Slashdot Mirror
Official Doom 3 Benchmarks Released
Rogerpq3 writes "Before the game goes on sale, id Software has been kind enough to release some benchmarks for DOOM 3 with the latest video cards on the market from NVIDIA & ATI. HardOCP has published the five page article which should help anyone trying to decide if they should upgrade their video card for DOOM 3. There's also an introductory note from John Carmack, mentioning: 'The benchmarking was conducted on-site, and the hardware vendors did not have access to the demo before hand, so we are confident that there is no egregious cheating going on.', and the HardOCP writers comment: 'As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience.'"
I guess an upgrade is in my future, although I'm not sure I'll get to the "cinematic" level that's possible in D3's rendering.
Sigs cause cancer.
Of course Nvidia's card is going to do better. Doom3 has a specialized codepath for nvidia hardware, while the ATI card does not.
If a codepath were written for the X800 series of cards, I'm sure the scores would be closer to each other.
I take the superiority of one card over the other with a grain of salt.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
It'll be interesting to see how ATI responds to this. They pulled ahead in the last generation, but it seems to be Nvidia has learned from their mistakes. Nice to see that uberhardware isn't needed to get decent framerates. Too bad for the hardware industry though...
Vandemar.org
Christ, where did all that years of playing DOOM 2 go? Did Gore win the election?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
"If I had to make a list of high end video cards to purchase to play DOOM 3, the GeForce 6800Ultra and GeForce 6800GT would easily take the number 1 and number 2 spots with the ATI Radeon X800XT-PE rounding out the number 3 place."
6800GT continues to look by by far the best price/performance card currently available.
I'm just glad I won't have to go out and upgrade my video card for this game. Seems like every time there's a new game out, I'm upgrading.
Oh, yeah, Linux is better than Windows... blah blah blah.
Any news on the possibility of an Amiga port? The new Amigas have some awesome hardware. G3 800mhz or higher than 1GHz G4 cpus, DDR and some kind of Radeon.
I think it's a quite obviously untapped market there for games authors, an entire community that grew up on THE games machine clamoring for more.
Better get taped up! Using this stuff now, it's nice.
I have decided since I recent some funds acquired am have going to, of course, buy new PC. Alienware ships here, and I am software guy; don't build my own computer. Doom 3 would be only reason I want upgrades.
Read journal when you are not understand
That's the most important question... would my p3-450 with a voodoo2 break 1 fps or not?
Speed Demos Archive - Lots of speed runs!
How about some benchmarks for a card I actually have, like a ti4800? ;-) Saying "suprisingly good gaming experience" on a GF4MX means nothing... are you seeing a creepy title screen and playing a pong minigame, or actually seeing 30fps+?
Sorry, but dropping $500 on a video card is just not an option, this would be more useful if we had some everyday specs.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Second, they did not run these benchmarks, and they were done at the iD offices: "Today we are sharing with you framerate data that was collected at the id Software offices in Mesquite, Texas. Both ATI and NVIDIA were present for the testing and brought their latest driver sets." It sounds as though Hardocp was not even present for the tests.
Their review of the BFG 6800GT OC convinced me to get that card. This article, however, does not convince me of...much of anything. I do have certain questions about their journalism, but it's best saved for a more appropriate time.
So my 750Mhz Duron w/GeForce MX 440 is *not* going to work? That sucks. I guess I'll go back to playing nethack...
By the way, if people are still playing Doom 3* twenty-five years after it comes out, *then* we can start talking about the benefits of emphasizing gameplay over gee-whiz special effects that won't be gee-whiz in 6 months. Until then, call me elitist, call me old-fashioned, but don't call me bored!
*or any game based on its engine
Keep in mind that to get the best look and fell of the game with the settings all the way up you will most likely need one of the more expensive Graphics card. From what i understand, alot of the excitement around this games was because of its revolutionary new graphics. Why would they do a test with such old technology when they could use brand new tech and see how the game was supposed to be played (no pun intended to Nvidia add).
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up... reading.-Henny Youngman
Well I didn't expect this. Not even released yet, Doom 3 runs at 1600x1200 on "high quality" at 68 fps on the Nvidia 6800 Ultra, or 42 fps with 4x antialiasing. In other words it can just barely make use of the best hardware at the time of its release. That's fairly conservative in my book.
...I won't need to sell some organs on the black market, after all?
Looking at the cream of the crop in video cards, it is painfully obvious that ATI is going to have to make some changes in their product line to stay competitive, at least with DOOM 3 gamers. There is no way for a $500 [ATI] X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 [nVidia] 6800GT when the GT is simply going to outperform the more expensive card by a good margin. I am sure ATI is trying their best to figure out their next move and it will certainly be interesting to see if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not.
