 3 System Reqs

Looks like significant horsepower not required...so a good thing


System Requirements:
•Minimum : ◦Windows XP/Vista/Win7
◦ CPU: Intel Pentium® D 2.8 GHz or AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 4400+ (Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+)
◦1 GB RAM (Win XP), 1.5 GB (Win7)
◦NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT or ATI Radeon X1950 Pro
◦12 GB Hard Drive Space

•Recommended : ◦Windows XP/Vista/Win7
◦CPU: Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+
◦1 GB RAM (Win XP), 1.5 GB (Win7)
◦NVIDIA GeForce 260 or ATI Radeon HD 4870
◦12 GB Hard Drive Space

**edit- Updated in RED from Blizzard site linked below(original in parents). Sorry, direct copy and paste from RPGWatch first thing out of bed and didn't proof read...thanks for catch.

 

might want to work on that.

also, these reqs look somewhat heavy for a blizzard title. I'm a bit confused. SC2 has much lower requirements, and there seems to be more going on in SC2 for the computer than D3. Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. I'm talking more about min spec than recommended spec.

 

Indeed.
There seems to be a discrepancy between min and max cpu requirements.

Besides, for the graphics that Diablo 3 seems to be putting out (not much better than Torchlight), I don't think that those seem too correct.

 

Something tells me min spec is supposed to be 1.8 ghz cpu

 

Blizzard Support

 

I don't know...from several of the demo videos I've seen, there can definitely be a lot going on at certain times on the screen. I agree, not SC2 level of activity, but a lot of effects to be sure. And besides, in their position, I'd do something like this than say minimum is 6200 Go (for instance) and 1000's of schmoes pelt the support site with , I'm only getting 2.3 fps on ultra and 8xAA.

It says min. is 7800 GT, but I bet my 6 1/2 year old XPS gen2 with 7800 Go GTX can probably handle it in a pinch. It's my son's now, and he plays just about any game I've passed on to him with no complaints.

 

Are they shelling the specs already?? Well... it has only been a couple of days since they started the private beta and not the public one (yet).

Either they are really fast with D3 on specs or they had a wide range of computers to test it on in the private beta.

 

So Blizzard makes a game that can be played on just about any machine that's likely to be still operational in 2011? What's next, Rockstar games will release a game that generates controversy?

 

I'm super-pumped for this game. I miss all my old WoW bros, and I'm looking forward to playing this with them.

 

Sounds like it might play OK on my dm1z....I hope so at least.

 

Anyone seen any updated release dates? Just to have somewhat of a window..give or take 5 years..

And in case you haven't seen the abilities, this guy puts out a great video for each class..demon hunter for example:

Diablo 3 - Demon Hunter skills PREVIEW [ nonofficial video ] - YouTube

 

I think it sucks they they didn't target high-end machines with the recommended. It's cool that the minimum is low enough for basically anyone to jump in, but I expect a PC exclusive dev to do better than targeting 3+ year old GPUs with the ceiling.

And I can't go on without mentioning that the most they ask for is 1.5GB of RAM, and a freaking Pentium. Really? So much for expecting decent textures.

 

Show me a game that is putting 6990 into "recommended"
Minimum = lowest settings
Recommended = medium settings
Doesnt mean your super-gpu will have nothing to do.

It was always like that.

 

That sure worked well for Supreme Commander.

A game with an engine and max quality assets and settings that don't require top of the line gfx can be enjoyed (without graphical compromises) by more people. In the end that means more happy paying customers for Blizzard.

 

Yeah, what a shame that the unwashed masses will get to enjoy this game too.

A desktop 260 or 4870 is hardly bottom of the barrel.

 

we have no idea what they targeted for the high end.

textures don't sit in system memory.

they recommend a core 2 duo, not a 'freaking pentium'.

keep in mind: system requirements are the minimum specs necessary for the game to run in a supported way. That usually means 25 fps on all lowest settings with anything that can be turned off set to off, at about 1024x768 resolution. sometimes it means that it is just the lowest system that they tested it on to make sure it works.

recommended specs are usually targeted for reasonable settings and performance, something like 30 frames per second at medium settings or so, and 1366x768 resolution or so. it might be low settings or high settings, especially if the choices go from "lowest" to "ultra" with like 6 degrees in between. You have to understand that each game is different, medium settings doesn't always mean the same thing, and graphics options vary widely between games. You're high end hardware will have plenty to do.

however, none of that has any firm meaning. it certainly doesn't imply any sort of hardware ceiling. you can have extra physics and shader effects for high end hardware and still put out required and recommended specs. it depends on the design of the game and the engine. it is a lot more complex of an issue than you are giving it credit for.

 

/shrug, its a blizzard game... they always shoot low hardware-wise.

Yah, it will run on your average toaster...

Let's face it... this is Diablo... high-end graphics are not what the game is about or what it has ever been about.

It will look nice, and run every time on almost anything.

 

It doesn't look that nice though. Blizz should release screenshots of D3 on max all settings with actual antialiasing. If the screenshots currently are what it looks like all maxed out then people with great machines will be sorely disappointed.

They need to pull off something similar to when SC2 came out (every model got higher poly counts and tessellation and higher res textures).

 

And they better do it before the game comes out. SC2 wasn't all that demanding and Blizz felt they needed to improve the ULTRA setting... so they went for EXTREME after a couple of months after release, but without any noticeable difference.

 

To put things into perspective, the original Diablo 2 when initially released didn't ask for much at the time. Intel integrated graphics at close to bottom level ran the game comfortably, ramping up the technology baseline to today doesn't seem to have changed that fact.

