or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Doom3 to run on new iMac?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Doom3 to run on new iMac? - Page 3

post #81 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
There is a reason why :

Tiffany diamonds cost more than other diamonds.
Mercedes cost more than Ford
Rolex cost more than Casio
Leica cost more than Sigma.
.

yawn. why do you continue to make dumb posts like that? it's completely different. and Id choose some fords over mercedes anyday, and i really could give a shit less what brand my watch is as long as it works.
post #82 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
His experience was a virtual slide show. Mine? A little smoother. He has a gig Athlon. Mine a 1.6 xp Athlon. Gig of Ram. Ati 8500 (aka Radeon 9600).
...
Getting 30-60s per second in 640 x 480 with no candy floss.
Let's face it. Most PCs can't play Doom 3 as it was meant to. Full anisoptric and A.A and the ultra 6800 and 3.5 gig processor on the PC side is struggling at 1600x1200 to maintain a smooth 50-80 frames per second.

It was already pointed out that a Radeon 8500 is a three year old card, and very slow by today's standards. Check out a benchmark from 2003 to see the 9600's perform about twice as fast. The more complicated the game, the greater the difference will be - UT2003 isn't very complicated. Additionally, pixel shaders will give newer cards an edge in graphic quality.

You are making insane demands in graphic quality. I sincerely doubt anyone will see the difference between AA and non AA at 1600x1200 in a moving picture unless they go looking for it. Likewise, a 80 frame minimum is way more than necessary for good gaming experience. Back when I was playing Halflife/Counterstrike, the difference between 40fps and 80fps only became apparent vs human opponents, when only a fraction of a second decides which player's sniper rifle goes off first. Feel was roughly the same, the end result (who wins) just changed slightly depending on *relative* fps.

Most of the PCs that are used frequently for gaming will also run Doom3 playably. Most of the PCs that will run Doom3 playably will run it well.
post #83 of 248
Hmmm, I'd forgotten my card was THAT old.

Still, all the more reason, looking at THAT chart, to argue for a 9600xt opposed to a 5200 Nvidia in that iMac G5,eh?

You're right. Twice as fast.

This should be in the middle to top end at least.

Preferably the 9700 in the top end. It's in the Powerbook.

(Mobile version...)

Will Doom 3 run on the iMac G5?

'Not very well' still stands if the Nvidia 5200 is anything to go by.

It virtually flatlines on Call of Duty 1000x700 and Doom III is no less demanding.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #84 of 248
The 8500 became the Radeon 9200. It's good to hear that Doom 3 is playable on a low end Athlon with an 8500 as it's what I have in my PC.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #85 of 248
Perspective from a PC Doom III player:

The importance of a balanced computer set-up for running Doom III cannot be understated.

- The highest quality PC graphics cards 6800 Ultras end up being CPU limited. There is headroom left in these graphics cards, which cannot be exploited given current processors available.

- The highest quality graphics cards for a PC have dual DVI connectors for TFT screens. Yet current TFT screens cannot support the highest possible resolutions the likes of the 6800 can offer.

- The cost of getting Doom III running at its best (it is a current / next generation engine, for the coming year and beyond) is prohibitive.

Now making Doom III available to a Mac User, and asking them to run it on an underpowered two generation old, 5200 graphics card, is frankly insulting. That graphics card will pull performance way down (beneath the capabilities of the CPU).

Bundling a cheap graphics card with an otherwise powerful system, is an age-old 'beige-box' brandless provider trick, which should have gone extinct with the dinosaurs. No upgrade path to a better card? A cheap tactic to push boxes, toward those who aren't in the know, and a great annoyance, for those who do.




Gone_Pearshaped.
- I do believe it's Gone_Pearshaped.
Reply
- I do believe it's Gone_Pearshaped.
Reply
post #86 of 248
Quote:
The importance of a balanced computer set-up for running Doom III cannot be understated.

- The highest quality PC graphics cards 6800 Ultras end up being CPU limited. There is headroom left in these graphics cards, which cannot be exploited given current processors available.

- The highest quality graphics cards for a PC have dual DVI connectors for TFT screens. Yet current TFT screens cannot support the highest possible resolutions the likes of the 6800 can offer.

- The cost of getting Doom III running at its best (it is a current / next generation engine, for the coming year and beyond) is prohibitive.

Now making Doom III available to a Mac User, and asking them to run it on an underpowered two generation old, 5200 graphics card, is frankly insulting. That graphics card will pull performance way down (beneath the capabilities of the CPU).