All that considered, for those of you that are in the high end video card market, the GeForce 6800GT looks to very much be the sweet spot when it comes to playing DOOM 3 with all the eye candy turned on at high resolutions. Obviously the 6800 Ultra is even faster for those of you that need the best no matter the cost. If I had to make a list of high end video cards to purchase to play DOOM 3, the GeForce 6800Ultra and GeForce 6800GT would easily take the number 1 and number 2 spots with the ATI Radeon X800XT-PE rounding out the number 3 place.
nVidia's back, I guess. This will sell a lot of 6800GT's.
I'm going to wait a while, for them to get cheaper, before trading in the ATI though. Should still be playable, just not as great as I'd hoped (even the 9800 doesn't do much better than the 5950.)
everything in moderation
they have only 3 cards listed in the test and none of htem are widely in use
i hope htey did the same kind of hardware polling that valve is doing/has done with regards to hl2 to see where their customer base actuallys tands in terms of hardware so that they don't end up with a flood of game returns for shit that doesnt' work.
i'm curious if there are console versions of the game planned that would require that it run on something set in stone and a couple years off from bleeding edge.
BTW, I think I'm going to need to play this at 640x480 if I'm going to get over 30fps.. I've got an athlon 2400+ and a geforce 5600. The reviewers had a 3.6 P4, and it was barely able to get above 70 fps at 1024x768! No way I'm going to get any where close to that on my piddly 2400.
What were the minimum requirements for this game again? Methinks they need to revise them... If by minimum you mean "able to play at 10 fps" perhaps they are accurate.
For almost every game i've ever played there were problems, little glitches that demanded certain versions of drivers, stuff like that. Even if the game was well behaved it ran like a dog on my PCs (which are all really old and crap).
But when Quake 3 came out i could run it on a P233 (with MMX!), voodoo 2 12meg and 128MB ram. iD engines scale all the way.
I will be interested in seeing how low people can get Doom 3 running.
a surprisingly good gaming experience
Are they saying they were surprised it worked well, or surprised it was an enjoyable game?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Have any of you noticed that the comps they're using to run these benchmarks have a minimum of 2 GB RAM? I wonder how much that actually affects the performance, because the majority of we gamers have 1 GB (like myself) or 512 MB.
Also, seeing as how this is one of the most hotly anticipated games in recent memory, it's really painful to see ATi's cards lose out so severely to the Nvidia offerings. I mean, the $300 (MSRP) 6800 GT beats out the top of the line X800 XT ($500 MSRP).
What exactly is holding ATi back with writing better ATi drivers? They can write decent drivers for Direct3D, but what's with this years long problem with OpenGL? I'm not bleeding edge or incredibly demanding; I own a Radeon 9600 myself, but I'm always saddened by ATi's generally poor performance in OpenGL.
www.google.com
Didn't an ATI employee leak the demo for Doom III? If so then this could explain why the game runs so much better on Nvidia cards. If ATI wants to stay in the market for cards aimed at running Doom III then they need to start releases new drivers soon.
Wonderful! They showed that you can indeed play Doom3 on top of the line hardware ... but didn't bother to benchmark the game on hardware that ID say is the minimum "1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440"
Or in fact anything in between those ranges :-(
Pointless review as only the minority of people have extreme PC's ... even most Slashdotters don;t have extreme hardware!
for the weak graphics card. And if you have a MB that supports a P4 (not cheap at all) you most likely have AGP 8X so it's only ~$100 to spring for a GeForce FX 5200 and you're done.
A new MB (if you can't support 8X AGP already), Barton or P4 (unless you've got a 1.5Ghz+ CPU and 8X AGP), plus new memory if you aren't already using DDR and the graphics card is going to run you under $500. You can pick up a GeForce FX 5200 for around $100. If you had to buy everything listed you'd come in under $500 if you shopped smart. A 2500+ Barton is ~$130 and plenty fast and easily upgradable when the faster CPUs come down in price.
If you really want to play this game and are lagging behind it's time to just suck it up and get back into the mid range.
It's $500 or less and you now have a system that will last another 2-3 years.
This is really a good excuse to get your system filled with components that can be upgraded. My current system is maxed out. It's old (4 years or so) and can't go anywhere.
