Slashdot Mirror
Carmack on Doom 3 Video Cards
mr_sheel writes "According to a Gamespy interview with John Carmack, Carmack says what he thinks about the video cards with Doom3: ATI Radeon 8500 is a better card, with a nicer fragment path, while NVidia still consistently runs faster due to better drivers. And of course, the GeForce SDR cards will not be "fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so." And in a ShackNews interview with Carmack, he says that Doom 3 at E3 was only running at medium quality... wow."
Just get the mid end equipment, that or last generation high end equipment. Right now, the GF4 Ti4200 is a very good buy, at ~$200. It's still one of the most expensive parts inside the box, but very good bang for the buck.
If you want an even cheaper solution, go for a GF3 Ti200. It's still fast enough to play everything (including, I assume, Doom III), and goes for like ~$120.
Whatever you do, don't get a GF4 MX. They aren't actually that slow, but their architecure is on the level of the old GF2s.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
You know what? What if people were obsessed with lobsters the way that these guys were with fill rates?
you know, bob down at the creek is like: "Hey, I caught this lobster, and it's scurrying abilities are really great, but the sloppy curvature of its claws really kills it for me..." and then slim replies, "Well, shit, I'm gonna overclock my lobster boat and catch so many lobsters they're gonna elect me King of Red Lobster! And it's got bump-mapping too!"
My point being: You can stay up too late and have your weird z-buffered, anti-aliased dreams, but you can't get back that $400 you just dropped on the latest Bligblagdoodlehopper of a card, and dontcha forget itBR>
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Well, while Doom III certainly looks good, I don't think the whole "medium quality" issue is so big a deal. If it was, they'd have taken more of an effort and shown it at high quality, or at least they'd have told just about everyone that it'd look better at high quality.
:P
In the "interview" with Shacknews (actually it's just one email), Carmack says that high quality settings opposed to medium ones would mean "uncompressed textures" and "anisotropic filtering". While especially anisotropic filtering is nice, it's not that big of a deal. The game would look better, but not stunningly so, and I'm not actually sure if you'd notice the higher quality in the low res movies that are available on the net.
The interview is quite interesting, though, even though it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know (Nvidia faster than Ati, Ati's drivers suck, GF4 Ti best buy). Please note that the story (for some reason) links to page two of the review, page one is available, too.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Seriously.
I'm an "old timer", but still I'm not old enough to have been concious of when this phenomenon actually began; there was a fundamental change somewhere in the last 15 years where things shifted from games using existing hardware fully to where games became the reason themselves to create new, faster hardware devices.
Not that this is bad, nit by any means, but it does give one interesting meat to consider; no one will argue that games are what's driving things like new video card technologies -- when did the chicken outdo the egg?
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Ok, first off, nobody makes more money than god. Churches are very profitable businesses.
Second off, sweet christ that was a terrible analogy, if only because maybe five guys in the world can relate.
Thirdly (and lastly, my beer isn't getting any cooler), why shouldn't there be a high end pc games market? Porsche doesn't have to use geo metro engines so that geo metro owners don't feel left out.
Lastly (I lied about the last one), of course you can't get money back that you spend. This is one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to it.
--
pants ahoy
Wing commander was the first game to start the hardware upgrade craze over a game. I have the PC Computing magazine that discusses this; it probably drove the move to 386's more than windows 3!
c) and on a TV.
On a TV. I mean really. You want to take a game like that, meant to be seen at 1024x764 and put in on a screen that can squeeze out only 400x500 if you're lucky? Would you like me to kick you in the nuts while you're playing, too?
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
As far as 3D-accelerators go, the point when people started buying hardware just for games can fairly accurately be pinpointed to the release of GlQuake - which was a free download after Quake shipped allowing hardware acceleration. For a few years after that games shipped with hardware and software rendering, but all the reviews for such games would say "this game looks wicked cool with hardware acceleration, but looks like dog vomit in software mode- only buy this spiffy new game if you have a 3D card". Slowly then games went from software render only, to both software and hardware rendering, to where we are today that all games require hardware acceleration. This trend has repeated itself for various features build into different generations of 3D accelerators.
First it comes out that multiplayer will be de-emphasized in D3. Then it's basically said that in order to display it properly you need to shell out $300 on a video card. I'll be more interested in Unreal 2. At least they actually care about what the PC gamer wants.
:)
:)
I play games on the PC. Am I a PC gamer? I like single-player games. I'm quite excited about Doom III's focus being on single-player. I am quite likely to buy it, and to spend whatever I need to be able to run it properly.
I remember the first two Dooms fondly because they were engrossing single-player games. Quake I was good as well, but Quake II, Arena and games like Unreal, etc. catered to the multi-player crowd. Fine, that's what some people want, but not me.