Bundling a cheap graphics card with an otherwise powerful system, is an age-old 'beige-box' brandless provider trick, which should have gone extinct with the dinosaurs. No upgrade path to a better card? A cheap tactic to push boxes, toward those who aren't in the know, and a great annoyance, for those who do.

My, what have we here? A frank, fair and honest perspective on Apple's consumer AIO strategy.

In short, I concur. £16 graphics card which is virtually discontinued because Nvidia have a glut of them is 'insulting' to Mac buyers who pay a premium because their kit is supposed to be 'the best'.

Okay to have a 5200 on a £1000 cmputer. You'd get away with it. PC WORLD do. But at £1300 and £1700 my suspected price points of the iMac 20 and 23(?) inch iMac G5...you should be scaling to Radeon 9600xt and 9800xt!!! The lack of option is more damning because I'd pay the goddamn extra!!! So Apple lose out on extra premium-premium!!!

You rightly point out the dated racketeering tactics of Apple to shaft an ignorant consumer.

Consumers aren't that ignorant these days.

As languishing sales of iMac 2 proved. Otherwise, why would Apple be updating the iMac 2 much sooner than the beloved original iMac?

Another thing, the graphic card is now so important a part of Apple's 'Tiger' strategy with Core Image and Video.

It's hard to take them seriously if they can't take their own hardware seriously. Workstation, consumer or laptop. The constant weak link is Apple's GPU selection. In short, they're stiffing us when we pay a premium anyhow.

Heck, like Pear Shaped said...at least give us the goddamn option!!! Betcha'd see many an iMac G5 owner going for a Radeon 9800xt or 6800 Ultra in their iMac if Apple let them!!!

Refreshing perspective from a PC user. Who plainly sees that if you're spending an obscene amount of money, you want an obscene amount of power for your lolly.

Good call, Padawan Poster...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. Pear Shaped...I'd be interested in hearing what YOU think of Apple's Tower pricing. Dual cpu starting at £1400-£2100.

BUT there is no single cpu tower range from £895-£1395.

Does that make sense to you?
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #87 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
You rightly point out the dated racketeering tactics of Apple to shaft an ignorant consumer.

Uh oh. Someone's off their meds again.

You can get a complete consol system for less than a graphics card capable of playing Doom at highest settings. Sure, I'd like a fast card too... but i'd trade it all for an appealing design, both ergonomic and stylish.

The iMac was never intended to be a gaming machine. In life, if you're ignorant, you just might buy the wrong thing. People should take responsability for their own actions.
post #88 of 248
Realistically a good graphics card to have in the new iMac would be a Radoen 9600 XT, this would be able to run games well, but would that be enough? I doubt more powerful graphics cards can be put into the iMac until nVidia gives Apple a new 'el cheapo' graphics card, what about a GeForce 6600 anyone?

At the moment nVidia only has the low end cards slot and the highest end slot, Ati has the run of the middle ground. If the iMac was to not use a GeForce 5200, the only macs to use nVidia cards would be the 12" powerbook and two Powermacs...
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #89 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Gone_Pearshaped
Bundling a cheap graphics card with an otherwise powerful system, is an age-old 'beige-box' brandless provider trick, which should have gone extinct with the dinosaurs. No upgrade path to a better card? A cheap tactic to push boxes, toward those who aren't in the know, and a great annoyance, for those who do.

Where I come from, small "brandless" manufacturers have had very balanced and reasonable systems as default, some graphics card even in the cheapest systems, and upgrades available. On the other hand, I see Dell selling what they call "home entertainment systems" with Intel integrated graphics, and no warning that the customer must upgrade if they plan to play a single game.
post #90 of 248
D00m3 w. pWn 0n t3h n00 Imac

t3h G5 is t3h ultramega

yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
Reply
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
Reply
post #91 of 248
Quote:
The iMac was never intended to be a gaming machine.

Sez who? You? Steve Jobs? Apple?

Was the PC intended as a 'gaming machine'? (Thinks...I remember PCs struggling with Battlechess in blue, orange and black graphics...)

It's on Apple's gaming spec page. So Apple aren't saying this.

A certain lead Id' programmer cut his teeth on the Apple II with Wolftenstein?

Apple DOES have a gaming heritage if we look back to the classic Apple II and the Mac's early days. What's more the 'X' is better for games now than the classic Mac was. Hot games within half year of PC versions. Cream of crop and bug sorted by then no doubt.

The gaming industry is worth 40 billion plus. Any computing company that doesn't want a cut of that Apple Pie is nuts.

