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.'"

65 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Might possibly upgrade... by SIGALRM · · Score: 4, Interesting
    the fact of the matter is that many of you will be just fine, although an upgrade may still be in your future
    I'm not an expert on the Carmackian magic in Doom 3... but apparently the fact that the gaming engine works from the complex model downward and offers subsets to supported configurations is much more efficient in FPS terms than other engine architectures. However, as JC states, we should not all "live and die by the frame rate".

    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.
    1. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by Tlosk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I upgraded back when they announced a release date for HL2 a year ago lol. I didn't get a top of the line system but it was a lot better than what I was replacing and I figured it would do okay for HL2. If I had it to do over again I would of course have waited, but I'm relieved to find out that I'll be able to at least run Doom 3 somewhat decently.

      And it's not like I'll lose the game or anything, I figure I'll just wait another year or two to upgrade again and by that time I'll have a system that can run it with everything turned on and maxed out. I really don't think it will be worth blowing 2 grand on, especially since it's shaping up to be something of a rail shooter (nothing against that, sounds from the previews like it will be quite an experience, but dividing the hours of gameplay into the cost of an upgrade doesn't sit well on the register).

      I just wish they weren't still selling video cards for $500+ for the top of the line. I remember when CPUs would top a grand for the latest and greatest, but now you can get that for a third of that.

    2. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read this post twice and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. Needs more 31337.

    3. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by ditto999999999999999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Subscribers can read (and not write to) the post, but have just as much knoweldge as anyone else about when it is going to go live.

    4. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by Camulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Something to keep in mind when you upgrading. ATI does a good job of keeping up with Nvidia on D3. Nvidia is obviously quicker, but ATI isn't bad. However, on he HL2 benchmarks that have been released, ATI has been smoking Nvidia.

      Here is a review of some cards that are actually in my price range and from the sounds of it might be in yours.

      http://tech-report.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x? pg =2

      Just something to keep in mind.

    5. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going with nVidia next round simply because of the ATI driver nightmare and their awful application support. I use 3d applications like Blender on a regular basis and ATI has caused nothing but trouble with that. Crashes, slowdowns, display errors, etc. Users of other packages also recommend not using ATI for work. That's enough of a reason to drop ATI for me. Yes, I know nVidia's cards are more expensive and eat more power, but hell, if it means my system will run more stable I can see over that. If nVidia performs worse in HL or D3 that doesn't matter much, either, I just need to get rid of that ATI card that's in my system right now.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Might possibly upgrade... by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      The film is at 24 FPS, but the display is 48, although I'm reasonably sure that you can get that on old Hardware too. And here is a discussion of why movies can get away with 24/48, and games cannot.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  2. Of course... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Of course... by w00d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both the Nvidia 6800 and ATI X800 run on the same ARB2 rendering path. Older cards have their own paths.

    2. Re:Of course... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BS.

      There is no way Carmack would neglect almost half of the gamers out there. The fact is, Radeons have always had less than stellar performance with OpenGL. They are built for D3D.

    3. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heres the list from that pcgamer clip.

      NV10 path: geforce4 mx.
      NV20 path: geforce3 and geforce4.
      R200 path: ati 8500/9000.
      ARB2 path: nvidia FX/ati r300+

      I assume radeon 9800 is included for arb2 because they use the r350 and r360 cores.

      The arb2 path and r200 path use 1 pass, the nv20 path uses 2 passes, and the nv10 path uses 5 passes.

      Also arb2 is the only path using that vertex/fragment programs which adds slightly to a few effects. (a heat-shimmer effect was mentioned).

    4. Re:Of course... by Dekar · · Score: 2, Informative
      This is from a pretty old .plan from John Carmack, but the second quote seems to still be valid today:

      "The NV30 runs the ARB2 path MUCH slower than the NV30 path. Half the speed at the moment. This is unfortunate, because when you do an exact, apples-to-apples comparison using exactly the same API, the R300 looks twice as fast, but when you use the vendor-specific paths, the NV30 wins."

      "The reason for this is that ATI does everything at high precision all the time, while Nvidia internally supports three different precisions with different performances"

      So basically, Nvidia's cards can cut a few corners, with minimum, if any, visual impact, while ATi's cards can't, even with optimised code path.
      Basically, Nvidia screws up when it comes down to standard ARB2 code path, but it does so well with their own path that developers have to code it, and Nvidia gives them a lot of support. It looks like a fair deal to me.

