Games system requirements of the year 2017??

Do you ever wonder what games would like in say.. 10 years?? in year 2017?

well I did some calculating and campearing of the games from year 1997 to 2007 and then

I multiplyed 2007 to 2017 to see at list what kind of system requirments are we going to need lol



Year 1997!!!

Quake II System Requirements

- Windows® 95 or NT 4.0 with 100% compatible computer system
- Pentium® 90 MHz Processor (133 MHz recommended)

Memory:
- Win 95 - 16 MB RAM Required (24 MB recommended)
- Win NT 4.0 - 24 MB RAM Required

- 100% Sound Blaster-compatible sound card
- Joystick and mouse-supported (3-button mouse recommended)
- Supports network and internet play via TCP/IP
- Minimum Install Additional Requirements (Play from CD-ROM)
- Quad-Speed CD-ROM drive (600k/sec. sustained transfer rate)
- Hard Disk drive with at least 25 MB of uncompressed space available
- Normal Install Additional Requirements (Play from Hard Disk)

GLQuake II Additional Requirements
- 24 MB RAM for all operating systems
- GLQuake II supports some OpenGL 3D accelerator cards



The Settlers 2

System Requirements

Minimum:
IBM PC 486/66 MHz, 8 MB RAM, DOS 5.0 or Windows 95, SVGA video card,

Sound Blaster-compatible sound card, 2x CD-ROM drive, and 35 MB hard-disk space

Recommended:
Pentium 75 MHz and 16 MB RAM



Year 2007

System Requirements

* HARDWARE REQUIREMENTSCPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.8 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) XP 2800+
processor (Pentium 4 3.0GHz or equivalent for Windows Vista)
* RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista)(below
* Video Card: 128MB NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 5700 or ATI(TM) Radeon(TM) 9700

* Sound Card: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
* HDD Space: 750MB of free hard drive space, plus 200MB for Windows swap file



Minimum System Requirements System:

Pentium IV 2.0 GHz or equivalent RAM: 512 MB Video Memory: 128 MB Hard Drive Space: 3000 MB

Recommended System Requirements System:

Pentium IV 3.0 GHz or equivalent RAM: 1024 MB Video Memory: 256 MB



Soo as you can see... in 10 years we made a huge junp from about

year 1997

Ram= ~ 300MBs

CPU=~ 133MHz

HDD=~ 25MB

Vidoe Card=~ 1MBs

Years 2007

Ram=~ 1 GB or 1024MB

CPU=~ 2.8 GHz or 2800MHz

HDD=~ 3GBs or 3000MBs

Vidoe Card=~ 128MBs

and I think.. in year 2017 we will see something like this

RAM=~ 24GBs or 24576 MBs ( based on x43) fixed

CPU=~ 58.8GHz or 58800MHz ( based on x21)

HHD=~ 30GBs or 30000MBs ( based on x10) fixed

Video Card=~ 16GBs or 16384Mbs (based on x128 )

so.. what do you think of it?? lol could it be real?

well... I just based this on how and by how it increased from year 1997 to 2007...

Im not saying it will be like that im saying it might... if it will move at the same rate..

Great thread, really brought back some memories :P

As for 2017... I predict quantum computers ;) jk.. But seriously, I don't think numbers will just keep going up and up; there's bound to be some completely new technology by then. Either that or they find some kickass new way of cooling down chips... And if they do find cooler technology and numbers do keep climbing, they'll climb a crap load faster than they did from 97 till now.

EDIT:

One second thought, you also have to consider where we stand right now.. I mean today's games look incredible.. And I don't mean that in the same way as they did back when Doom came out. I mean there isn't tooo much of a stretch left from where we are now to practically photorealistic graphics. And about the numbers, even if they DON'T climb that fast, the capability and boundaries of technology overall will certainly grow much faster than it did from 97 till now.

It could be that way but I doubt it. Right now the focus is less on more GHz and more on multiple CPU cores.
Right now some games are already recommending at least 2 cores for te full game experience. So the CPU requirement may go from GHz to how many cores you have on your CPU.