5200MX doesn't cut it. It doesn't cost that much more to add a Radeon 9600xt goddamn it.

Whither the option to at least upgrade the graphics?

Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks. Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks.Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks.Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks.Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks.Sucks. A £16 card sucks. It sucks. It sucks.

Got it?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #92 of 248
Quote:
I see Dell selling what they call "home entertainment systems" with Intel integrated graphics

But you have a graphic slot to upgrade on most Dells.

And I don't see too many Dells at £1700-2000 stuck with Intel integrated graphics.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #93 of 248
They got it Lemon, if those pictures prove real which i dont think they are then the new imac couldnt get anything hotter in it but a poor fx5200. the chip is crap, the chip is $16 bucks per thousand and its holds the bottom vs integrated graphics garbage. Doesnt belong in a iMac yet alone as standard offering in Powermac. Amazing isnt it. Anyone buying a powermac should plop down $50 bucks for at least a 9600xt. Then you can play Doom3 with it turned half way on. or you could do like me and get a Alienware Aurora and Max that sucker out!
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #94 of 248
Well, I've just bought Studio Max v6!

So, I guess I'll have to update the Athlon rig a bit.

I'm waiting on the dual SLI motherboards. The thought of sticking two 6800 GT on a motherboard is tantalizing...

If Apple could make their machines 'woo-hoo' in the first instance I'd be sitting on a pile of Macs.

It would be really nice if I could pick and mix my specs a little more with Apple. Yeesh a choice of 3 graphic cards would hardly be earth shattering. A choice of 3 cpus rather than just 1.6 and 1.8.

With water cooling I'd like to see 2 and 2.5 singles in the iMac.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #95 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
But you have a graphic slot to upgrade on most Dells.

And I don't see too many Dells at £1700-2000 stuck with Intel integrated graphics.

I was replying to Gone_Pearshaped about no-name PC builders vs big brands, my comment wasn't about the iMac at all.

When it comes to the iMac, I think a 5200 as a base is okay because 2D desktop won't need any more than that, but there should be an option to upgrade to a 9600XT or better. Other good bang-for-buck cards would be 9800Pro and 6800GT, I think these run pretty hot though. Whatever the upgrade, it needs to be available for the base model, not just top of the line, so you can get a game-capable iMac for even remotely reasonable cost.
post #96 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
But you have a graphic slot to upgrade on most Dells.

And I don't see too many Dells at £1700-2000 stuck with Intel integrated graphics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was replying to Gone_Pearshaped about no-name PC builders vs big brands, my comment wasn't about the iMac at all.

When it comes to the iMac, I think a 5200 as a base is okay because 2D desktop won't need any more than that, but there should be an option to upgrade to a 9600XT or better. Other good bang-for-buck cards would be 9800Pro and 6800GT, I think these run pretty hot though. Whatever the upgrade, it needs to be available for the base model, not just top of the line, so you can get a game-capable iMac for even remotely reasonable cost.

First point. Hmmm. Anything above £1100 in PCs generally have far better graphic cards than the Integrated Intel or 5200fx cards.

Your 2nd point. Agreed. Totally.

A 6800 GT would be a great card for the top end iMac, not only that...but a great card for the PowerMac range.

The 6800GT on a SLI motherboard is the card to watch...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #97 of 248
Quote:
Other good bang-for-buck cards would be 9800Pro

A card you can get relatively cheaply these days.

Apple's mid-high end iMacs and PowerMacs should ship these as standard...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #98 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
First point. Hmmm. Anything above £1100 in PCs generally have far better graphic cards than the Integrated Intel or 5200fx cards.

Your 2nd point. Agreed. Totally.

A 6800 GT would be a great card for the top end iMac, not only that...but a great card for the PowerMac range.

The 6800GT on a SLI motherboard is the card to watch...

Lemon Bon Bon

I do agree, there is no way Doom3 will be playable on a 64mb chip, it barely runs on 128, and thats at the 2nd to the lowest settings, I do hope Apple puts an option like the 15 and 17" 1.5GHz PowerBooks, an choice for the base (64) or a 128, or even higher would definatly be nice.
post #99 of 248
Doom 3 runs on a 3200 Athlon XP with Radeon 9800 pro just fine (1024x768 high quality everything on).
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #100 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Specifically, from HardOCP's article:

If you have a 1.5GHz Pentium and a 3D card that has been made in the last couple of years, you should be able to enjoy the DOOM 3 experience as it was meant to be.