You can look at it this way, you can pretend that it's good enough and continue to become obsolete and be forced to spend over a thousand bucks in a couple years when it finally dies. Or, you can spend a few hundred now, get back in the upgrade path and save some money in the long run.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
For those of use who are still stuck on Intel 386 hardware with a VGA card, can somebody please convert those benchmarks into something understandable? Also, if I did upgrade to more recent hardware, how many extra monsters could I have in DOOM1 for the same frame rate? Ach, mein Leben!
no
This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
Page 1:
"X800XT-PE may not be worthy of being included on the same graph"
Later...
If you would have told me a year ago that I could play DOOM 3 on a GeForce 3 64MB video card and 1.8GHz AthlonXP and have a good gaming experience, I would have called you crazy, but that is exactly what we are seeing.
Translation:
Save your money, DOOM 3 has the most insane graphics, and still plays just fine on the ~$150 cards. Which means most other games are totally fine. (I play Lineage 2 on a Rage fury pro with 32MB, and it's an Unreal 2 based game)
Also, nVidia designed more for DOOM type games, just like every reviewer has been saying for 6 months.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
It's comforting to know that said vendors are so honest and reliable, that if you make it physically impossible (or at least extremely improbable), that they will not "egregiously cheat" on published benchmarks.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
This talk about Nvidia coming out on top makes me worry, since the talk is that ATI cards are tops for Half-Life 2.
I'm hoping the differences are exaggerated, but I'd hate to see it become a one-or-the-other situation as far as optimal performance goes.
If you're running the most recent CPU/GPU with a $hitload of RAM.. you're going to have a good gaming experience
WELL NO SHIT! What did you expect? The game to only run acceptably on hardware that doesn't exist yet? Geez..
As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience
Why no benchmarks of this? IMO much more useful than a benchmark of a P4 3.6GHz system with 4GB of RAM and a 6800 Ultra..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Must also agree with parent - this article is useless. The worst card they benchmark is the absolute top of the line for the generation of cards that is only just starting to be replaced. If I recall correctly the X800 and the new nvidia cards have been known about for what, 3-4 months, and available for even fewer.
I would like to see a benchmark from a Radeon 9600 or worse up. That might actually help.
Read Pynchon.
Weren't we seeing the ATi cards outperforming nVidia by disgusting margins on HL2 benchmarks?
Is there some kind of under-the-table manipulation going on here? Is ATi trying to leverage HL2 to sell more cards? Is nVidia doing the same with Doom3?
Or are both companies going to release new drivers soon and even the whole thing out?
I'm just going to wait and see. And upgrade after HL2 has been out for six months. THEN I'll play these games. I usually buy a game after it has earned a reputation. Then I'll know for sure whether it's good or not. Besides, I'd like to afford double the system requirements for these things when I finally do upgrade. Can't have choppy frames ruining the immersion effect.
...on an FX5200. They run slower even than an old 4200Ti. Sure the graphics quality is stunning if you like looking at still-shots, or watching nothing that moves faster than the "Dawn" half-naked-fairy-with-big-knockers demo. I made the mistake of wasting $100 on one (it even had 128MB memory on it) and it was actually slower in UT2003 than my old 64MB Radeon 7500 that only cost $50. I was so disappointed in the FX5200 that I had to replace it with a Radeon 9600 128M card in less than two weeks suffering time. The 9600 only cost $30 more too. Don't even touch the FX series if you cannot afford the 5800 or preferable the 5950 or better. The 5200's and even the 5600 series are piles of poo.
If the low spec gear runs the game well why not have these framerates next to the others? Why not list the colour depth and screen resolution that that this lower spec gear was running at? To me it just seems like a real neat way to get people with underspec hardware to commit to a game that won't run well on their system. After all the article has a great link at the end to where you can go and preorder the game.
For those of you that have not yet pre-purchased your copy of DOOM 3 because you thought your system would not be up to par and are not planning a system upgrade, you can now rest easy
Or we can wait until some more independant reports on how the game runs on low spec gear before we commit to it. Not crap like "it gives a good experience".
The question I have is... how well do the quadro cards perform???
I have a brand new Quadro FX 1000 in my laptop and a year or so old Quadro 4 in my Desktop (Both with 128MB) - I wonder how well they'll run Doom3?
They're fairly optimized for opengl - so I remain hopeful!
Friedmud
Sorry, but dropping $500 on a video card is just not an option
> help drop
syntax: drop on video card
What $500USD... erm... I'll be playing Doom3 in the future when I go to Mars... nah what's the point?
But if it's going to run on Xbox, then how well will it go?