I think the main reason that I don't like multiplayer FPS games is that I suck. My friends (when we can co-ordinate something) kick my ass, and I get tired really quickly of having my ass fragged on the net by some 14 year-old who runs circles around me. I don't have my whole life to devote to improving my Quake skills. Therefore, I like to play single-player, where I can set my own handicap.
Moreover, there is a real repetitiveness to deathmatch-type games, IMHO. Give me something engrossing, like Half Life was.
As for the complaint about a $300 video card, well:
a/ games like this are graphics-dependent and I would rather have mind-blowing graphics and realism than have it suck because they want to be backwards-compatible with your Voodoo 1 card **
b/ you are going to use this $300 for more than Doom III, because
c/ by making such an advanced and neat-o engine (if it is all it is hyped to be), ID is improving the quality of ALL FPS games. First, they are raising the bar for their competitors and second, many will license their technology. Maybe even some people who will make a nice multi-player FPS for people like you.
Therefore, I think you should retract your silly comments and support what ID is doing for the good of gamers everywhere.
** Don't knock me for this, I play Nethack too, and I posted my YAFAP today, for those who would like to congratulate me.
I would say that an analysis at nvidia and at ATI would also show a completely different corporate philosophy regarding driver development (I can't vouch for this, nor do I have any first hand knowledge : It's just a hunch). With nvidia hardware, the drivers (I'm normally a Windows guy, so we're talking Wintel here) install professionally, they work superbly, they continually support even ancient chipsets (TNT users are seeing performance improvements with each detonator release), and they are feature rich. With ATI, in every experience that I've had the installs have been horribly amateurish, the drivers have been GPFing nightmares, the documentation is horrible, and is usually accusatory of the customer (I recently came across one of these "All your problems are belong to you" sort of documents with a ATI TVWonder PCI). ATI also likes to orphan products, so even only slightly dated products often get relegated to the un-updated trash heap. I suspect, and again this is only a hunch, that ATI treats driver and application development as an nuisance, and only as something to be done when the product is on retail shelves and to entice customers (a very short term approach), whereas nvidia treats it as a scientific continual pursuit of perfection for all their customers.
If I sound down on ATI, I'm not really : They have proven themselves to have extraordinary hardware guys who make, literally, the best stuff in the business, however their ability to continually shoot themselves in the foot with a horrible software development record is hard to fathom : Talk to anyone about ATI, and 95% of the time they'll relate some driver nightmare they've had with an ATI card.
They've hired a real science fiction author to write the story for the game. It's the same guy who did the 7th Guest story, if you remember that old (but excellent) game. I don't remember the guys name off the top of my head though...
That's what folks always say when comparing PCs to consoles, and it's certainly not untrue. The beauty of any current console, though, is that in one year, I'll still be able to enjoy brand new games made for that console, with the knowledge that the games are running exactly as intended. This is unfortunately not always the case with a PC.
Because by the time a Mac version of the game is released, those expensive video cards will have been low-end for at least a couple years.
...
[Me 3 years from now]: Hey, I just got this cool new game, Doom III !
[Everybody else]:
[Everybody else] (to each other, turning away): C'mon, let's go play Tribes 4.
c-hack.com |
"...no one will argue that games are what's driving things like new video card technologies -- when did the chicken outdo the egg? "
;)
It probably happened when people spent $3,000 on the latest computer hardware and demanded immediate return on their investment. At l;east that was my experience. My dad got me a 486-33 mhz machine back when they were seriously top of the line. That computer was like my supercomputer for many, many months. My dad dropped a pretty hefty chunk of change on it. He and I both felt that for all the money spent on it, it'd better be a day to night difference over the old 286 I had.
Fortunately, I had Wing Commander II. And boy was it superior on the 486! The game took advantage of the extra RAM to draw more stuff on the screen (like the pilot's hand controlling the ship), and it had the voice pack so your wingman could talk! And the game was smooooooooooooooth.
I think that game did more to impress my dad with his investment than the 3D stuff I ended up doing later on it. Any queeziness he had about buying me that machine melted that night.
I can tell you something, it's satisfying to buy new hardware and have it blow your old hardware away. That's why games like Halo are so important to the XBOX. Quake 3 was the game to do that on PC, but it looks like Doom 3 will easily take its place.
In any case, I think that explains the shift. To tell you the truth, if I didn't run Lightwave so much, I probably wouldn't have much idea how much faster one computer is over another. Guess I should play games s'more.
"Derp de derp."
"I still think that overall, the GeForce 4 Ti is the best card you can buy. It has high speed and excellent driver quality."
He said the Radeon 8500 should be faster but isn't, and "the driver quality is still quite a ways from Nvidia's, so I would be a little hesitant to use it as a primary research platform."
That's hardly the glowing endorsement of the Radeon that the story poster made it out to be.
