Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVidia Recommended Graphics Card For Doom 3

Posted by simoniker on from the prettiest-pixels dept.

Griffon4 writes "Nvidia announced today that they have been branded the recommended graphics card for id's forthcoming PC FPS Doom 3. Now I'm wondering: Recall a little over a year ago that Carmack said the Nvidia card at the time was just a slight bit more worthy than the ATI? Jump forward to today - are we getting a real recommendation based on id's own experience or just seeing the end result of a financial deal that benefits both?" Other possible factors (apart from NVidia simply being the better graphics card for Doom 3) include the alleged origination of some Doom 3 Alpha version leaks, unlikely to endear ATI to id, and, of course, ATI already having a major bundle deal in place with a certain other FPS.

81 comments

  1. Look At Origin by Babbster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering this is coming from Nvidia, this is clearly, purely, a financial deal between Nvidia and Id. This isn't a .plan file from Carmack or even an interview with the same, which might be more interesting from a technical point of view. This is a cobranding, most likely decided upon in light of ATI's association with Valve and Half-Life 2.

    1. Re:Look At Origin by thumperward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that OpenGL support on ATi cards has been historically rubbish hasn't endeared id to them?

      I'd imagine Nvidia are keener to push this, given that it's a direct advert for their products. id gain nothing from doing press releases for nVidia, except maybe the ire of those poor, poor Radeon users convinced that they've won the Gaming Wars (whatever those were).

      - Chris

    2. Re:Look At Origin by Babbster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then again, when Id demoed Doom 3 the first time, they used ATI (9700 cards, as I recall) to do it, so they can't hate ATI that much.

    3. Re:Look At Origin by kaellinn18 · · Score: 3, Funny

      those poor, poor Radeon users convinced that they've won the Gaming Wars (whatever those were).

      Aye, son, and we did win the Gaming Wars! Why I remember the legendary battle of ought two. ATI was flounderin' and NVidia had just unleashed the GeForce4 which was poundin' away at her flanks and closin' round her backside. All seemed lost. Then, out of nowhere, ATI unveiled the fury that was the Radeon 9700 Pro! NVidia was caught completely unawares, and was forced to retreat to fight another day. Those were the days, lad. Those were the days.

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    4. Re:Look At Origin by Sevn · · Score: 1

      There is also the fact that Id develops all their games on UNIX then ports it to windows. Last time I checked, the d3d support in UNIX was pretty poor *cough*.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    5. Re:Look At Origin by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not the war, but it was an important battle. The GeForce 2 and 3 had much better driver support than anything ATi offered, especially for the then new Windows 2000. However N'Vidia first started having problems slightly before they were announced as the video providers for the XBox, they missed a targeted tape out for the NV31 or NV35 (future GeForce 4), and ATi took the lead with better products and driver support they they had had in several years. The war isn't over until one of the two is out of business. We'll see how ATi manages with Microsoft breathing down their necks, but it might be easier now that gamers don't expect product refreshes every 6 months.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    6. Re:Look At Origin by irokitt · · Score: 1

      It's an OpenGL game, dude. No d3d required, ya know?

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    7. Re:Look At Origin by Sevn · · Score: 1

      :)

      I should probably have used scarcasm tags instead of the *cough* I used eh?

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    8. Re:Look At Origin by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      ...Id develops all their games on UNIX then ports it to windows.

      Is that true now? IIRC, Carmack developed Q3 on NT4.

    9. Re:Look At Origin by irokitt · · Score: 1

      Sorry, dude, had me confused there....

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  2. Screw Carmack by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm not trolling. I'm just pissed off...that's all.

    Why couldn't Carmack just code the think in DirectX. That way, leave the shading abilities to the drivers coded by ATI and nVidia?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Screw Carmack by Stubtify · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe this is what he has done, as it says "recommended" graphics card. More likely than not this is just business, ie. "here's X million dollars, recommend our graphics card." To write directly for a single graphics card platform would be crippling/pissing off your audience.

    2. Re:Screw Carmack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank GOD Carmack is still pushing OGL. DirectX is still a kludgey hack. Why build for a closed platform (DirectX)? There is still PLENTY of life in OGL and 2.0 should be SCHWEEEETTTT!

      W00T Carmack!