... those of us that can't (or won't) upgrade to the latest and greatest will just be stuck playing yet another FPS. The graphics are what will build the atmosphere, the fancy effects will take the experience and immersion to another level. My Ti4200 will just give me a pixelated experience. I'll stick with playing Splinter Cell on the PS2 just a bit longer in that case.
Hell, by 3rd parties, doom/doom2 are still being updated/upgraded:
see Doom Legacy, ZDoom
Now, Doom3 is not really original anymore in terms of theme, so it might not do as well. But it could very well become one of those "old classics" several years from now.
Another big hotspot is the Doom3 engine, as we'll probably see several later games developed from companies that have licensed the engine for use in their own products.
6800 and FX 5x range of Nvidia are using teh SAME CODE PATH (ARB2) as R300+ .. writing a specific R300+ codepath will improve nothing..
i togi-video-hl2-wxp-1280.html
The code paths are
NV10 -- geforce 2/4 MX
NV20 -- Geforce 3/4
R200 -- Radeon 8xxx/Early 9xxx like 9000
ARB2 --- NV30/R300 and up
ie Carmack isn't favoring a card..
http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/digest3d/0604/
as you can see here, NV4x performs just as well as R420 with Halflife 2 Beta, and the final should see the same thing.. ATI Fanboys, Just accept things are even now, yes hte FX still sucks but meh its even at the top.. Nvidia Fanboys, yep you guys are in the lead, but don't go too nuts or you end up like the die hard ATI fanboys..
US in the middle (who switch between makers card based on performance and price) enjoy, we can make a choice and not be wrong..
They spelled "bated breath" properly! That must be a first for the Internet.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
I played all the way through that freeware level. Awesome.
I have a decent computer, and I have been through the hell that many new games will never understand. These FPS above 10 don't concern me as long as I get some detail and fun.
People are too spoiled these days. 5 feet of snow and all that jazz.
Wow, it looks like I'll even be able to get a decent framerate on my two-year-old computer that I slapped together for $A1000. I'd sort of resigned myself to the fact that I'd have to upgrade, this makes me very happy.
Presumably because they were able to play a hand of poker while waiting for each frame to be rendered.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
They were surprised it even ran on a GeForce4 MX 440. That in itself is a good gaming experience. ;)
For all Radeon X800-Pro owners when I say.... "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" :)
Well at least we have HL2 to look forward to
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Those numbers show that Doom 3 runs well on 3.2 (or 3.6) ghz machines with either current generation or last generation cards. Now how about with a 2 ghz machine? I'm curious how much difference the processor makes as opposed to the video card.
3.6 ghz is not exactly mainstream, thats bleeding edge and still cost a whole lot of money...
That's not the best way to look at the market. I look at the high end cards and I think, hey, that's where gaming will be for everyone with a budget system in 12 or so months, that's great.
I always buy at the budget end of the curve, having just bought a great 9600XT for $230AUD, which more than doubles the performance of my last card. I upgrade every 12-18 months depending on how rich I'm feeling, and how the market looks compared to the way my games are running.
So I'm looking at these benchmarks with great interest.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
C'mon John, I'm sure you can meet the technical challenge! Take pity on all those people with 486s !
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
I'm going to buy a G4 powerbook, any comments on that, taking into considering the architecture and hardware used?
Can you people PLEASE stop making stupid jokes about old hardware, or that your ATARI can't play Doom 3. They were funny once when the "Quake 3 Test Released" thread was opened on on Slashdot 5 years ago.
I mean, they're really corny.
---
Regardless, I would seriously doubt John Carmack himself would hold back his technology on someone's card (ATI), just because they most likely did steal from them. God knows I would if I was in his place, not only because their dumb, canadian theifs (The worst kind, because many Canadians are nice, and the Kids in the Hall rocks, eh word up homie) But because of the fact that yes they have SHIT for opengl driver support, AND their Linux support is next to non-existant.
They provide like 3 RPM's, and if your lucky even whatever distro (some god awful old mandrake or redhat setup most likely) that the packages are intented for will come through.
NVidia has support for MANY operating systems (FreeBSD, 32 and 64 and AMD64 Bit Linux, oh yeah, and that windows thing)
I myself am opting for a 6800 Ultra if I can find one in time, for my Slackware Linux Box running a gig of ram and an AMD64 3200+. It will be replacing my 5900 (5950 overclocked with a bios upgrade to the card) that I was able to installed with a screwdriver, and a simple installtion script from Nvidia.com, or an ebuild in my old Gentoo days (last week).
To any computer gamer, I recommend an NVIDIA card, even if you are on Windows. I have tried both brands of cards in both environments, and yes OpenGL performance on ATI is terrible. So yes, ATI will have a harder time playing this game.
