-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Doom 3 benchmarks are here!
- Thread starter DSN2K
- Start date
Pestul made this very true statement long ago...I didn't see any reason to comment anymore on this from an ATi POV. The rest of the comments seem like damage control
.Most games are made, and will be made, on D3D...but there is the possibility that many devs will license the DOOM 3 engine for their own titles, so it's important for ATi to be able to fix any issues with new drivers.
Secondly, this game is one of those games that cause people to buy new cards and upgrade, in the masses. So it's important for ATi, because as this game is released, I can see many gamers replacing what they have now. Heck, I've got a P3 with a GF2 MX 400...I've been waiting for this for a while, gonna get a new PC when HL 2 is out (to make sure that it can run both games nicely).
ATi's gotta fix something quick. Sure, they've had the best hardware for the past couple of years, but there were few blockbuster hits that caused people to upgrade. HL 2 and DOOM 3 seem like the best reasons to upgrade during the last 4 years (IMO). It's a critical time for ATi.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
i don't know what all this stuff means - but it's FORCING me to believe it
MaddenNFL64
Member
Wow, I wish I had any of those cards :\.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
crap on this gimme doom at 30 fps on my 9800 pro and then hl2 blazing (I want to run hl2 better, if not for the future mod support alone)
DJ Demon J
Banned
Izzy said:Even the AA and AF at 1600*1200 doesn't help:
Wow, ATI got smoked if these numbers can be believed. Why the sudden change in framerates for ATI X800XT PE in 1600x1200 4XAA 8XAF from other games to Doom 3? I thought Carmack said Doom 3 would work best with ATI architecture? Is this a case of Nvidia money hats?
DJ Demon J
Banned
rastex said:I just ordered an x800 XT PE today as well
Of course I got it for $300, but still!
WTF? Where did you get it for that cheap?
To those claiming the spec systems are unrealistic--well, they're certain top-of-the-line, but not completely crazy (well cept maybe for the 4GB of memory). But OCing a 3.0-3.4 processor up to 3.6 isn't that hard.
To the poster that mentioned Windows actually performing slower with more RAM, is this still true? I recall that on my old P2 400Mhz system, it actually ran slower with 256MB of RAM than with 128. I would hope that with today's powerful CPUs and GPUs and DDR RAM that this wouldn't be an issue, but I guess it's all dependent on the OS.
DJ Demon J
Banned
So basically, the only way to truly enjoy the best quality in all games is to buy both 6800U and X800XT PE. FUCK.
Littleberu
Banned
So is now a good time to buy a completely new computer? Or should I wait?
F.Y.I., I presently have a P4 1.5 GHz, 512 Rams, Radeon 8500 LE 64 Mb, and some shitty drives and hdd.
F.Y.I., I presently have a P4 1.5 GHz, 512 Rams, Radeon 8500 LE 64 Mb, and some shitty drives and hdd.
DJ Demon J
Banned
But I must have 1600x1200 with Ultra High Quality! *twitch*
Eh, I've made my decision...unless a deal like $300 for a X800XT PE, I'm just holding on to the 9800 Pro 256 until the first set of 512MB cards come out.
Eh, I've made my decision...unless a deal like $300 for a X800XT PE, I'm just holding on to the 9800 Pro 256 until the first set of 512MB cards come out.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Slo said:
Thats a big difference, if you were talking about constant framerates then fine. But these are timedemos...I'm pretty sure the card scoring 45 fps is going to get some shitty framerates when the action gets heavy. I'm hoping thats not case as I have a 9800 pro
I'm sorry a pc thats less than a year old with a $300 video card should run ANY game released now at 60 fps with the highest of settings. Of course if i upgrade the story will be different
Ah the joys of pc gaming.
you're thinking of console games. one of the nice things about pc games is that it's possible for them to look better as computers get more powerful. it stands to reason, then, that the highest setting will tax even the most advanced hardware. hell, it's not even possible to run doom 3 at the highest detail level until the next generation cards come out.Doc Holliday said:
Nvidia's performance in HL² is going to be much, much better compared to ATi's performance in Doom III. ATi will have the edge probably, but there won't be a huge gap. The 59xx series was the abysmal performer, the 68xx fixes just about everything. Check these HL² alpha benchmarks: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r420-2_12.html
A lot faster in Doom III, equal performance in HL² = Nvidia wins this round.
A lot faster in Doom III, equal performance in HL² = Nvidia wins this round.
seismologist
Banned
Littleberu said:
Just Buy the game. play it. Then upgrade to a 6800GT and you'll really appreciate the difference. You dont need to upgrade your whole PC.