    5. Re:Of course... by RedWizzard · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is from a pretty old .plan from John Carmack, but the second quote seems to still be valid today ... Basically, Nvidia screws up when it comes down to standard ARB2 code path, but it does so well with their own path that developers have to code it, and Nvidia gives them a lot of support. It looks like a fair deal to me.
      However the NV30 path is gone. The Nvidia drivers now perform well enough that the standard ARB2 path performance is as good as the NV30 path performance.
    6. Re:Of course... by MisterFancypants · · Score: 3, Informative
      As others have pointed out, the Nvidia cards used in this benchmark do NOT have their own codepath.

      The reason Nvidia kicks ATI's ass in Doom3 is because Doom3 is HEAVY on the stencil buffer shadows. Nvidia's newer FX cards can render two-sided stencil buffer volumes in one pass, which is a huge speed win for stencil shadows. It also supports stencil shadow volume clipping, which speeds things up even further.

      The long and short of it is, any game that uses a unified lighting model like Doom3's, using stencil-buffer based shadows, will run noticably faster on Nvidia hardware. There is no driver trickery or coder bias.

    7. Re:Of course... by egarland · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a codepath were written for the X800 series of cards, I'm sure the scores would be closer to each other.

      Even if that never happens, I won't even consider purchasing any of the current GeForce 6800 series. NVidia has fallen into the trap that killed 3Dfx of forgetting that their products are a small part of a multi-purpose computer.

      You can pretty much throw a 9800 or X800 series card into any machine and get a really good gaming machine. With the new cards in the GeForce series you have expensive requirements like massive power supplies extra slots, high-end cooling, and you need to not mind the dustbuster sound coming from your machine. All those extras add to the cost of building a system with the card and the real market for video cards isn't $500 upgrade cards, it's OEM's. NVidia's high end cards suck because of the expense and inconvenience they add to the machine and their middle end cards just simply suck.

      ATI is winning, by a lot more than benchmarks indicate. I think NVidia kept too many of the 3Dfx people, they are starting to stink of death. They need a new, more power efficient and transistor efficient design but instead they work on supid things like bringing back SLI. I've been a fan of NVidia since the days of the Riva 128 and the first TNT. Back then they were mopping up the mid-high range with simple cards that were much more OEM friendly than 3Dfx's although slightly slower. Now NVidia is positioning itself in the difficult, obtrusive ultra-high end space where 3Dfx was when it died. Let's hope they change course before it's too late.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    8. Re:Of course... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fortunately we don't all have the same needs. The diversity of the marketplace means that there is room for both approaches. This also results in a greater number of choices for us.

      BTW, I am under the impression the Matrox still makes some kick ass OpenGL cards for the HIGH END.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Of course... by Seft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With the new cards in the GeForce series you have expensive requirements like massive power supplies extra slots, high-end cooling, and you need to not mind the dustbuster sound coming from your machine

      Massive Power Supplies: 6800 GTs are happy in shuttles with 250W PSUs

      Extra Slots: The 6800 and GT are single-slot

      High-end Cooling: See whats cooling your CPU, then count the transistors on each. Besides, it's much better to have a good cooling solution with headroom for overclocking than something that barely makes the grade

      Dustbuster Sound: I think you're confusing the 6800 series with a certain FX card. Besides, there is nothing stopping third-party manufacturers changing the fan, and many do.


      supid things like bringing back SLI

      SLI is a really good idea - it allows those who want to to have a very fast setup without increasing the price for those who are content with a fast setup.


      Now NVidia is positioning itself in the difficult, obtrusive ultra-high end space where 3Dfx was when it died.

      Not at all. nVidia has sold zillions of FX5200s to OEMs.

    10. Re:Of course... by AftanGustur · · Score: 2, Insightful



      Massive Power Supplies: 6800 GTs are happy in shuttles with 250W PSUs


      If you take out the CPU and Hard disks, yes.

      Actually, a *good* 350W PSU can handle the task.


      High-end Cooling: See whats cooling your CPU, then count the transistors on each.