Buy a 6800 GT. If you can, go for the 6800 GT OC from BFG, overclocked out of the box. Enjoy DooM3.
In addition, not only do both brands of cards have their own set of rendering paths for their older models, the r200 and nv20 path, for the geforce 3/4 and 8500/9000 cards respectivly, but the latest of both brands run on Carmacks ARB2 path, a set of more generalized (arb=arbitrary im supposing) extenstions. Its the total package path, and its called, and whoever said the that ati ran slow because it didnt have its own specific paths is a moron.
Thanks.
P.S
Slackware rules. Fuck Bill Gates. Fuck him right in his rectum.
You have to wonder if NVIDIA and ATI didn't get together and just pay ID to write a game to get everyone to upgrade their video cards.
Are you implying that Carmack made the above statement? Because...he didn't. That's Kyle Bennet, the author of the HardOCP article speaking. Carmack only made the brief statement at the beginning (it's color coded to help you spot it), which states that "all of the modern cards play the game very well," and "there is no egregious cheating going on," and most importantly, "Nvidia drivers have been tuned for Doom's primary light/surface interaction fragment program."
I don't think Doom3 will be significantly changed to help out ATI, but I'm positive ATI will change their drivers to help out Doom3's performance. As Carmack pointed out, the Nvidia drivers have already been fine tuned for Doom. My guess is that ATI, after the fiasco with releasing the Doom alpha, hasn't had as much opportunity to optimize for Doom.
On the other hand, it's no surprise to see ATI losing to a card that obviously has more horsepower. Frankly, I'm impressed that a card that's so much cooler, smaller, and quieter does so well against Nvidia's monster. But in this case, at least, we see Nvidia's power fully utilized. Hopefully, ATI gets so more performance out of theirs, though.
-Dan
HardOCP has published the five page article which should help anyone trying to decide if they should upgrade their video card for DOOM 3.
No it won't. It tells me nothing about how well my current system will run the game - and is next to useless.
The article will help nobody except - confusingly - to somehow get the author paid for writing such garbage. It won't even help the site through traffic, because now I hate them for blatently lying and being slimy fucks who are trying to buddy up to id. It benchmarks elitist $500 video cards that absolutely nobody except the people who write such articles have.
I could have told you beforehand what the conclusion was going to be: Suprise, suprise, the top of the line graphics cards run Doom 3 well. They should - because otherwise there would not be a single piece of hardware on the planet that's capable of running it so there's no point them releasing the game. I'd like to beat the author unconcious with a 2x4 cluestick of +1 fucking obvious.
I would rather play with a card that has a lower average but has a higher minimum which occurs usually at the most important times in the game.
I know, "do it yourself". Well aren't the benchmark sites looking for new ideas? Come on!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
'The benchmarking was conducted on-site, and the hardware vendors did not have access to the demo before hand, so we are confident that there is no egregious cheating going on.'
thats not true for the ATI HL2 benchmark.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you are the gaming industries bitch. ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is there going to be one? Screw all this conjecture and benchmarking, I'd rather try it out on my machine and see how well it works and if I like it before dropping fifty bucks on a videogame.
Too pragmatic?
There's something suspicious about companies that don't bother with demos.
Its, its, its. ITS. Fucking ITS. Not "it's"!
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Where are screenshots????? Oh snap, there *are* none. They are being niggardly with the screenshots.
I'm wondering what HT and/or SMP rigs will perform with the new smp aware doom3 engine....
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
Hey just realized while typing this that JC's initals are JC, it all makes sense...
for all nVidia owners when I point and say "Ha-Ha!" ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just a couple of quick notes. First off, you must bear in mind that all of the cards they tested are DX9 capable, this is going to help out framerates quite a bit. In fact, when you look at benchmarks for the newer games, framerates drop off quite a bit when you start looking at cards like the GeForce 4.
:-D
More importantly, the boxes they did the benchmarking on were maxed out with specs like 2GB of DDR400 and an Athlon 64 or comparable processor. Unless you've got all the other specs to match the test box, you're looking at the best possible framerates you can get under the very best possible conditions on those systems. In addition to that, they had anti-aliasing turned off for several of those benchmarks.
Now compare those 60-70fps on that kind of box with whatever setup you've got...then swap out the video card for a GeForce 4Ti 4X00 and you're looking at maybe25-30fps with medium effects at 1024x768. That's almost unplayable.