    3. Re:Screw Carmack by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh come on! Just how is DirectX a kludgey hack? I've played the same game in both OpenGL and DirectX (Unreal 2003 or Unreal2...I forgot which one) and they flawlessly. In fact, I can't tell which one is better.

      But if your going to program a game in an API, why not DirectX? It handles Video, Audio, and input. OpenGL is nice, but it only does video (that I know of).

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Screw Carmack by asteinberg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I've played the same game in both OpenGL and DirectX (Unreal 2003 or Unreal2...I forgot which one) and they flawlessly. [sic] In fact, I can't tell which one is better.

      You can't tell the difference because for that particular game, they are used in essentially identical ways. I would assume that if the Unreal series is going to bother supporting both APIs, they simply added a layer of abstraction to their graphics code, coded the engine using that abstraction, and then created implementations of the abstraction for both OpenGL and Direct3D that look exactly the same by design.

      This, however, implies nothing about the quality of either API, it merely suggests that the developers coded to the greatest common subset of both APIs. Of course, it does seem that this subset is good enough to make a nice-looking game, which seems to suggest that it doesn't really matter from an end-user perspective which API the developer chooses. Therefore...

      But if your going to program a game in an API, why not DirectX? It handles Video, Audio, and input. OpenGL is nice, but it only does video (that I know of).

      This is totally irrelevant - we just saw that Direct3d and OpenGL are equally capable so why choose the one that limits you to a single platform? The fact that DirectX handles other things is totally irrelevant - you can use OpenGL alongside the other components of DirectX without a problem (and this is in fact what Carmack has done in the past). You can also just use other libraries for other aspects - for example, SDL works just great. While certainly not of the scope of these commercial games, I found that SDL+OpenGL was more than adequate for my own game, and I got the bonus of being able to make Linux, Mac, and even Windows versions with only about 2 total lines of code changed (had to switch where the #include's pointed for each platform, though a more clever build environment probably could've handled that). Offhand, about the only thing we couldn't do with SDL + OpenGL that DirectX provides is the network coding/matchmaking stuff from DirectPlay, but AFAIK most commercial games don't use this anyway.

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
    5. Re:Screw Carmack by Yokaze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I've played the same game in both OpenGL and DirectX (Unreal 2003 or Unreal2...I forgot which one) and they flawlessly. In fact, I can't tell which one is better.
      > But if your going to program a game in an API, why not DirectX?

      On that matter, I'd quote some post, which maybe has some relevance to your question:

      >> Why build for a closed platform (DirectX)?

      id Software is not only producing games of the Quake and Doom-series on various platforms, which are not very demanding on the input devices, and usually only have a minimum of video. They also sell the graphics engine to other companies. IRC, that is actually the main income of the company.
      So, why should a company which makes its money mainly from graphics engines restrict oneself to one platform? Its not like they can't use DirectX for video, audio, and input anymore when they use OpenGL for graphics.
      Especially, when they have experts on that API and at the time when Quake emerged, DirectX 3D was nothing more than a hack.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    6. Re:Screw Carmack by z01d · · Score: 4, Informative


      about the only thing we couldn't do with SDL + OpenGL that DirectX provides is the network coding/matchmaking stuff from DirectPlay

      Here comes the SDL_net

      (Not to the parent poster): In case you are curious, there're plenty userful and commercial-quality libs out there, such as SDL_image, SDL_mixer, SDL_ttf...They just rock, some of them had been used in commercial titles (remember Lokigames?)...forget about DirectX, and screw MS.

    7. Re:Screw Carmack by oskillator · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why couldn't Carmack just code the think in DirectX.

      He could have, but he likes the OpenGL API more, as he documented in his plan file in 1996. This also addresses your question later in the thread as to how DirectX is a kludgey hack; in 1996 at least, the interface was really nasty. It has probably improved since.

      There's also the portability issue. If he coded it using DirectX, that locks the code to Microsoft platforms. No easy Mac, Linux, or console ports aside from the xbox.

    8. Re:Screw Carmack by FlashBuster3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, plus the Fact that I can play DommIII under Linux, you insensitive clod! (at least I hope so)

      And for sound, etc.. There are other API's that do the same stuff. OpenAL for example.