Don't forget: DOOM 3 cost around $20 million to make. The more machines it runs on, the better the odds that id can make their investment back plus enough to finance their next game, profit handsomely, and buy Carmack a few more Ferraris or a spare rocket.

The new iMac should run DOOM 3 just fine. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to hear that id got a test mule to play with to ensure that. It wouldn't be the first time they'd used the iMac as a target platform...

If you look at the data in the HardOCP's article you will see that the 1.5 GHz P4 set at low is below 30 fps over half the time, dropping as low as 6 fps. They might call that playable (so that they sell as many copies as possible) but I would not play the game with frame rates like that.

According to the graphs in that article you don't start getting constant 30+fps until you go up to a 3+ GHz P4 or a Athlon 3200XP -- and that is with the high end video cards! A Athlon 3200XP with 512MB ram using a 128MB Radeon 9600XT will drop down to 13 fps when set on Medium Quality and No AA or AF.

If TS is right, the new iMac will do a terrible job running Doom III. A 1.8GHz G5 and a 5200FX is not going to cut it (it will not even be able to run UT 2004 without turning down the settings).

One thing that is truly depressing when you think about it is that there is only one Apple computer, in its stock configuration, that can play Doom III even moderately well, and that is the $2,999.00 Dual 2.5GHz G5 tower. To play it in high settings with some eye candy on you have to go up to $3,449.00 for the 6800 (or only $3,299.00 for the Radeon 9800XT). Even if you build to order one of the slower powermacs it will still cost you around $2500.00.

This is why they are going to sit on Doom III for the Mac, it would play terribly on the vast majority of installed Mac base, and it will not play well on almost all of the currently shipping Macs. It would be foolish to publish a Mac version now.

I don't expect them to release Doom III for the Mac until the consumer Mac is able to play it on medium settings without dropping below 30fps. Which should be sometime in late 2005 or early 2006. Which is just sad.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #101 of 248
Actually, according to Apple, the iMac is a machine for 'intermediate gamers' offering a 'sensational' and 'truely incredible' gaming experience.

http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/

Oh, and I'd rather have Nvidia 6600 graphics (due in september) rather than Radeon 9600 graphics in the new iMac, especially for doom 3. ATI's 9600 series is long in the tooth (the 6600 as twice as many pipelines).

However, anything on the market right now is an improvement over the 5200.
post #102 of 248
Look, a Radeon 9800 can handle Doom3 just fine, a bottom of the range G5 with a Radeon card will be able to handle Doom 3, just fine.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #103 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by mattyj
Look, a Radeon 9800 can handle Doom3 just fine, a bottom of the range G5 with a Radeon card will be able to handle Doom 3, just fine.

According to the charts a 256MB Radeon 9800XT will drop below 30 fps at 1024x768 at the high quality setting even when using the most powerful processor they tested (a Socket 939 Athlon 64 FX-53 at 2.4GHz).

I don't think that a 1.8 GHz G5 will do quite as well. I think it will take the 2.5GHz G5 to go toe to toe with the 2.4GHz Athlon 64 FX-53 when it comes to gaming.

As for the card -- the GeForce 6800 series seems to handle Doom III much better than any of the Radeon cards. Of course, that could change with future drivers.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #104 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I'm waiting on the dual SLI motherboards. The thought of sticking two 6800 GT on a motherboard is tantalizing...Lemon Bon Bon

We're getting one of those in our office next week - can't wait to see how it performs, even if it is wintel!
post #105 of 248
This is the best value and performing top card. 6800gt is awesome and thats why i got one coming in that new Aurora with 3500+. Doom3 will be running in the mid 60s @1280 x 1024 on very high settings. ouch!
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #106 of 248
Yeah a friend is getting an SLi system, Dual Opterons with two Quaddro FXs (4400s or 4000s can't remember), it is going to be a monster.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #107 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
According to the charts a 256MB Radeon 9800XT will drop below 30 fps at 1024x768 at the high quality setting even when using the most powerful processor they tested (a Socket 939 Athlon 64 FX-53 at 2.4GHz).

I don't think that a 1.8 GHz G5 will do quite as well. I think it will take the 2.5GHz G5 to go toe to toe with the 2.4GHz Athlon 64 FX-53 when it comes to gaming.

Since you wrote this in reply to mattyj's comment that the 9800 runs Doom "just fine", I take it you are attempting a refutation here.

The first paragraph is true, although misleading. The end of the render run is *cutscene* where you don't need as much fps. Apart from that, the game seems to spend about ten seconds below 30fps, in a 350 second (300 without the cutscene) rendering. The lowest it goes is to 23 fps. There are no grounds for saying that the 9800 would not run Doom just fine at the said quality level.