As for RAM, who knows, each version of Crapdows requires an increasing large amount of RAm to allow games to run because Windows itself is hogging so much RAM for itself.

well I hope that I will slow down at some point but... what if they will come up with some kind of 3D virtual "monitor"

that will sort of project everything around you...

btw I have seen on technews that there been researches done on magnetic processors..

that when you will turn off PC with that kind of processor the information will stay there

so when you turn it on it will pe right there.. thats kind a cool .. right

i predict that within 10 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of europe will own them

assuming the technology is a linear line - then just adding a few zeros onto everything is probably right

but who's to say we won't have some radical new technologies that change the way games work, or improvements in operating systems that significantly reduce requirements?

i'm not very technologically savvy, so i'm hardly commenting from an educated or experienced position, but it only takes one discovery to fundamentally alter the way games interact with the hardware and software running them - we could see an increase in standardisation across hardware manufactuters, for example, which could significantly reduces hardware requirements, or improvements in software which emulate this or other tools which allow developers to make much greater use of varying hardware types to their fullest

but yeah, if everything stays the same then the years from now, we'll probably be talking 6-8gb ram, 4 or 8 core cpus will be standard and gpus will be several times more powerful, and SLI type technologies may become the industrial standard

In September 1956 IBM launched the 305 RAMAC, the first computer with a hard disk drive (HDD). The HDD weighed over a ton and stored 5MB of data.

in ten years, a computer might be overhauled and build entirely different rather than everything just bigger. If things just keep getting bigger, that will be disappointing, I would like to see a entire revolution of the PC.harrisi17

good point. and anyway how much more of a graphics improvement can there be? gameplay is virtually the same as it was.

Almost or over 100 core processors and almost 100gb of ram. Hard drives are measured in terabytes instead of gigabytes.Drathyl

hardrives are already beginning to be measured in terabytes!! if the rate of advancing is consistant then maybe you wil need a tb of ram??

great thread

You might be right about the ram requirements since those increase at a steady rate.

The CPU requirements are obviously wrong since you didn't take into account that there has been no increase in frequency for the last 3 or 4 years. It's ratherthe architecture and the number of cores that have changed, not the operating speed.

HD requirements increase rather steadily too, but your extrapolation is a bit off (from 25MB to 3 GB). Games were larger than 25MB back then (that was the minimum space you needed on the HD if you ran the game from the CD, you could also do a full install like with current games) so it really went from 200-300 MB to 3 GB.

Video ram requirements are off also, since in 1997 the first 3D cards have been introduced changing the pace completely. It's clear however that video ram doesn't increase as much as during the early years.

You would imagine that pc parts would come to a stand still. If you look at games like crysis, you could say that games cant get any better looking than that. But of course there is always room for improvement.

You would imagine that pc parts would come to a stand still. If you look at games like crysis, you could say that games cant get any better looking than that. But of course there is always room for improvement.

Master_Kev

I have a feeling that we have almost hit the top for monitor displays. There is a real possibility that hardware and gaming development won't be recieving any major upgrades for a while once the new series 9 of GeForce hits the market.

You would imagine that pc parts would come to a stand still. If you look at games like crysis, you could say that games cant get any better looking than that. But of course there is always room for improvement.

Master_Kev

i dont know if you could call it improvement. more might be a more accurate word.but i dont think that people will want that. there can be more weapons etc but no one wants too much stuff.

when i play a game i only like to have 2 or 3 weapons that will suit a particular part best, not too much choice.also some landscapes are huge now. just cause andfarcry give me a sense that i can never quite do justice to a level because there is so much of it.

graphics will soon become asgood as the human eye can see. whats the point in more then?

[QUOTE="Master_Kev"]

You would imagine that pc parts would come to a stand still. If you look at games like crysis, you could say that games cant get any better looking than that. But of course there is always room for improvement.

jpph

i dont know if you could call it improvement. more might be a more accurate word.but i dont think that people will want that. there can be more weapons etc but no one wants too much stuff.

when i play a game i only like to have 2 or 3 weapons that will suit a particular part best, not too much choice.also some landscapes are huge now. just cause andfarcry give me a sense that i can never quite do justice to a level because there is so much of it.

graphics will soon become asgood as the human eye can see. whats the point in more then?

Games are still far away from looking that realistic. They won't be in 10 years either. Games like Crysis will look cartoony by then. People said the same thing about HL2 and even the original Doom.

Hopefully nothing gonna change too much. cuz everything faster and more speed, it's gonna be too hot to run.....Dogswithguns

the beauty of miniaturization...

i hope they go back to single core at some point cause going to hexagon core is ridiculous lolSOTE

a hexagon is a geometric shape dude

computer power has risen exponentially so only taking one time frame sample will give you very inaccurate predictions

In 10 years, I think computers will be a lot more like todays consoles. I imagine you'd only get to pick a few different components and stuff..

Nice thread ;)

In 10 years, I think computers will be a lot more like todays consoles. I imagine you'd only get to pick a few different components and stuff..

Nice thread ;)

Ney_

its in imo, other way, consoles will become more like computer

Here is my prediction for a minimum system requirements. Its pretty hard to predict these kind of things. Ten years ago I would never thought we would be Quad core CPUs and all that. You just couldnt predict something like that.

All hardware and software would be 128 bit by then, increase performance for games and hardware. Assuming Directx 12 have already came out, automatically making games fully optimized for multicore.