Doc Holliday said:
Nah, I disagree. For me, the whole point of PC gaming is to be on the bleeding edge of technology. I don't spend all this money on components to have my games look like a last gen-console game. I'd much rather have PC games written to bleeding edge hardware then optimized for 2 year old garbage. After spending $350 on a GeForce 3 and not having it be taxed until 18 months later, I'd like to see my brand new hardware flexing it's muscles right out of the box. I don't like the idea that I just spend $1000 on computer components when I could have gotten by on much less.
dark10x said:
See, I don't quite get that. Unless you just want to play CS, BGII, and Starcraft, PC gaming is a huge money pit. You have to know that going in. Compared to PC Gaming, the Xbox is a great value. Any PC you put together for $150 dollars is not going to be able to run Chronicles of Riddick or Halo 2 at the levels the Xbox can. Not even close, it'd probably cost more on the order of $500-600. Personally, I'm not willing to spend $1000 on computer components to have Xbox level games running at 100+ fps, I need to see a bigger leap in quality for me to keep justifying this hobby. I say bring on the heavy hitters, I want to feel like my money was well spent. Otherwise, I'll just be satisfied with my Xbox.
Slo said:
Hmm, not quite sure how to reply as there really isn't much to address. Basically, I don't want to spend top dollar on just one of my gaming platforms (with the least number of games I want to play on it) when I can spend a little less and still run the best. While you sit there and eye the $500 cards, I won't even consider a video card until it is at least HALF of that. I've been running a Radeon 9700 Pro for a year and a half now and I purchased that for $200. The way you are talking, it seems as if you would prefer devs to go even MORE hardcore and pretty much snuff out people not running the latest and greatest. While the results could be impressive, it would require people to spend a lot more money more often. Even if you are willing to do so, most people aren't. So, I'm going to be playing Doom 3 on a 9700 Pro and put the money saved by not buying the latest hardware towards more games.
The thing that drives me crazy, though, is people trying to go for framerates well over 60 fps. There are a lot of folks who seem convinced that pulling 100 fps is better than 60 fps, when in fact, that isn't the case. I'm not even talking averages here.
seismologist
Banned
when I upgrade I'll be looking to play 1 or 2 of the latest games like Doom 3 and HL2 with pretty good performance. And "last gen" PC games like Toca Race Driver 2 and Halo should look phenominal.
Dark, just stick with your 9700PRO. Wait for the 6800GT to drop in price and go for that when it is around 200-250.
Although, I would like to see some 6800NU benches myself. Preferably at 1024 X 768 resolution at High Quality settings. If it is a significant jump, I may unload my 9800PRO I have now and may get the 6800NU. There will be a ton of games based off the Doom 3 engine, and if your card can handle Doom 3 at a high setting you will be set for other games.
Although, I would like to see some 6800NU benches myself. Preferably at 1024 X 768 resolution at High Quality settings. If it is a significant jump, I may unload my 9800PRO I have now and may get the 6800NU. There will be a ton of games based off the Doom 3 engine, and if your card can handle Doom 3 at a high setting you will be set for other games.
Gantz said:So it's going to run like balls on my 1.8 Athlon XP, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI AIW 9700 pro?
No, obviously not. You won't be running at 1600x1200 with 8x AF enabled...but who cares? You should be able to get solid framerates in medium detail at 1024x768.
seismologist
Banned
P90 said:
640x480, max 30fps. with texture detail set to low
dark10x said:
Heh, I understand what you're saying. And don't get me wrong, I'm a long ways from having top of the line hardware. My 9800 Pro isn't going to set the world on fire, and I'm not planning to upgrade just for Doom 3. I just don't understand why people would prefer a mediocre looking game running at 100 fps over a phenominal looking game running at ~30 fps. If I want mediocre graphics, I'll stick to a $150 console. I spend $400/year on computer components because I want something beyond that.
I kind of agree. It depends on the genre, but I generally prefer 60 fps with good visuals over great visuals at variable (and much lower) framerates. The thing about PC gaming is that it isn't always ahead of consoles. It took a while for the PC to exceed the current consoles and that will occur again next gen. So, when games like GT3, ICO, MGS2, and Silent Hill 2 were being released on PS2...there was NOTHING on the PC that could match them. They were ahead in all areas (except resolution, which doesn't matter when everything else is low quality) and certainly weren't mediocre. Were you spending $400 on your PC during those years?
The thing is, graphics are not only defined by technology. I think Metroid Prime is more visually appealing than most new and upcoming PC games because it runs at a perfect framerate, is polished as hell, and has a very solid art design. The technology behind the game is nowhere near matching what Far Cry achieved...but it just feels so much more solid. I will almost always take polish, attention to detail, and incredible artwork over more technology.
Still, I realize that PC games will never be able to match the polish of console games, so I'd prefer a game that runs a bit slower but looks superior than something with lacking detail that runs very fast.
DJ Demon J
Banned
dark10x said:
Wha? Contradictory.
DJ Demon J said:
No, not at all.
PC games will NEVER match the levels of perfection you can reach in a console game simply due to varying hardware configurations. As a result, there is no way a PC game could be created that pushes the boundaries of the hardware while still running at a perfect 60 fps. Without that possibility, I'd say my second choice would be to focus on better visuals.
The point is that many of the VERY BEST looking games on consoles run at 60 fps. On the PC, that just isn't the case.
Teknopathetic
Member
"The point is that many of the VERY BEST looking games on consoles run at 60 fps. "
Erm, Bullshit?
Erm, Bullshit?
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
how is that bullshit?