Granted, I'm doing a good bit of guessing here, but this comes from a number of years of experience playing the latest games on older hardware. The basic sys-req's for the game are a GF3 or better - we can interpret that to mean it'll give you about 25fps at 800x600 with all the eye candy turned off if you're sporting a top-of-the-line GeForce 3. I doubt you're going to see good performance out of Doom 3 without anything better than a GeForce FX 5600.
Luckily, we'll all find out in a little less than two weeks
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
$88 Athlon XP 2500
$69 Athlon XP 2500 333
$129 Pentium 4 2.53GHz
ever heard of http://pricewatch.com/ ? sorry i wouldve posted the whole list but eh the lameness filter caught me.;)
this was able to run on linux the current setup should handle it ok?
:/
AMD 3400+ (2.2Ghz)
1G RAM
Geforce FX 5600, 256MB
I dont really know a lot about games
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
I'm playing Doom III, right? Man, I wouldn't know. On my 6800, every game sounds like IL-2 Sturmovik.
I will not upgrade to play Doom III. I have a midrange Pentium IV with a Radeon 9700 Pro. It will likely be the last system I plan to buy for a while. I have very little interest in the PC scene at the moment, and actually find it to be very pointless.
Careful ... while there is a high-quality mode, I believe there is also an "Ultra" quality mode, mentioned in PC-Gamer, which HardOCP doesn't even touch (I imagine id didn't bother benchmarking because it's too slow). According to PC-Gamer, you need a card with 512MB on it to even think about running that mode at reasonable levels.
Kyle is known for his integrity, and has repeatedly called out nVidia for cheating!
Sponsored by id, no less. They use it to hawk their engine.
You are in a twisty little maze of passages all alike. There is a pink demon here.
Use rocket launcher
You died. Play again?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Its, its, its. ITS. Fucking ITS. Not "it's"!
I think someone NEEDS to lay off the caffeine!!!
'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
When two or more companies control the market and set pricing structures so as not to compete with each other it is an oligopoly. Different word, same effect as a monopoly.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience.
I've got a faster processor and the same video card. I'm in business baby!
I will probably need a new hard drive though, I'm almost out of space.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I've seen the demo movie for gameplay on the XBox and it is more than decent. If you can't afford to get the latest video cards and gear, get Doom III on the Xbox! You can buy an XBox for less than a video card these days, and it honestly did look well playable. Sure, the res isn't going to be as great as your PC, but it will have Dolby Digital sound, and it will still look great on the XBox. Good option for the students among us.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
...can be seen here: click
After reading these benchmarks I feel the need to mention something many gamers already know. The D3 engine renders using OpenGL, which ATI's cards have never been good at and NVIDIA is known to be good at. If you were to take a look at benchmarks from a Direct3D game you would be seeing the X800XT blowing away the 6800. If you don't believe me take a look at this.Another point you may want to notice is that ID software is partnered with NVIDIA (Expect to see the the little way it's meant to be played logo). Also from what I have read about Carmack, he seems to be biased towards NVIDIA anyway.
I have a 486, you insensitive clods!
Or something.
Isn't is obvious that the slower machines take 7 days longer?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Probably that ATI will have to get their heads out of their asses and work a tad more on their OpenGL support. What does that mean for me?
City of Heroes runs in OpenGL, yay!
(They do use DirectX for sound though).
---- Take the Space Quiz!
What crack are these people smoking? The current TOP CARD from ATI gets 21 fps and that's considered "good performance" ??
Also, which ones is better supported in Linux?
Thanks.
http://www.masquilier.org/republic/election/ Condorcet, Plurality voting and alternative voting enabled bulletin board.
I keep reading people recommending ATI's cards, for various reasons (price, performance etc.) but ATI's support for Linux sucks. I'm almost on the verge of upgrading my PC and so tempted to go ATI, but then I remind myself how crappy their Linux support is and head straight back to look at NVidia's cards.
It's no surprise to me that this review only contains the top of the line cards and none of the good cards most gamers currently have. No mention of Radeons, Geforce 4's, or any Matrox (okay, j/k on that one).
With representatives present from ATI and Nvidia, I'm sure they see D3 as a golden oportunity to justify their new line of $500 cards. Why would they want to confuse you by showing that your own card might actually work with the game?
free online diet tracking.
...you insensitive clod!
Make any more comments like that, and I'll prove it by tossing some of my feces at you.
I'm pretty much ready to upgrade my card from a 64mb ti4200 to a 6800gt.
My problem is that I would have liked to see someone at HardOCP test the BFG 6800GT card on doom3. Carmack's overclocking warning got me a little worried that the BFG card may give me trouble since it's overclocked out of the box.