      You miss the point, the complaint was that that video card was making to much noise .. You can't explain or justify that by pointing at something else.



      Dustbuster Sound: I think you're confusing the 6800 series with a certain FX card. Besides, there is nothing stopping third-party manufacturers changing the fan, and many do.


      Now, and why would third party manufacturers change the fan unless there was a problem with it ??

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    11. Re:Of course... by Zakabog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm I speak as someone who had just purchased two GeForce 6800 GTs (well I only got one, but my friend got one too, and I installed and played on both systems.) He has an AMD 64 FX-53 and I have a 3200+. The loudest part of my computer is the fan on my chip, second to that, my hard drive (my old 40 gig samsung, my new serial ata WD is pretty quiet, so is my older WD drive.) The video card takes up one slot, I only have a 450 watt PSU (was like $40, and I didn't buy it cause of the video card, I bought it because a while ago my 260 watt PSU died, and I figured why not get a 400 watt PSU in case I ever wanted to do water cooling and stuff like that.) My friend has a 500 watt PSU he bought, I figured he should get it just in case the card doesn't like his 300 watt PSU, it was only $50 (he could have gotten one for $30 that would supply more than enough power, but the 500 watt one looked really nice so we got it, and when you're buying a $400 video card a $200 motherboard and an $800 CPU a $50 PSU is so increadibly cheap.)

      I don't really know what you're talking about, ATI is winning? They charge $100 more for a video card that performs worse in what will be the hottest new game this year, and they're winning? NVidia is going to have support for 2 video cards (2 insanely fast video cards) with PCI express, and ATI is winning? Maybe you were just upset with the NVidia FX series (I was upset too, it really killed me, I love NVidia mainly for their linux support and opengl performance, but the FX was just total CRAP, and when I saw the 6800 was gonna be a monster I was a little upset and even feared it was the end for NVidia but I was VERY surprised when I saw the final product, especially the benchmarks.) With the 6800, I see them as being back on top. You just sound like someone who has read one article a long time ago when NVidia first showed off the 6800, I think you should really check out the 6000 series, you'd be surprised at how well NVidia did this new series.

    12. Re:Of course... by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And one of the reasons that Carmack says that the framerate is not the be-all/end-all benchmark is that even though the ATi cards run OpenGL a bit slower than nVidia cards, they usually render a slightly better picture (better AA, beter AF, less color banding, etc ...). This is one of the reasons why he actually said he thought the Radeon would be a good choice for Doom 3 (last year at E3) as this was an obvious difference in the Radeon 9800/GeForce FX iteration. I don't know if nVidia has improved their rendering quality since then, but if they didn't, then the choice in video card is more complicated than just framerate.

      For me, though, the biggest factor for me will probably be features & price. I'm a big fan of the All In Wonder series for that.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    13. Re:Of course... by woodhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      By view couldn't be any more different. ATi is losing the battle, and by a long way. Here's why.

      Over the last 2 generations of cards, nvidia has made huge leaps in terms of features, particularly in terms of shaders. Pixel shaders can now be very long. They support conditional branching, so if statements and loops are possible without unrolling.

      Now the geforce FX series, while great in terms of features, had well documented problems with 32-bit performance. However, these problems have been completely resolved in the 6 series. The 6 series of cards are superior to ATI's offerings in every sense, except possibly power consumption (and FYI, the GT doesn't require 2 slots).

      OTOH, ATi has completely failed to innovate over the last 3 years. Every revision since the 9700 has been effectively just a speed increase. Their latest cards give basically nothing new in terms of features over the 9700 pro. In terms of capability, their latest cards are inferior to nvidia's FX cards.

      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.

      So it looks to me like ATi are struggling to keep up in terms of performance, and they've put so much resources into just keeping the peformance acceptable that they've completely failed to innovate. And while gamers might not have noticed this before, they are starting to with Doom 3, and as developers push shader tech to its limits, they will really start to see the limitations of their cards. Hopefully they can fix the situation with their next generation of cards, but my next card will certainly be a nvidia.

    14. Re:Of course... by egarland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the exact mistake 3Dfx made. They weren't a video card, they were a "gaming platform". They wanted people to see them like they saw playstation. They went with a proprietary interface (GLide), didn't see the need to provide 2D capabilites (which sucked for OEM's) and even went so far as to supply an external power supply with their cards. They started fixing all that and just trying to make a good 3D video card eventually but they never made it.