      So, why using DirectX, when there are such good other API's ;-)

    9. Re:Screw Carmack by eXtro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      DirectX is Microsoft proprietary and Carmack has always stated that proprietary isn't a good thing. It's easier to port a game if it's built from the ground up for portability. I don't know what he's developing on now but in the past he hasn't always even done initial development on Windows.

      --

      Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware

    10. Re:Screw Carmack by Zangief · · Score: 1

      In fact, Carmack himself has said that DirectX is very good, except the 3D part (Direct3D, or hwatever they call it nowadays), which, he said, should be replaced with OpenGL.

      And, have you tried to program something using OpenGL. It IS a kludgey hack, the classical MS API, big, ugly, and hard to use. (yes, you are right, OpenGL only does video...for an open source gaming API, try SDL. maybe not as powerful as DirectX, but MUCH more usable)

    11. Re:Screw Carmack by El_Ge_Ex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...his plan file in 1996.

      You are basing your argument on comments he made EIGHT YEARS AGO!

      Apparently there are people here that don't realize that Q2 and Q3 could use either OGL or DirectX in the Windows version.

    12. Re:Screw Carmack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no they do not.

    13. Re:Screw Carmack by irokitt · · Score: 1

      It has improved, but there are still 'goto' statements in the Microsoft example code (memory foggy, I think it was the mesh examples). Oh well, some things never change.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    14. Re:Screw Carmack by C32 · · Score: 1

      Commercial quality? You must be joking.. SDL is consistenly laggier, slower and buggier than directx in every discipline.
      Opensource doesn't work for game[s][-libraries]. It never has and it never will.

    15. Re:Screw Carmack by C32 · · Score: 1

      Which is why Quake was software rendered, the GLquake you are referring to came along later.
      (and what about the rendition verite accelerated dos binary)

    16. Re:Screw Carmack by AceMarkE · · Score: 1

      Wow... after 5 minutes, I can tell that UPA Frisbee is gonna get absurdly addicting (especially since I'm an avid player in real life). So... any chance you guys could put the source code up as well? I'd love to be able to see what all you did to pull that off.

      Sweet game... now we just need a networked multiplayer version :)

      Mark Erikson

    17. Re:Screw Carmack by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Well, you do bring up an interesting point, but you miss your own key observation.

      Quake was released with a software renderer that was platform non-specific. OpenGL allows Carmack the same level of platform agnosticism with the benefits of hardware acceleration. Quake III requires an OpenGL accelerator, but at the time of release, OpenGL accelerators were fairly ubiquitous.

      As for the platform-specific VQuake, this was back when cards could only perform well on optimimized, native rendering code. The fact is, working with Rendition actually encouraged ID to find an alternative to native ports. They did not have a good time working with the company.

      Carmack was unhappy that their agreement with Rendition restricted them from making another platform-specific port, and he didn't like Direct3D. On a personal whim, he coded up an OpenGL renderer for Quake on his Intergraph workstation. 3dfx, left out in the cold by the ID - Rendition deal, seized the moment and coded up the first MCD for a consumer card. The rest is history.

      The moment I realized how bad native ports are: I enjoyed VQuake on my Rendition card. Then Quakeworld was released and revolutionized the online aspects of Quake...and where was Rendition? They decided not to put in the small effort required to port VQuake's render to Quakeworld, and instead insisted end-users should use the slower and less feature-filled MiniGL.

      That was the moment I realized that native ports were dead. Thanks Carmack.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    18. Re:Screw Carmack by asteinberg · · Score: 1
      Hah, glad you like it :).

      We've been planning to post the source for a while now but we wanted to clean it up a little before posting and then we all got sidetracked with other work. I think we're keeping track of who wanted to get notified when we do release the source, so if you want to get added to that list send me an email.

      Oh, and I'm with you on the multiplayer version - the AI has a few weaknesses that make the game a bit too easy once you figure them out. Multiplayer is without doubt the killer feature we'd like to add once we do get the source out there.

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
    19. Re:Screw Carmack by damiam · · Score: 1

      There are also gotos in the Linux kernel source. That means nothing. Gotos are not necessarily bad, they just often are.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    20. Re:Screw Carmack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL - you give no references, but make a broad, sweeping generalization that most certainly isn't true (*). You sir, are an idiot.

      (*) I *can* say without giving references that your statement "consistently...in every discipline" is false. If only because SDL is faster in the cross-platform discipline :). Once again, in case you missed it, you are an idiot.