The second paragraph is irrelevant, because you *don't need* a processor equivalent to the FX-53. Look at the 9800's performance with an XP 3200+ in addition to the FX-53. It shows the graphics card is the bottleneck. The 2.2GHz XP processor is enough for this graphics card, and I would think a 1.8GHz G5 trumps that anyday.
post #108 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
This is the best value and performing top card. 6800gt is awesome and thats why i got one coming in that new Aurora with 3500+. Doom3 will be running in the mid 60s @1280 x 1024 on very high settings. ouch!

Not when the Nvidia 6600 series arrives in 3 weeks. Now that series will be the sweet spot in price/performance ($150-200) by being half the price of the 6800 series but a lot more than half the performance.

Perhaps rev B. of the new iMac will feature this GPU. I seem to recall a similar situation with the original iMac--it shipped with pathetic Rage II+ graphics---there was an outcry by the mac community--Apple upgraded the chipset to Rage PRO within 3 months.
post #109 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Since you wrote this in reply to mattyj's comment that the 9800 runs Doom "just fine", I take it you are attempting a refutation here.

The first paragraph is true, although misleading. The end of the render run is *cutscene* where you don't need as much fps. Apart from that, the game seems to spend about ten seconds below 30fps, in a 350 second (300 without the cutscene) rendering. The lowest it goes is to 23 fps. There are no grounds for saying that the 9800 would not run Doom just fine at the said quality level.

Gaming is a subjective experience. I find it annoying for a game to get choppy just when the fighting get toughest and you need as smooth a game play as possible. I also find that while 30fps is the bare minimum for playing a game, I prefer it to stay higher (the action looks a lot smoother are 60 fps than at 30 fps). So while some might think that the 9800 is running the game fine at that quality, I would turn the eye candy down to increase the fps a bit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gon

The second paragraph is irrelevant, because you *don't need* a processor equivalent to the FX-53. Look at the 9800's performance with an XP 3200+ in addition to the FX-53. It shows the graphics card is the bottleneck. The 2.2GHz XP processor is enough for this graphics card, and I would think a 1.8GHz G5 trumps that anyday.

As far as I've been able to tell, when it comes to games, a 1.8GHz G5 performs about as well as a Athlon 2600XP (which runs at 2.08 GHz). Since HardOCP don't keep the same cards and settings throughout the tests, and each run-through was unique, it is hard to tell if the only bottle neck is the graphics card. I think that the cpu and bus speed will still have an effect on frame rates, and I would be willing to make a small wager that if you put the same videocard (either the Radeon 9800XT or the Nvidia 6800 Ultra) into the 1.8GHz G5 and the 2.5 GHz G5 that the latter will have higher frame rates.

Thinking about the current and upcoming games, it seems to me that the new iMacs might be too slow even if they do put in a better graphics card. We will just have to wait and see how well they perform once they are shipping.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #110 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by mattyj
Doom 3 runs on a 3200 Athlon XP with Radeon 9800 pro just fine (1024x768 high quality everything on).

*cough*bullshit*cough*

P4 3.06/1GB/9600SE can run it at a smooth level at the 2nd to the lowest level (800x600), thats when it isnt crashing. Fresh install of XP, video drivers, etc

As for the iMac, sticking a 5200 in it and giving no other alternative options might push a small amount of buyers away, knowing that some current mac games wont play on it, and certainly newer ones down the road wont either.
post #111 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by mattyj
Doom 3 runs on a 3200 Athlon XP with Radeon 9800 pro just fine (1024x768 high quality everything on).

Quote:
Originally posted by jaegermann
*cough*bullshit*cough*

P4 3.06/1GB/9600SE can run it at a smooth level at the 2nd to the lowest level (800x600), thats when it isnt crashing. Fresh install of XP, video drivers, etc

As for the iMac, sticking a 5200 in it and giving no other alternative options might push a small amount of buyers away, knowing that some current mac games wont play on it, and certainly newer ones down the road wont either.

You are being a little harsh.

The Radeon 9600SE is the least powerful in the 9600 series (it goes 9600SE, 9600, 9600 Pro, 9600XT). You would see a vast improvement with a Radeon 9800pro, although you would be better off with a nvidia card for this game (unless ati comes out with a driver that improves performance on their cards).

As I said before, the gaming experience is very subjective, and we each have our own comfort levels when it comes to fps and the quality of the video.