Minimum system requirement prediction:

Eight Core 5 ghz CPU
16 gbs System memory
A Dual GPU core graphic card with 4 gigs of video memory, directx 12
40 gigs of hard drive space, with 4 gigs of additional space
4x Blu ray drive
32 bit sound card
widescreen monitor (games only support widescreen with no standard resolution)
Windows OS 2012

Eight Core 5 ghz CPU
16 gbs System memory
A Dual GPU core graphic card with 4 gigs of video memory, directx 12
40 gigs of hard drive space, with 4 gigs of additional space
4x Blu ray drive
32 bit sound card
widescreen monitor (games only support widescreen with no standard resolution)
Windows OS 2012

still smoking that reefer i see?

All hardware and software would be 128 bit by then, increase performance for games and hardware. Assuming Directx 12 have already came out, automatically making games fully optimized for multicore.Jd1680a

128 bit? Automatically optimized for multicore? Do you know anything about technology or programming (no offence)?

The reason we're transitioning to 64 bit computers now is because the memory cap in 32 bit computers will start to become a problem and it's already been a problem in servers for a long time. 32 bit denotes the largest single memory unit in the computer. For each piece of memory you reserve you need an adress and 2^32 equals about 4 billion memory adresses wich means 4gb of memory. Each time you double the bits the number of memory adresses increases exponentially which means that the time you have before you need to increase again also increases exponentially meaning that each bit level will last much longer than the last. 2^64 is way, way bigger than 2^32, 4 billion times bigger actually, the memory cap of a 64 bit system is around 17 billion gigabytes. 128 bit won't be needed for 50 years.

Also, there's no such thing as automatic optimization for multicores in an API. To take advantage of each core you need a separate thread for each one and that's not something that an API can generate automatically, that's code design and it's far from a solved problem.

You might be right about the ram requirements since those increase at a steady rate.

The CPU requirements are obviously wrong since you didn't take into account that there has been no increase in frequency for the last 3 or 4 years. It's ratherthe architecture and the number of cores that have changed, not the operating speed.

HD requirements increase rather steadily too, but your extrapolation is a bit off (from 25MB to 3 GB). Games were larger than 25MB back then (that was the minimum space you needed on the HD if you ran the game from the CD, you could also do a full install like with current games) so it really went from 200-300 MB to 3 GB.

Video ram requirements are off also, since in 1997 the first 3D cards have been introduced changing the pace completely. It's clear however that video ram doesn't increase as much as during the early years.

Gog

yeah... could be.. could be...

well let me change the HDD amount then

Eight Core 5 ghz CPU
16 gbs System memory
A Dual GPU core graphic card with 4 gigs of video memory, directx 12
40 gigs of hard drive space, with 4 gigs of additional space
4x Blu ray drive
32 bit sound card
widescreen monitor (games only support widescreen with no standard resolution)
Windows OS 2012

still smoking that reefer i see?

skoosuks

you reckon blu-ray will still be around? i mean theyre only like 25gb. or something similiar.

i think games wil be similiar to flash drives. no more discs.

gog: your probably right. but it is hard to think of a huge improvement on crysis graphics.

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"]All hardware and software would be 128 bit by then, increase performance for games and hardware. Assuming Directx 12 have already came out, automatically making games fully optimized for multicore.kyrieee

128 bit? Automatically optimized for multicore? Do you know anything about technology or programming (no offence)?

Dont think of me as being ignorant about technology. It was ten years ago when the PI just came out and that was 32 bit. Now we are finally transfering over to 64 bit. It isnt impractical to think that we could switch to 128 bit in ten years despite how close we are to the maximum memory 64 bit could support.

For Directx 12, Microsoft could make inbed multicore drivers within a future directx to make it easier for developers to develop games. Obivously you know that multicore, as in more then one core, is here to stay. Intel have already said there will be an eight core CPU some time in the near future. That being said, there will need to be a driver or some common coding within game engines to make it more efficent for games.

There is no right or wrong answer to this thread. This is ten years into the future within reasoning anything is possible. If you were to go back to 1959 and ask someone if its possible for someone to land and walk on the moon in ten years, what kind of answer will you get? You probably get someone like you laughing at your face.

you reckon blu-ray will still be around? i mean theyre only like 25gb. or something similiar.

i think games wil be similiar to flash drives. no more discs.

gog: your probably right. but it is hard to think of a huge improvement on crysis graphics.

jpph

It took more then ten years for all publisher to finally switch to dvd only. How long will it take for all publishers to put out games on blu ray discs? Then that is for the publisher to decide to either switch to blu ray or flash memory.