    21. Re:Screw Carmack by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about and why should you be pissed off? You actually want Carmack to code to a proprietary API? He writes against `GL because he prefers it's cross-platform nature. There's nothing DX offers that he can't get from GL and shaders are small programs in their own right -- not something whose functionality is generically exposed by DX alone.

    22. Re:Screw Carmack by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      I know, how can opensource work with all these eyes looking at the code, testing it for free, and pushing it more and more as they realize its better. I don't think SDL performance is an issue.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    23. Re:Screw Carmack by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      He could have, but he likes the OpenGL API more, as he documented in his plan file in 1996.
      You know, he could have changed his mind since then. It's eight years ago, after all.
  3. Corperate Sponsorship At Work by DeadboltX · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is just a marketing ploy. nvidia says hey I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Since ATI recently struck a deal valve they prolly don't have as much resources available to offer and so nvidia easily made a better offer to id. I really doubt it will make a noticable difference whether you are running a 9800 pro or a 5800, and the only thing we have to look forward to is another spiffy nvidia intro where a flaming skull flys a few circles around the nvidia logo before getting shot up and exploding.

    1. Re:Corperate Sponsorship At Work by __aaklfb6460 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly! I cant imagine Id (or Valve in the case of Halflife 2) not making their games suitable for other graphics cards. I dont think there'll be any difference in the performance.

      Its a pure marketing ploy to generate revenues especially when the competition between Id and Valve is so intense now. Thats the only option they have and they will play that option.The other options though very much feasible(like making the game suitable for most graphic cards) wont even be considered because they wont make that much money and its too much time to invest effort in that.These are the days where time is as important as the game itself. Id and Valve have already delayed their game and cant afford to delay any further.

  4. Why refer to theinquirer.net... by z01d · · Score: 5, Informative


    When the man himself once made a post righ here on /.?

    1. Re:Why refer to theinquirer.net... by illuvata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because that post has nothing to do with which graphics card is better for doom3

    2. Re:Why refer to theinquirer.net... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      except the fact of the matter is that it is rumored someone at ATI leaked it...

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  5. Well, the Alpha by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..ran fine on my Verto GF4 (64MB) once I back-leveled the drivers. Since everyone was saying that the Alpha wasn't stream-lined and that the final would be, I'm betting that my GF4 will still work.

    Sorry nVidia - I love your cards but I'm not upgrading just so I can play DooM III on an 'approved' video card.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Well, the Alpha by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      of course it will work.

      not at the 'max' of course, but then again if you make the engine so that max is obviously overkill for any hardware(so that the engine will scale for some time into the future) what does it matter?

      as long as the game is good and looks good who cares. fullscene AA never made any game great.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  6. The Way It's Played by Luigi30 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh great... you DO know that they're thinking of blocking off levels if you don't have an nVidia card? They said in a magazine it would come to that soon. If you don't have an nVidia card, the last boss is insanely hard... but people with GeForces can beat it easily.

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    1. Re:The Way It's Played by Genom · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that *real* gamers seeking a challenge rather than the easy win will play on something other than nVidia? ;P

    2. Re:The Way It's Played by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous! I think Carmack has more integrity than that.

    3. Re:The Way It's Played by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's saying that Real gamers with *skill* play on nVidia.

      Everyone else cant seem to find all the blue, red, and yellow keys.

    4. Re:The Way It's Played by DangerSteel · · Score: 1
      No

      What I'm saying is that us gamers need a second job...

    5. Re:The Way It's Played by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real gamers fight demons. With their fists!!! No crowbars allowed, Gordon!

    6. Re:The Way It's Played by KeeperS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I read in a 'magazine' that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are gay lovers. Of course, we all know how accurate the National Enquirer is. Just because you saw it in print doesn't mean it's automatically true, assuming this isn't some complete fabrication of yours.

      Besides, I doubt id would be stupid enough to anger half of their customers for a comparatively small amount of money.

  7. endorsement sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NVIDIA is pleased to announce that id Software recommends the GeForce FX family of graphics processing units for DOOM 3.

    This means nothing, it could even be simply that the box system requirements says "GeForce FX or better" under the recomended sub-heading.