If it could give me problems, I might just buy the EVGA card and overclock it myself.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Wolfenstein 3D - 1991 or 92 - runs on a 386 - DOS only
Wolf3D required a 286. In fact, it played incredible on a 286.
Quake after this, all are playable over the internet- 1996 - runs on a P-66 - DOS, Win32, linux port some time later.
Don't forget the 3D acceleration offered by GLQuake and VQuake that were released shortly after the game
Games like PoP, DE:IW, and Thief3 don't run on GF4MX's. Because they're a piece of shit graphics card ? Well, yes. But the problem is usually attributed to the game's mandatory pixel shaders. The GF4MX's don't have any pixel shading whatsoever. So if you design a game that you cannot turn off the shaders, it's not going to run without a GPU that supports them.
ID simply coded their engine to use different rendering paths depending on what card you're using. So if you lack the pixel shaders, it will still run without them.
--LordPixie
According to pricegrabber and pricewatch, you get get a Geforce4 MX 440 for less than $40 (64 meg) or less than $50 (128 meg). The 64 meg version came standard in my the cheap refurb pc that I bought a year and a half ago. It's an old, outdated card; however, this review says it works well with Doom3.
On the other hand, your card goes for about $130. So if it works fine on the Geforce 4 mx, then it's bound to work even better on your card. Simply put: there's no need for anyone to go buy an expensive video card.
It appears that nVidia is kicking ATI's ass in Doom3. As someone who owns or owned a Rage Fury, Rage Fury Pro, Radeon 64, AIW 9600, and a Radeon 9700 Pro, I'm glad. Competition is a good thing.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I believe you've convinced yourself that someone is NOT cheating, which is resoundingly not the case. Everyone is cheating, except maybe Carmack.
Nvidia Cheating
ATI Cheating
Actually, I'd prefer the hose, if that's not too much trouble.
Awwww, the wide-eyed innocents are posting! Look at this one-- he actually believes that one of the graphics card manufacturers is NOT cheating! It's tough life-lesson time, kiddo-- they BOTH have a history of cheating. Also, there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny was paid $5M by ATI to optimize his egg-rendering scheme for their hardware.
Nvidia Cheating
ATI Cheating
over the difference betwen "its" and "it's".
TWO e's
between , Between , ween ween weenie bastad
Apparently a doom3 benchmark with other cards is in the works, according to the author of the article..
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Okay, so who wants to help me build the best possible box for Doom 3 for $2000? *GRIN*
How about if people post URLs to their NewEgg wishlists, here?
Education is the silver bullet.
It's standard practice to benchmark with the fastest system you can buy and then use the various video cards. Whenever they do those big video card roundups they use say a P4 3.0GHZ 1GB ram etc and then just scale down the video cards. The problem is people read these and say "whoopoo my GF 4 Ti can play Doom 3 fine" when in reality their XP1800 256MB machine is going to play it like crap. Sorry but at best as pointed out above if your using an average system, XP1800 GF4 256 or 512MB, your going to be playing D3 at 800x600 with most effects turned way down or off. Upgrading sucks and having to spend minimum $175 to play it a 1024x768 with effects turned doesn't seem fair. But hey nobody's forcing you to buy this.
I want a GeForce 9000, then.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Does anyone else think this benchmark is pretty much pointless?
What good is a benchmark if the only included cards are the latest top of the line models?
Maybe we should draw the conclusion that if you have anything less than what was benchmarked, don't buy Doom 3.
Some weeks ago, for the first time in my life I bought an ATI card (9800Pro, 256MB) to go with my shiny new AMD64 system. Shortly after attaching the watercooling, I realized that I'd been badly burned concerning ATI's linux drivers... my fault, really, to believe that the very existence of linux drivers (which was all I checked prior to purchase) would enable me to at least play Tuxracer or similar under linux - but I did not reckon with ATI not supporting either 64-Bit systems (and AGPGART messing up with KT-800 Boards)... For some time now, only the fact that attaching the watercooler to a new 6800U (I do get into a sweat when doing that) would mean voiding the warranty on a ~$500 product kept me back.
With these benchmarks now, however, I feel no reason not to return once again to nvidia (remember Homer getting his job back at SNPP?)...
ghaa... all the wasted money...
If you look at the table here
V EVx7HppJJ_3_2.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1090364971
you can see the ATI X800 Pro performs 21.5 fps yet the graph bar is clearly not extending past the 20fps threashhold on the graph backing.