      NVidia apparently ended up dying because managment refused to put out a card that wasn't better than the competition even though they were running out of money and nobody was buying their old products. NVidia did a little of that with their last two series cards. They need to stop trying to win through marketing partnering and driver tweaks and go back to trying to win through superior chip design.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    15. Re:Of course... by woodhouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realise you're desperate to draw a parallel with 3DFX somewhere, but things have moved on a bit since it was all about fill-rate. In fact, it was precisely because it wasn't all about fill-rate that 3DFX died (hardware T&L on the geforce being the final nail in its coffin). I think you'll find that programmable pipelines have been pretty successful too.

      More programmability is not just a gimmick, it's where real-time graphics is heading.

    16. Re:Of course... by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To write ATI off so easily would be rather silly. Do you think that those silly Canucks are honestly sitting around, twiddling their thumbs and raking in the cash? ATI chose to extend their existing architecture simply because it was so good the first time around. Nvidia couldn't really do that with the FX series because they, well, sucked. ATI just won a bunch of OEM PCIexpress design wins, and they hold the XBOX and Nintendo console contracts. I think they know more about their business than you do.

      This is why I'm not too optimistic about ATI. ATI and nVidia put 3 teams on designing the next generation. One does the high end, ones does the next high end, and one does the one afte that. RO so I'm lead to beleive. Witht he contracts to Nintendo and MS they now have to make 2 more teams, diluting the talent in their core design teams. So they might get smacked liek nVidia did when it made the chips for the xbox, their offering for that generations were piss poor.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  3. ATI by Mr.+Vandemar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:ATI by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I heard/saw, the 6800 still needed 2 molex connectors, and took up two expansion slots, sounded like a jet engine, and required a minimum 400 watt power supply. The ATI card uses much quieter cooling, requires one slot, and one power connector. For a machine that's on 24 hours a day in the same room I sleep in, noise is a big factor. If I needed the caliber performance of the latest/greatest card, and had an extra 400 to spend on a video card who's price will most likely be half that in 6-8 months, the extra $100 would be worth it, when factors other than an extra 3-5 fps come into play.

      That's not to say I don't respect Nvidia, I swapped out a Radeon 9700 pro for a GF4 Ti4200 in this box, because the linux drivers from Nvidia gave me slightly better performance and much more stability in most of the OpenGL apps I'm running.

      Which brings up another question- how will the native linux version of Doom III compare to it's windows counterpart?

    2. Re:ATI by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't be surprised that within a few months of Doom 3's release there will be a Version 1.1 of Doom 3 with internal code changes that will fully take advantage of the registers of ATI's R300 and newer graphics chipsets.

    3. Re:ATI by randyest · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't be surprised that within a few months of Doom 3's release there will be a Version 1.1 of Doom 3 with internal code changes that will fully take advantage of the registers of ATI's R300 and newer graphics chipsets.

      Funny, seems Carmack would:

      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 X800XT-PE to compete with a $400 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.

      --
      everything in moderation
    4. Re:ATI by Bodhammer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "if their driver teams pull a rabbit out of their hat or not."

      I'd like to see them pull their head out of their ass first - I still can't run KOTOR on a 9800Pro with any stability - I have a basterd mix of Cat 4.2 and 4.7 and that is only marginally stable. This is on a game that was very highly rated and sold a bunch.

      Their OpenGL drivers smell like crotch!

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    5. Re:ATI by stonedonkey · · Score: 3, Informative
      Last I heard/saw, the 6800 still needed 2 molex connectors, and took up two expansion slots, sounded like a jet engine, and required a minimum 400 watt power supply.


      This turns out not to be the case. The 6800GT uses one Molex, one slot, is not loud, and runs just fine with a 300W PSU or thereabouts. The 6800 Ultra, however, does indeed fit your description, although I have heard no particular complaints about noise.