    Anyway, I hate this crap with games manufacturers officially "reccomending" hardware or deliberately coding a game to be more efficient with one brand over another. I despise seeing the Nvidia logo on game intros and thought a lot less of Valve when they endorsed ATi. I'll be thinking id has come a long way down in the world if they start endorsing nvidia, not that it would make sense since who wants to buy a game engine that is deliberately coded to run better on one specific brand's hardware.

    Its just such a cheap shitty way to try and make people buy your product. Cant beat the competition by making a better product? Frightened your competitor just does everything better than you? Screw being competitive and trying to offer something better for your customers, pay off developers to make the competition crapper instead!

    Developers should be ashamed of themselves, theyre supposed to be about making something as good as possible for any customer, not only if theyre using hardware from whoever theyve shacked up with.

  8. XBOX Version by vasqzr · · Score: 3, Interesting


    iD has always said the XBOX version will be equal to the PC version (even at half the cpu/gfx capability) and released simultaneously.

    Maybe this has something to do with it, due to the XBOX having an NVIDIA GPU and not an ATI.

  9. Just advertising by tprime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just another advertising ploy on nvidia's part along the same thread that Gatorade is the official sports drink of the NFL. NVIDIA hasn't had great press lately (console wise) and needed some fresh good press.

    --
    http://www.tomandemily.com
  10. Does it REALLY help both companies? by Lust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just bought a new ATI card. When I read that nVidia is the better choice for Doom 3, I wonder "Hrm, maybe I should just stick with HalfLife 2 and skip Doom altogether." No way am I forking out for a new videocard again...might as well buy a console and sit by the TV. In reality, the differences between cards may be small, but there is a two-edged sword with these company claims.

    1. Re:Does it REALLY help both companies? by aliens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not quite sure, but you realize that ATI's cards will run Doom3 just fine and Nvidia will run HL2 just fine.

      This is all a lot of posturing, no way a major studio would hurt sales by making a game perform so much better on one video card as to make the other unplayable.

      And judging by the fact that people have written very very nice wrappers for nvidia only demos (dawn) so that they run even better on ATI hardware doesn't make me worry too much.

      Although I reccomend not getting a new video card until the next generation NV40/R420 come out.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    2. Re:Does it REALLY help both companies? by keyne9 · · Score: 1

      If you consider one company being branded "recommended" as the end-all solution for your gaming needs, perhaps you had better follow your own advice. Console games are far more forgiving in that respect.

      That said, I do not see how any recommendation will *drastically* affect the way the game looks or plays. Ooh, so NVidia cards are slightly more optimized. "6 more FPS! In your face ATi!"

      Seriously, WHAT does id have to gain by suggesting that the ONLY way to play is with one or the other, especially since the OTHER has made significant headway recently into the top tier cards. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if it was in any way crippled or suffered any serious loss in gameplay just because you had the "other guys card." That's just stupid, and Carmack certainly isn't. It really would be foolhardy for there to be any drastic difference based solely on hardware. So ATi might lack a few extra FPS or something similar. So you don't get a coupon for a discounted/free game. Whoopty-doo. Buy it if you want, play it on whatever company's material you want, and enjoy it. Don't suggest that a recommendation is grounds for not buying a game. ATi and NVidia cards will be both fine to play the stupid game.

      A recommendation is just that. 'Only thing I'm concerned about is whether it still performs decently on a GF3 :-)

      Forgive typos; I suck.

    3. Re:Does it REALLY help both companies? by Sparky77 · · Score: 1

      That's a good question because I'm far more likely to buy both games than to buy both video cards. I'm probably going to stick with the card I have.

      So, under those conditions, this deal hasn't really changed anything.

      --
      One bad monkey spoils the whole barrel.
    4. Re:Does it REALLY help both companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      id may 'reccomend' nvidia, but Valve's position on nvidia's performance in HL2 seemed a bit more tense and confrontational.

  11. No mystery here by voice+of+unreason · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look, there really doesn't have to be any kind of secret deal going on. Carmack said that he preferred ATI last year. A lot of work and changes could have been made in a year's time. For one thing, a year ago most of the optimizations probably had not been made. So, NVidia might really have the best card for the job.

  12. Mod +1 by Bishop · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That is a good point.

  13. Re:Main reason why console games are popular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could just buy an X-Box?

