-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
DOOM Eternal PC system requirements have been released [Up: Updated system requirements and PC unlock times]
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
I feel like so many requirements freak people out and often it doesn't match reality. I'm not stressed.
I'm just gonna push it to see how far it will take me. surely I can play on medium settings with my 970 gpu on 720 resolution.
I'm highly confident these specs were very conservative. Even in a worst case scenario you could just drop the res scaler slightly with an output res of 1080p, the 8x TSSAA does a lot to keep it looking smooth at subnative res.
I imagine that on a 970 you'll be more vram limited than anything else, and dropping texture/texture streaming or similar settings will likely allow you to maintain higher settings elsewhere.
Of course we won't properly know until people get the game in their hands and bench it. But like, I can play Wolf TNC (modified IdTech 6 that is described as "closer to idTech7") on integrated graphics so the idea of a 1060 being stuck on low settings seems pretty out there.
Lead engine programmer says is the game's more optimized than 2016 was so there's that at least
Maybe my machine can hit 1440p 144 FPS locked high settings now if it really is as optimized as that tweet mentions
I9-9900k OC to 5.2 ghz
2070 super
1tb Samsung evo 970 NVme M.2
TridentZ 16gb ram at 3200 MHz (May overclock)
Have some BIG TIME cooling for that chip also
I9-9900k OC to 5.2 ghz
2070 super
1tb Samsung evo 970 NVme M.2
TridentZ 16gb ram at 3200 MHz (May overclock)
Have some BIG TIME cooling for that chip also
That....still doesn't explain why you would list a GPU more powerful than any console out right now, including the one that came out in 2017, is the minimum spec. Like what? I understand that that's inflated, but like, that's wayyyyyyyyyyyy inflated if so. It doesn't make sense. Like to the point of being useless.
The point of a minimum spec is so someone can go, hey can I run this game. If the game doesn't need a 970, and it sounds like it doesn't, what is the purpose of having that be a minimum spec if it's not even close. What the heck?
Like this renders info that is supposed to be useful in purchasing decisions utterly useless to a consumer.
If my girlfriend, who has an rx570, wants to run the game, I am still at a loss as to whether she'd be able to run it at 1080p60. This spec sheet does not do it's job. If it said 1080p60 for medium settings or something requires an rx580, then I'd know okay she probably can get it running really well on an rx570.
This whole thing is really frustrating because the only explanation I can think of is they just don't want to support lower end cards. But stopping at a 970 and not going any lower when it probably goes a lot lower, given what actual devs are saying and based on how the game just looks and the reputation of the engine and how it's supposed to be MORE efficient this time, it just seems like absolutely minimum support effort so they don't have to support cards people use. Like hey let's support the 970 because everyone uses that. If they can't oh well that's below minimum specs sorry can't help you.
If that's not it then I'd love to hear the explanation. I've seen this happen for a few games and it does not sit well with me.
Correct, it doesn't make sense. But requirements lists are very frequently like this. Ignore this, wait for benches when the game comes out.
It lists 470. Even taking this at face value (which we shouldn't), a 570 is the same as a 470 effectively. So it's listed as 1080/60/low.
Billy Khan also tweeted that dynamic res scaling is in the game (on PC), so even if your GPU isn't quite getting you constant 60, that'll help keep it up.
I don't like it because it's kind of scummy. So if someone with a 960 can't run the game because of some issue, even though it should run on a 960, this probably means they won't support it. I really don't like that at all. If they are going to support it...what is the point of doing this then?
I don't follow what you're saying. The game will run on all Nvid and AMD GPUs, it just might not perform great. It's not about being "supported" or "unsupported". Sometimes games run really great on cards below the min req, other times games run poorly at or above min req, but in neither case do companies ever have any kind of legal obligation to "support" or ensure that it runs great there. It's a guideline.
See my edit above regarding the 570.
Okay now that's weird. Didn't see the 470. Just assumed since the 970 was so much better that it'd be the 480 as that's more close in performance. Same with how the 1060 is listed, even though a 1050 is more powerful than the rx 470. It's just really odd.
Anyway, as I've understood it, basically let's say I try to run this game on a gtx 260. It probably isn't going to work right. And if I try to contact Id's support, they are probably going to go hey sorry we're not going to fix this, you don't meet our minimum spec.
But let's say I have a gtx 1080 and say hey the game is stuttering a lot. Then they might go okay send us a dxdiag and we'll look into it. Something like that.
That's totally reasonable. Where it gets a bit dicey is when the minimum spec is kinda high. Obviously there's an incentive for companies to put the cut off point a bit higher than they have to, if that makes sense.
This happens in all kinds of industry. Happens with video games themselves. Turn10 doesn't support their games past like a few years with any kind of bug fixes or server errors. Even if the servers are up, if they mess up, they won't fix them because they reach End of Life. Obviously it's in a company's best interest to keep the time before EoL happens pretty short. Support and bug fixes and things costs time and money and people to hire. Same thing with a graphics card. The fewer graphics cards you say you support, the easier you can get out of customer complaints with "well hey that's on you. YOU didn't meet our minimum spec we clearly outlined."