I have just finished playing Far Cry on my aging box that has a 32 meg GEFORCE 2 GTS in it and it ran fine at 1024 x 768, sure the settings were on low, but it still looked good, especially considering that the minimum requirement for the game is a 64 meg 'direct x 9 compatible' card.
I'm sure that doom 3 is a little more advanced than far cry, but who know's I'll try it out. Besides, isn't the Geforce 4 mx just a geforce 2 anyway? I'm sure a ti4800 will be just fine.
Im.
Since Doom 3 is OpenGL, what does DirectX 9 do for you? Is there some sort of DX vs OpenGL comparison chart to explain this?
Anyone find it weird that in an "all out fps benchmark" they dont benchmark two of the worlds best gaming GPUS with anisotropy turned off? Its known that the companies use different methods to get their effect, and I feel very misled that there isnt a fair test between the two in that fashion.
Look how much of a difference it made on the older gen cards on page 4 with ansitropy and AA turned off - they're dead even.
I'm under the impression carmack is giving out some rightly earned payback at ATI for relea..leaking the Doom3 beta when the 9700 was the only card in town that could play it.
It's "bastard".
when the 3D, gradient-shaded bar graphs in the
article are too much for your video card.
I noticed that the Doom 3 benchmarks were biased in favor of Nvidia cards and Intel processors. And the only video cards they tested were the ones that are too expensive for most folks. I have an Athlon 3000+ and an ATI 9800 Pro which I don't plan to change out any time soon since they were both purchased this year. I think one such upgrade a year is enough. That 'benchmark' seemed to be a marketing ploy which didn't really tell me how well Doom III would run on my system since none of my hardware was deemed 'good enough' for them to bother with, though they promise to benchmark it next week on the sort of hardware most folks actually have. Personally I think it will run just fine without a $500 video card (my 9800 only cost me $175 when I got it, and I think that's about the most I ever spent on a graphics card).
Contrary to the original plans, the AGP versions of the card...will carry a dual-slot cooling solution.
I was looking at planetdoom and found this page.
Recommended requirements are about what I'd expected:
GF Ti4200, Athlon 2500+, 512MB RAM
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Is Doom 3 compatible with the geforce 2? if not, why? the gf4mx440 is the same thing
o/~ Join us now and share the software
As an owner of a 9700 and a hobbyist developer, I'm very familiar with the limitations. The shader length is highly restricted, conditional branching can't be done, so loops have to be unrolled. For this reason, even the latest ATI cards can't fully support the OpenGL Shading Language. What can be done on an FX or a Geforce 6 in one pass could take 10 or more passes on an X800. Many important features for shadow mapping are hopelessly missing, such as rendering to a depth texture, and hardware linear filtering.
Copying from ATI's web site, the specifications
for RADEON 9800 PRO say:
# SMARTSHADER(TM) 2.1
* Full support for Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 programmable vertex and pixel shaders in hardware
* 2.0 Vertex Shaders support vertex programs up to 65,280 instructions with flow control
* 2.0 Pixel Shaders support up to 16 textures per rendering pass
* New F-buffer technology supports pixel shader programs with unlimited instructions
* 128-bit, 64-bit & 32-bit per pixel floating point color formats
* Multiple Render Target (MRT) support
* Shadow volume rendering acceleration
* Complete feature set also supported in OpenGL® via extensions
So, it seems that ATI cards do support flow
control (i.e. loops) and infinite pixel shader
length. Shadow volume acceleration might be
somehow limited as you say, but I haven't
really looked into it. Maybe some ATI white
paper will clarify these details.
NOTE that I'm referring to a 9800 product and
not to the high-end X800.
P.
My extreme distaste is for rushed-out-the-door drivers. Rarely does a day go by without my video card crashing at the desktop. Sure, they rock at running games and making lots of noise and heat, but when it comes to basic computing they fall short, very short.
This is why I love Matrox, because normal people spend more time working than playing. That said, I hate the Parhelia 512 because it's overpriced and underperformant. Give me a triple-head card that can run Doom3 at 1920x1440 and I will gladly plunk down 500$, just like I did several long years ago with a Geforce2 GTS when it was just a newborn, while everyone else was still giddy over their Voodoo 2 and TNT2. That same Geforce2 just recently fried after 4 long years of duty, and it was still fine for many games.
500$ / 4 years is 125$ per year, or 10$ per month for mind-blowing speed. Buy a budget card that you'll upgrade every year and you'll spend just as much in the end, except you'll always be in the bottom performance tier. That's how you measure the value of something.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Its betwen batard!
You no understad?