  14. Bull by NSash · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit.

    1. Re:Bull by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      I read it in a magazine. It was the case in one game. If you ran on an nVidia card, you got extra levels.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    2. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What game?

  15. THE reason to have an NVidia card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why I have an NVidia card and not an ATI one is because of stereoscopic 3D support.

    NVidia make and release their own drivers that work perfectly with their own reference drivers, or with 3rd party drivers (Asus, etc.) to give real 3D (as in depth perception) graphics in every game that uses OpenGL or Direct3D.

    That is the over-riding factor in having an NVidia card right now and I won't even consider ATI until they release working stereo drivers.

    ---BananaOfTheNight

  16. Half Life and Doom III by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    So half life = ATI

    And Doom III = Nvidia

    Can't we all just get along? I paid good money for ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB, and anticipated both games to be ATI driven. Now I feel screwed to a degree. Sigh...

    1. Re:Half Life and Doom III by Illissius · · Score: 1

      Note: "Geforce FX is recommended for Doom III" does not equal "Doom III will not run on Radeons". It'll be perfectly playable on both cards (it would be business suicide if it weren't), possibly/probably being a small bit faster on nVidia cards. id and nVidia probably just wanted to endorse each others products a bit, as a counter to Valve and ATi doing the same. That is all.

      --
      Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
  17. yes by B33R+N1NJ4 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    take THAT ati boasters

  18. Cmon people.. by activesynapsis · · Score: 2, Informative
    Just because they endorse a card doesn't mean that Doom III won't work with an ATI card, or HL2 won't work with an NVIDIA card, or it will work less. It seems like people are already planning on not picking up a game they would otherwise have rushed out to buy because of endorsements. Do you need to buy a GeForceFX to play Doom 3? No. Does NVIDIA get money if you buy Doom 3? Probably not.

    On another note... I actually tried the Doom 3 leak on my GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. A small blurb about it is on my website here.

  19. Re:Screw You by jason.mitchell · · Score: 1

    I happen to agree with Carmack. nVidia needs this to boast them back up in the video card industry. none the less i wouldn't buy doom 3 if they supported microsoft by using directx over opengl. they have always used opengl, making it portable to mac's, linux, windows, and another other platform that runs opengl (with minor changes in the code, unlike using directx).

    My three cents.

  20. unless it saves me money by violet16 · · Score: 1

    I despise seeing the Nvidia logo on game intros and thought a lot less of Valve when they endorsed ATi

    I'm very happy for id and Valve to run their little GPU sponsorship deals. It means they have more money for games development that doesn't have to come out of their customers' pockets.

    --
    I should buy some cement.
  21. I'm saving up ... by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1
    For a Hexium 6 with 100 GHz bus, photonic RAM and Superconductor GPU - which may well be available before this Vaporware condenses!

    ... or more seriously ...

    I think that I will wait for some real benchmarks to be available before investing heavily in an upgrade for this one - the release date is still a little way off and I am sure it will be worth waiting to see what is available then.

  22. Re:Main reason why console games are popular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It, like a video card that costs 300 dollars, will let you play Doom 3. While I cant guarentee that you'll be playing the same time I'll be playing (with my $300 card), they have stated that it will be ported to the X-box.

  23. Good! by Penguin2212 · · Score: 1

    Good, the last card I bought was an ATi and it will be the last ATi I will probably ever buy. The card was nice, but if their drivers weren't so absolutely horrible it'd be a decent card. Good jobe Id, for signing with the better company.

    --

    --
    Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
    1. Re:Good! by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      My card two cards ago was a GeForce 2 MX. The shenanigans Nvidia pulled with their newer Detonators screwing around old cards means I'll never buy another Nvidia card again. Happily on a Radeon 9800 Pro now.

  24. All graphics cards are not created equal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NVidia GeForce FX series cards claim to be fully DirectX9 compliant, but they actually aren't. The pixel shaders on the FX are crippled; that's why Valve chose ATI as their sponsored graphics vendor. HL2 uses pixel shaders extensively, and ATI simply delivers in this area. Nvidia would have to be very foolish indeed to miss an opportunity to match this deal with a little business collaboration of their own -- Doom III. Since D3 is using OGL rather than DX9 to render, the pixel shaders don't even come into play and the NV-FX can really shine. That way, from a PR standpoint, NV don't look like tools compared to ATI.