Perhaps they will introduce more demanding graphics settings to please the hardcore hardware punishers, but all of that is speculation until it's properly released.

 

To be fair, Diablo 2 had a "perspective mode" that allowed owners of 3d graphics cards to have a more graphically enhanced play experience.

 

Blizzard is an exclusive PC developer in part because a ton of people who don't typically buy PC games will buy a Blizzard game. I don't really play PC games but I've played WoW for a little bit and I play a lot of Starcraft 2. I'm definitely going to get Diablo 3. For people like this Blizzard wants them to be able to run the game. I'm sure Blizzard likes money, and its nice how a lot of different people play SC2 even if they aren't "PC gamers". I know a ton of people who haven't bought a real PC game since before 2000 who own SC2.

Anyways you need a lot better specs then "recommended" to max out at 60+ FPS at 1080p with everything turned up including AA.

Finally does anybody know how D3 Beta runs on a 2.2 ghz i7 sand bridge and ATI 6750m?

 

Oh yes! Blizz likes money! In fact, Blizz likes money so much that they even consider bringing Diablo 3 to consoles.

Could be one of the reasons they took it easy on the graphics.

 

Diablo isnt really about graphics, its all about the gameplay.

 

Joke's on you, Diablo III is coming full-force onto consoles.

 

Seems unlikely it will happen any time soon given that they are just now hiring to put together a team for this.

 

Just because somebody doesn't buy PC games doesn't mean they also own a console. I literally know someone who only buys Blizzard games period.

Also the difference in release dates would probably be significant.

 

Have fun playing Diablo 3 on a joy pad, your gonna get pwned the moment you step out of town in pvp.

 

But that's no excuse to have graphics in this day and age that basically look and feel the same like improved WoW or mostly the same Torchlight (though the latter to be honest and D3 are quite similar in graphics - and Torchlight pulls ahead because it doesn't need an Internet connection or battle.net account to play Single Player).
Not that I don't like how Torchlight looks... far from it... it's just that I think that D3 could have done better, given the resources Blizzard has at it's disposal.

But all in all, I cannot say I'm too impressed with D3 thus far, and I likely will not be getting it anytime soon.
Sure, it looks like a good enough game to enjoy, but the Internet connection bit is what keeps me away because Single Player type games shouldn't need it for validation purposes. There are better ways to protect a product, but these moron are following in EA's footsteps.

 

They might seperate console/pc realms like they did with Halo (I think that's what Bungie did right?). You don't want to have console players vs pc gamers followed by an endless stream of qq/rage about mouse precision vs controller.

 

So you are saying that joystick users are in huge disadvantage?
Can we say that mouse is just awesome and joystick is like playing with arms cuffed behind your back?

 

I think separating console players and PC gamers is common with Call of Duty and all the other multiplayer first-person-shooter games. Otherwise keyboard-and-mouse players would just dominate due to accuracy. I expect they'll do the same here if they make a console Diablo III.

 

DA:Awakening is not even GPU demanding on full gfx option 1080p, yet it looks great and plays great.

 

Why would blizzard make a hardcore-specced game? This isn't Crysis, it would gain nothing by having advanced graphics. By being playable on most computers still in circulation it means many more sales. Blizzard games don't need fancy graphics, they have good gameplay (which many other games lack).

 

I agree, Blizzard games have always had low requirements so it can be played even on old machines. Thats why their games always have sub par graphics. If youve played Diablo series before, graphics is the last thing you will worry about.

While i also hate games that require an internet connection and no single player, Diablo 3 is an exception. Diablo is only fun when played online.

 

I played Diablo 1 back in 1998... Diablo 2 in 2000 (when it was released). I've always hoped that after Diablo 2, that they're graphics would improve. Also played all Baldur's gate, Planescape Torment, Ice wind dale, Never winter nights, Thief 1,2,3.. Since 1999..

Then came Dragon Age: Origins.. Awakening looks even better at full options 1080p.

To each his own. I've always prefer PC gaming since 1998 because of graphics. And since then always felt that it's going to improve as time goes.

 

People still play WoW. People used to play Starcraft 1 (a 10 year old game).

Blizzard makes games that stand the test of time. No other game maker is on Blizzard's scale in terms of games lasting. Games that last need graphics that aren't cutting edge (because the gets outdated) but graphics that last for a long time and look good even 3 years later.

 

I didn't like sc1 and sc2.. I felt fooled by the SC2 reviews and paying $56, totally not my kind of game.. To each his own.

Just like cars, others are okay with regular cars, others prefer fancier... To each his own..

 

Eh that is true, but it isn't really about regular cars vs. fancy cars. Gameplay is more important to some people then graphics and to me SC2 looks fine, the graphics are built so they won't look bad 5 years from now unlike games with "realistic graphics". Its more along the lines of whether you prefer the color blue or the color green, some people like Blizzards AAA gameplay and some people want cutting edge graphics. If Blizzard was making FPS games I would care more about graphics, but I don't care as much in RTS, MMORPG and RPG.

If you don't like an RTS game then SC2 is probably a bad game to get though.

 

Gameplay and GRAPHICS (Both) are important to me and others. Story of the game like with Baldur's Gate plus the game play fights (6 characters) with lot's of spells and controls are important.

It's very hard to appreciate the complexity and depth of anything without visual gratification. Why would it be even called PC gaming only to water down the graphics.

If they want a sub par graphics and make as much money, just release limited amount in PC version. PC games are supposed to highlight the real gaming experience by indulging all the senses.

That's why Dragon Age: Origins and Awakening is on top in my list. Diablo 1 and 2 are not quite close.

I know SC1 back in 1999, didn't like it at all.