Here's the relevant bit:
Doom III is very much hardware driven, and one of the controversies of this year's E3 was that the game was demonstrated on the latest ATI graphics card rather than a card from NVidia. "NVidia has been stellar in terms of driver quality and support and doing all of the things right," says Carmack, who has been an outspoken evangelist for NVidia's GeForce technology. "For the past few years, they have been able to consistently outplay ATI on every front. The problem is that they are about one-half step out of synch with the hardware generation because they did Xbox instead of focusing everything on their next board. So they are a little bit behind ATI."
I wonder if any of the current laptops will be able to run Doom3... I'm considering buying a laptop with a GF4go as the Radeon7500 based ones seems to be slower... I wonder if its really worth it to go from 32 megs to 64 megs of ram?
Unfortunately, as both the GF4 Go and Mobile Radeon 7500 lack hardware pixel shaders, they will not be able to render Doom3 in its full glory. Of course they will be able to run it, but many of the graphical goodies will either be missing or will need to be (very slowly) computed on the CPU.
As for 32 vs. 64 MB, I'd go for the latter if you want to run Doom3. Surfaces in Doom3 can contain up to 5 texture maps, which means tons of RAM usage at anything but low texture detail. If you run out of room on the card, you need to store textures in main memory and access them over the AGP bus, which is too slow for that sort of thing. IIRC both the GF4 GO and Mobile Radeon 7500 are available with 64 MB, although I suppose one sometimes doesn't get the choice when buying a laptop.
Basically, the top-of-the-line 3D cards of today are going to be necessary to run Doom3 decently, so the top-of-the-line mobile 3D cards--which are about a generation behind the desktop--are going to be able to run it, but somewhat mediocrely. Of course, Doom3 probably won't be out for at least a year, maybe a year and a half. By that time you'll be able to buy a laptop which runs the game beautifully. If you have to buy a laptop now then it'll be a bit tougher. Kind of makes you wish laptop 3D cards were upgradable like desktop ones...
This is the key question.
What better way to attract women than to be playing Doom III on a train within a week of launch and to be kicking ASS!
If your laptop has a nice velvetty 'keyboard nipple' pointer you have a second angle with which to get them going! Chicks really dig those! "ooooh! it feels so soooft!"
All aboard the love train!!!
Wrong!
What Carmack actually says is this:
With regards to 8500 vs. GF4, he meant that the 8500 has better hardware on paper, but GF4's efficient hardware implementation makes it faster. He mentioned driver quality as a separate issue from speed.
In talking about ATI's next generation hardware, the R300, he says the following in separate emails. From www.rage3d.com.
However, he was comparing R300 to a GF4, not NV30. In this email to nvnews:
This batch of comments from me have let people draw conclusions that leave me scratching me head wondering how they managed to get from what I said to what they heard.
Other people have outlined the issues in detail in comments already, but the crux is that, even with driver quality removed from the discussion (not counting conformance issues, running at fill limited resolutions), GF4 hardware is still faster than 8500 hardware on basically everything I tested. The 8500 SHOULD have been faster on paper, but isn't in real life.
The hardware we used at E3 was not an 8500, and while the drivers were still a bit raw, the performance was very good indeed.
Take with a grain of salt any comment from me that has been paraphrased, but if it is an actual in-context quote from email, I try very hard to be precise in my statements. Read carefully.
John Carmack
We know for sure that we will be excluding some of the game buying public with fairly stiff hardware requirements, but we still think it is the right thing to do.
The requirement for GF1/Radeon 7500 as an absolute minimum is fundamental to the way the technology works, and was non-negotiable for the advances that I wanted to make. At the very beginning of development, I worked a bit on elaborate schemes to try and get some level of compatibility with Voodoo / TNT / Rage128 class hardware, but it would have looked like crap, and I decided it wasn't worth it.
The comfortable minimum performance level on this class of hardware is determined by what the artists and level designers produce. It would be possible to carefully craft a DOOM engine game that ran at good speed on an original SDR GF1, but it would cramp the artistic freedom of the designers a lot as they worried more about performance than aesthetics and gameplay.
Our "full impact" platform from the beginning has been targeted at GF3/Xbox level hardware. Slower hardware can disable features, and faster hardware gets higher frame rates and rendering quality. Even at this target, designers need to be more cognizant of performance than they were with Q3, and we expect some licensee to take an even more aggressive performance stance for games shipping in following years.
Games using the new engine will be on shelves FIVEYEARS (or more) after the initial design decisions were made. We had a couple licensees make two generations of products with the Q3 engine, and we expect that to hold true for DOOM as well. The hardware-only decision for Q3 was controversial at the time, but I feel it clearly turned out to be correct. I am confident the target for DOOM will also be seen as correct once there is a little perspective on it.
Unrelated linux note: yes, there will almost certainly be a linux binary for the game. It will probably only work on the nvidia drivers initially, but I will assist any project attempting to get the necessary driver support on on other cards.
John Carmack