    6. Re:ATI by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even the Ultra runs just fine on a more modest poewr-supply. NVIDIA recommended 400 watt PSU just to be on the safe side, but many reviewers ran the card with 350 watt PSU just fine. Later NVIDIA reduced the requirements on the Ultra. So it does not need 400 watt PSU. Not in theory, and not in practice.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:ATI by neko9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      same here. 8MB RAGE PRO, 8MB RAGE128, laptop with Radeon RS200M... ATi software and drivers are one big mess. since i'm converting my main box to Mandrake and OpenGL is a must - GeForce FX it is :-)

      and what good from faster performance if drivers and software is super buggy? i choose slower but more stable and less glitchy solution.

  4. The Bottom Line by rokzy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re:The Bottom Line by vehn23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just as an aside I picked up a geforce 6800 non-ultra last month and could not be more pleased with its performance - and it requires only one slot and a "standard" 300W power supply.

  5. RE: Nvidia by rdilallo · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  6. How about an Amiga port? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:How about an Amiga port? by HonkyLips · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please, please, please let this be a joke. The thought of you being serious is just plain scary. Apple are shipping 2.5ghz water cooled G5s as standard and you're excited about an 800mhz G3? I owe my career to what I learned on my Amiga while at high school, but I moved on. OTOH, if this is a joke, then ha! You had me laughing.

      --
      Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
    2. Re:How about an Amiga port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      What would be really cool is an iPod port because iPod is awesome and it has a screen, a processor, and some kind of scroll wheel with clickable buttons.

  7. More or less than 1 fps by Radix37 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
    1. Re:More or less than 1 fps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've got the solution to your Doom 3 problems.

      Even heard of chess by e-mail? My company has just opened a subscription-based service--Doom3ByEmail.com.

      You allocate a frame subscription of your chosen duration with any major credit card, we send you a rendered frame from your own personalized Doom 3 game, you send us an XML file containing directional commands, and we send you the resulting frame...

      Who said Doom 3 wouldn't run on your PDA?

  8. Uh, hello? by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Uh, hello? by spdycml · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. The article makes it seem like they tested a range of cards when they really only tested cards priced at 400 plus. For those of us who aren't doctors/lawyers/senators we need some benchmarks for our cards. I have a All-In-Wonder 9600Pro and I wanna know if it will work. I don't see myself spending 500 bucks to play this game. well.....unless I have to...um....hmmm.....maybe.

    2. Re:Uh, hello? by randyest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey, the ATI 9800, which was benchmarked in the article, is only $147 if you're in So. Cal. and $179.99 anywhere else (BestBuy, even.) GeForceFX5950 isn't much more, if not less (online.)

      Yes, the ATI high end and amazingly-high-performance nVidia6800 Ultra are $500ish, but the nVidia6800GT trounced the $500 ATI card and it's $100 less. That's three choices $400 and under, two under $200!

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:Uh, hello? by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? That's not at all what I get from reading the article. The framerates reported are remarkably good even for the Nvidia 5950, and they claimed it was quite playable on a Geforce 3. Judging from all that I would guess you could probably manage something in the 800x600 to 1024x768 range, medium effects at 30-40fps on a Geforce 4, and possibly even better.

      All this stuff about buying new cards is mostly a pissing competition. I have seen nothing in the reported hardware requirements, nor benchmarks that would imply you couldn't get a very satisfactory game of a Geforce 4.

      Jedidiah

    4. Re:Uh, hello? by MisterFancypants · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh yeah? Try playing Quake3 on a minimally configured machine and see what the gameplay is like. 320x200 with software rendering can be get good framerates, but you can't see a blooming thing!


      Quake3 doesn't even support software rendering. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

  9. No minimum framerates? by stonedonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have a great amount of respect for hardocp.com, despite Kyle Bennet's occasional frothing rants. I've been reading the site for years. That said, these benchmarks are only partially useful without knowing the minimum framerate. Did it plummet anywhere? Did it only plummet on ATi cards?

    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.