If you want to know why PC specs are so useless...well that's why.
The problem is this one seems particularly egregious. The game can't be both incredibly well optimized and run on a 2013 console at 60 fps while also demanding a 970. Like which is it. The 970 is definitely outclassed now, but it's still capable and so are cards not as powerful as it. This game will most assuredly run on weaker cards just fine.
I dunno. From what info we can reasonably assess here, this seems like a particularly bad set of minimum specs. Worse than normal. They literally said this game is better optimized than the last game. Having such a jump from the min reqs from the last game doesn't make sense. The 970 is not a low end card. And a 470 isn't as powerful as it. It's just a mess.
Same here. I only have this thing for a few weeks and the game I upgraded for is already putting it to the test. I have a 2070 Super so I should be fine there, but a Ryzen 5 (not 7)... hopefully enough for high settings on 1080p, don't need 1440.
They are probably still streaming assets and textures, otherwise they would be wasting memory basically.
You will be fine I think. Even the jump from 1080p to 1440p is stressing the system a lot - especially in high end games.
Just because the 970 is more powerful than the base consoles doesn't mean that there isn't a minimum requirement when it comes to VRAM that they might recommend the user to have.
3600X
RTX 2060 6gb
16 gb DDR4 ram
I think I should get decent performance, though I have an Xbox one X so maybe I'll be better off on console?
RTX 2060 6gb
16 gb DDR4 ram
I think I should get decent performance, though I have an Xbox one X so maybe I'll be better off on console?
Yeah that would be great, would certainly help me in deciding between my Xbox one X and my PC.
According to the released requirements, not at full HD 60 fps.
i haven't seen a 970 listed in min requirements in years, as far as 'big' releases go
just the way it is, they have to cover their ass on whatever limitations may pop up despite "lesser"/"old" cards being perfectly acceptable
I have honestly no idea why people freak out about listed specs for a game: they are contextless. And any game running on console will run on a potato pc. It is common sense and simple deduction that should tell anyone that.
They seem like very high requirements considering the last game was really flexible and ran really well on a range of hardware.
Probably using lower as low settings like the first game. That had Switch specific settings iirc.
My GTX970 is getting old. Have to play the waiting game with this one. Not going to play this on low, lol.
What, are you implying there aren't console games that runs poorly on PC?
I'm sure they will be, but megatexturing was built to scale down to systems with 256MB RAM.
While I'm sure DOOM (2016) wouldn't scale that low (minimum spec listed had 2GB VRAM) I do expect that this is the reason for the seemingly higher VRAM requirements.
They did provide context - the minimum specs were said to be for 1080p60 low, and the recommended specs were for 1440p60 high.
Of course what they consider to be a "1080p60" experience may differ from what some people are used to playing at when they say a game is running at "60 FPS". I've seen people say that a game is running at a "smooth 60 FPS" when they only briefly saw it hit 60 once and it spends most of its time in the 40s.
I'm more interested in what it takes to run the game at 120 FPS anyway.
I thought DOOM (2016) felt pretty bad to play with a mouse at only 60 FPS, and dropped the resolution to something like 720p (or perhaps lower?) to achieve the best performance that I could on the 4GB GTX 960 I had at the time.
I remember it being CPU-limited by my i5-2500K in many areas too, but that may have been prior to the Vulkan patch.
Yeah, that's the truth in pretty much any case so far.
Though one thing I will say that is always worth stressing: Low, Medium, High, Ultra, they mean nothing without the context of what the game is doing with the hardware in each setting. One game's Low can be more taxing than another game's Ultra. Even if it did end up actually requiring a 1060, you can bet it'd be because they're doing incredible things with this game graphically on the highest settings, to the point where even Low vastly outclasses consoles.
It's just not realistically what they're doing because they'd alienate a good chunk of the market by not supporting settings they've already created anyway to run on consoles. If it was a PC exclusive, then it could actually be the case.
Of course there are, but it's usually not advertised by the publisher in the form of system requirements, hahaha. We're usually either caught by surprise when it happens from a big publisher, or they're one of "the usual suspects". I can't remember the last time a sequel to a game that runs beautifully was a bad port that was announced in advance by the system requirements. This doesn't make sense.
I can, however, remember many many many times when people freaked out over system requirements and it amounted to nothing.
i5-6600K @4.5GHz
1080 Ti
16GB RAM
Putting the game on an SSD. Aiming for 1440p @ 144fps. Like every other game, I'm just going to throw every setting on Ultra and then slowly disable/lower each setting until I reach a stable framerate. Having G-Sync helps too.
1080 Ti
16GB RAM
Putting the game on an SSD. Aiming for 1440p @ 144fps. Like every other game, I'm just going to throw every setting on Ultra and then slowly disable/lower each setting until I reach a stable framerate. Having G-Sync helps too.
That's a good point for other people who don't mind, but I would. I'm overdue for a meaningful update on my PC, this is just another reason to throw on the pile.
my 9900K 32GB RTX 2080 won't have any issues. can't wait to play this on my 1440p 144hz screen.
60hz is just too slow for these games.
60hz is just too slow for these games.