Back to the new iMac, I know that Apple is going to lose a few customers due to its slow speed and sub-par video card. Unless the rumors are wrong and Apple comes out with a kick ass iMac.

It could happen...
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #112 of 248
the 9800XT is at least 3 times more powerful than a 9600SE
post #113 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by jaegermann
*cough*bullshit*cough*

P4 3.06/1GB/9600SE can run it at a smooth level at the 2nd to the lowest level (800x600), thats when it isnt crashing. Fresh install of XP, video drivers, etc

As for the iMac, sticking a 5200 in it and giving no other alternative options might push a small amount of buyers away, knowing that some current mac games wont play on it, and certainly newer ones down the road wont either.

Your post suggests that you have only seen Doom 3 run on the pc you have mentioned, not on one like the one I played Doom 3 on. It runs very well, I suggest you stfu when you haven't seen it running for yourself on the kind of setup I've used.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #114 of 248
Regarding Visual fps:

Thirty frames per second is considered the minimum for comfortable viewing. Any game-player shouldn't have to compromise this figure. The basic specification of any PC or Mac should meet this and more.

Doom III is frame-rate capped at 60 fps. Any game-player wanting a system to be proud of, any manufacturer wanting a system for their users to be proud of, should offer a configuration option which aims for this.

PC users have the option of making compromises, or putting their well-earned money on the table and buying better - or the best.

Any manufacturer who does not offer a low-end, middle-end, and high-end series of options (for graphics) in this case, is essentially saying to their customers: Sorry, we don't want your money.

Good rules of Business:

- Give a customer what he wants, when he wants it.
- Make him pay for it.
- A satisfied customer, is a repeat customer.



Gone_Pearshaped.
- I do believe it's Gone_Pearshaped.
Reply
- I do believe it's Gone_Pearshaped.
Reply
post #115 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Gone_Pearshaped
Regarding Visual fps:

Thirty frames per second is considered the minimum for comfortable viewing. Any game-player shouldn't have to compromise this figure. The basic specification of any PC or Mac should meet this and more.

Doom III is frame-rate capped at 60 fps. Any game-player wanting a system to be proud of, any manufacturer wanting a system for their users to be proud of, should offer a configuration option which aims for this.

PC users have the option of making compromises, or putting their well-earned money on the table and buying better - or the best.

Any manufacturer who does not offer a low-end, middle-end, and high-end series of options (for graphics) in this case, is essentially saying to their customers: Sorry, we don't want your money.

Good rules of Business:

- Give a customer what he wants, when he wants it.
- Make him pay for it.
- A satisfied customer, is a repeat customer.



Gone_Pearshaped.

your post is right on but i dont think Apple is wanting business. it wants the limelight for its ego's and art dept and Jobs. its not about making machines for consumers. if you look at the consumer offerings its obvious its not about the consumer and what he wants its about Apple.They dont want choices for consumers because apple has deemed them as not worthy. you take what we offer period. you want a choice then you MUST buy Powermac or get that PC.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #116 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by mattyj
Completed it, I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. Bring on Half Life 2.

Actually I agree with you. Doom 3 was a slight dissapointment in my book, except for the graphics which of course is spectacular. It didnt get more than 7/10 in EDGE magazine either \
post #117 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Sopphode
Actually I agree with you. Doom 3 was a slight dissapointment in my book, except for the graphics which of course is spectacular. It didnt get more than 7/10 in EDGE magazine either \

Not surprising to be honest, Doom3 is essentially a glorified tech demo, it just failed to deliver the goods, it basically has next to no gameplay, it's too repetitive and predictable.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #118 of 248
Has anyone gotten excited over this game, looks and sounds fantastic!

www.stalker-game.com
Big Honking Screenshot

[edit by Amorph: Changed inline to link to restore board formatting.]
post #119 of 248
The graphics card situation is really sad. I have a female coworker of mine interested in purchasing a computer. I've been steering her towards a Mac, but yesterday when we spoke on the phone she mentioned that she couldn't wait to start playing some games on her Mac. My heart broke when I heard that, as I could no longer stand behind my recommendation to her to buy the new iMac. In fact, ever given her price range, I couldn't honestly recommend a single machine currently offered by Apple to fulfill the most basic expectations of this casual gamer.. Sad.
post #120 of 248
The imac G5, from this PC userss standpoint, is a joke for one reason. the graphics, a 5200 to drive a 15 inch notebook would be reasonable, but a 20 inch desktop? thats gonna suck verry hard unless apple overclocks the gpus
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Doom3 to run on new iMac?