  10. Maybe Doom3 is too *conservative* on hardware!? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Maybe Doom3 is too *conservative* on hardware!? by _damnit_ · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, I am rather disappointed in the resolution they chose for the top end. I have a nice widescreen monitor which does 1920 x 1200. I know others who have highend gear (for other purposes than gaming) which far exceed that. In my case, I just want 1920x1200 at highest quality textures and AA over 30fps since I'm LCD. I have my doubts that I'll get there without dropping some cash on a new vid card since I run a Radeon 9600 Pro.
      I don't think that the current batch of cards is going to "handle" very high resolutions with AI involved or network functions in the background. Wait until someone creates the ultimate benchmark with 32 players in some massive rocket launch deathmatch. Those fps will dive and give rise to cries of frustration from the fps chasers.
      This is going to be the rallying cry for hundreds of dumbass CompUSA employees:
      You need this $400 video card from Nvidia to really enjoy D3. (Pause) What's PCI express? You don't want PCI. You want an AGP card cause they're faster.

      I'm sorry about that last bit. I had some idiot at CompUSA point me to the wireless section when I was asking for USB cables today. He said he thought I wanted "wireless USB". A fucking wireless USB cable?!? They never cease to amaze me.
      --


      _damnit_

      It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
  11. So does this mean... by Alex+Reynolds · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I won't need to sell some organs on the black market, after all?

  12. Re:yea i agree with this by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they have only 3 cards listed in the test and none of htem are widely in use

    Keep R'ing TFA -- they test (1) nVidia Geforce6800 Ultra (1st place with a bullet), (2) nVidia Geforce6800GT (strong second), (3) ATI X800XT-PE (3rd and more costly than (2)), (4) and (5) nVidia GeForceFX5950 and ATI9800XT (pretty much a tie -- ATI is a tad faster with AF [anisotopic filtering] but no AA [anti-aliasing], add in the AA and nVidia edges ahead.)

    That's five, and at least two of them are what I'd call "widely in use." YMMV.

    --
    everything in moderation
  13. older hardware? by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  14. That's reassuring. by causality · · Score: 2, Interesting
    '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.'



    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
  15. This review tells us nothing by d_jedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:This review tells us nothing by iive · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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..

      The only possible reason I can make out of my mind, is that with all the shinny/shader/sexy/lighting features turned off, the game could actually run much faster.
      You can't show how great the new GF6800 is, if GF440 could run at same (or better) framerate ;)

      This reminds me that there are no screen shots to show how The Game looks on different video cards.
  16. By surprisingly good they mean something subtle by abionnnn · · Score: 2, Funny

    They were surprised it even ran on a GeForce4 MX 440. That in itself is a good gaming experience. ;)

  17. Re:Summary . . . by StillAnonymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "nVidia's back, I guess. This will sell a lot of 6800GT's. "

    Well, I guess that depends on what you thing "a lot" means. At $661CDN for a 6800GT, I don't see too many being sold in the near future. The Radeon X800XT is even worse, at $800CDN. WTF!? This is narrowed down to the very hardcore of gamers, and they represent a very small percentage of the gaming population.

    Many people likely will upgrade, but I just don't see this game selling $600+ cards to a large number of folks.

  18. Reread the article, carefully this time by adiposity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  19. The word is "its". by JessLeah · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its, its, its. ITS. Fucking ITS. Not "it's"!

    1. Re:The word is "its". by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

      1000 posts a day on slashdot that look like they were created by an epileptic monkey, and you go psychotic on this guy over the difference betwen "its" and "it's"...

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  20. Sweeeet! by Horizon_99 · · Score: 4, Funny
    This is the coolest thing I've heard so far about the game:
    Talking to John briefly about his overclocking comments made some things clear to us that many enthusiasts will need to be aware of. When he speaks of "new usage patterns" he is literally talking about transistors on some of new GPUs that are going to be used for the first time when you play DOOM 3 on your video card. So be aware that pushing your GPU MHz may get you different results in DOOM 3 than with other games.
    Yeah, bring my card to it's knees JC!

    Hey just realized while typing this that JC's initals are JC, it all makes sense...
  21. Define "remarkably good" by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    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 :-D

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  22. Or an IBM XT Port by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Funny
    I've been working with ID on a port of Doom III to the IBM XT for those die-hards who refuse to upgrade. Here's a sample from the first level which will be released for free:

    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.
  23. OpenGL by Vacuous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  24. Re:This is why i love iD by TrancePhreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you set everything to maximum or did you lower it? I found that terrain could be on high or normal and everything else needed to be normal except characters. Characters needed to be on low.

    --

    -]Phreak Out[-
  25. How cute! by raygundan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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