Flash memory is practical even I think would be possible. Could you imagine if they use the same SD flash memory used for a digital camera to distribute games with. If flash memory was 32 gigs or more and it cost $1 to make one flash memory, then it would be practical for publishers to switch.

Read "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil for one guy's highly interesting take on the future of computers, etc.

Give me a holodeck, no more 3d on 2d monitors

one day i hope we can be playing virtaul games where we get into a tube and all of our dna is converted into a machine so yah we can actually walk and smell and feel when we go inside a game

wow imagine playing a doom series or quake yah quake us jumping rly high thorugh jumping pads lol....

Dont think of me as being ignorant about technology. It was ten years ago when the PI just came out and that was 32 bit. Now we are finally transfering over to 64 bit. It isnt impractical to think that we could switch to 128 bit in ten years despite how close we are to the maximum memory 64 bit could support.

Jd1680a

Actually it's beenover 22 years since the first 32-bitPC's.Considering that the gap between32 to 64 bit is much smaller than going from 64to 128 bits I don't see 128-bit CPU's becoming mainstream any time soon.

theres law that says computer technology power doubles every 18 months or so. So you could try calculating by multiplying the current numbers by exponents.

theres law that says computer technology power doubles every 18 months or so. So you could try calculating by multiplying the current numbers by exponents.

PSdual_wielder

It's more of a rule-of-thumb than law really. I've heard of it, but as some people mentioned, 32 bit to 64 bit took over ten years, so it doesnt always apply.

[QUOTE="Ney_"]

In 10 years, I think computers will be a lot more like todays consoles. I imagine you'd only get to pick a few different components and stuff..

Nice thread ;)

naval

its in imo, other way, consoles will become more like computer

Console alredy are like Computers

Here is my prediction for a minimum system requirements. Its pretty hard to predict these kind of things. Ten years ago I would never thought we would be Quad core CPUs and all that. You just couldnt predict something like that.

All hardware and software would be 128 bit by then, increase performance for games and hardware. Assuming Directx 12 have already came out, automatically making games fully optimized for multicore.

Minimum system requirement prediction:

Eight Core 5 ghz CPU
16 gbs System memory
A Dual GPU core graphic card with 4 gigs of video memory, directx 12
40 gigs of hard drive space, with 4 gigs of additional space
4x Blu ray drive
32 bit sound card
widescreen monitor (games only support widescreen with no standard resolution)
Windows OS 2012

Jd1680a

I'm confused, 40 gigs of hard drive space? with 4 gigs of additional space?

Are you smoking some wacky cracky?

[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

theres law that says computer technology power doubles every 18 months or so. So you could try calculating by multiplying the current numbers by exponents.

flipin_jackass

It's more of a rule-of-thumb than law really. I've heard of it, but as some people mentioned, 32 bit to 64 bit took over ten years, so it doesnt always apply.

You're referring to Moore's Law which states that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months.

Dont think of me as being ignorant about technology. It was ten years ago when the PI just came out and that was 32 bit. Now we are finally transfering over to 64 bit. It isnt impractical to think that we could switch to 128 bit in ten years despite how close we are to the maximum memory 64 bit could support.

For Directx 12, Microsoft could make inbed multicore drivers within a future directx to make it easier for developers to develop games. Obivously you know that multicore, as in more then one core, is here to stay. Intel have already said there will be an eight core CPU some time in the near future. That being said, there will need to be a driver or some common coding within game engines to make it more efficent for games.Jd1680a

Listen, can't we just discuss this and be factual and civic? I'm not out to insult you but to suggest that we'll have 128 bit computers in 10 years is ludicrous. If you think we're going to do that even though we don't exceed the memory limitations then at least provide a reason. Do you know about the memory bloating that'd occur? Increasing the bit level is problematic and it's to be avoided.

As for multithreading, yes I'm aware Intel are working on chips with even more cores, they even have experimental ones with 70+, but that doesn't contradict what I was saying. The reason they're doing that is because they've hit a wall when it comes to traditional CPU improvement. They can't make the circuits much smaller anyway because quantum mechanics will become to pronounced. Very few algorithms in computer games scale well with additional processors / cores, some, like raytracers, do (raytracing scales with a quota of like 15/16 which is tremendously good), but all in all, "multithreading is far from a solved problem". Who said that? John Carmack at his keynote at quakecon 2006, go listen to it yourself. Multithreading is very problematic, it requires a completely new approach to programming design. If you program you probably know of the difficulties and if you don't program I'd take too long for me to elaborate here.

You could liken additional cores to additional humans trying to do something that needs to be done incrementally, lets say type a word on your keyboard. If you've got 5 persons you could hit 5 times as many keys at one time, but when typing a word you need to hit one key before you hit the next so it wouldn't actually go any faster.