Doom3 to run on new iMac?

17891012

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 247
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,455member
    I also fail to see how coreimage can have much to do with games... Perhaps some on 3d apps... but games still love static textures.
  • Reply 222 of 247
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ti Fighter

    if your talking games and 3d apps etc... no fancy software tricks can really substitute the raw power of a graphics card on this level.





    Incorrect. NVidia has released driver updates which are so efficient they speed up the card's ability by up to 30%.





    Software optimization is key. This is what made CISC slower than RISC per Hertz back in the day--RISC had widely used functions written out before hand, shortening the instructions sent to the processor by the OS... And we all know how much that sped them up!
  • Reply 223 of 247
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead



    Software optimization is key.




    It can help, but games (such as Doom 3) rely on massive fillrates to achieve their effects. That is something software cannot improve.



    There really is no excuse of justification for the crappy card in iMac. It's Apple cutting costs, that's it. It's hard to believe that they couldn't have put a Radeon 9700 or 9700 in the 20".



    Even that is barely good enough. I wouldn't buy such a slow card now for my PC. I had to turn Doom 3 way down to get it to run well enough. ('HIGH' detail, 1280x1024, no anisotropic, no anti-aliasing... framerate 30fps ish). Not what I am used to!
  • Reply 224 of 247
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,455member
    We all know apple's #1 priority isn't games. I'd say its towards the bottom of the list.
  • Reply 225 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    Incorrect. NVidia has released driver updates which are so efficient they speed up the card's ability by up to 30%.



    You are correct, but in the cards range. It's all relative. A crap card wont all of a sudden become amazing card with a driver update. It will be better but not run Doom3 at 1600x1200.



    Although on the other hand we never get good driver optimization on the mac side, usually the cards run much slower than if they were in a pc.
  • Reply 226 of 247
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    You might be able to watch the movie on an iMac though



    http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...22_132909.html
  • Reply 227 of 247
    Quote:

    Some say the picture quality is worse then OpenGL though...



    I always felt Open GL looked better.



    Dx always looked 'card boardy' to me.



    I noticed it when Unreal Tourney first came out. The GL seemed to look way better...richer than M$'s cardboard X.



    Things are probably different now...?



    As for the Crapfx card in the iMac?



    Well, you can run Nanosaur II at iMac's highest res' in full 32 bit. Okay. Smooth enough. But it'll get eaten alive by Doom III.



    I don't think even the next rev' to the iMac will change it either.



    Unless Apple included the impressive Geforce 6600GT. An excellent card for price. This is the card to partner an iMac.



    And with the Nvidia GT coming to the Mac early Nov' then who's to say that the 6600 GT isn't coming too?



    Stick 2 gigs of ram in your iMac G5 and you'll have a nice work machine. It's not a PowerMac on benches...but it's still a leap over G4 iMac. The real problem (aside from the crapfx...) is the 256 megs of ram. The machine quickly chokes if you open several apps...



    Lemon Bon Bon



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 228 of 247
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Yea, I upped my 20" iMac up to 2GB from the stock 256MB and it definitely was faster. I couldn't even run Nanosaur at full resolution with only 256MB without the iMac choking (stuttering graphics, sound stutters as well). Once I upped it to 2GB, Nanosaur was smooth as butter.
  • Reply 229 of 247
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    Once I upped it to 2GB, Nanosaur was smooth as butter.



    Great. Could you post here the frame rates you obtain? If I am not mistaken, hiting F8 in this game will reveal you the frames per second. Can you too try some of the older demanding games, like RtCW for example (at native resolution, if it is still playable)? Somewhere in the preferences of this game, you can set up a key of your choice to bring up the frame rates when hit.
  • Reply 230 of 247
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Great. Could you post here the frame rates you obtain? If I am not mistaken, hiting F8 in this game will reveal you the frames per second. Can you too try some of the older demanding games, like RtCW for example (at native resolution, if it is still playable)? Somewhere in the preferences of this game, you can set up a key of your choice to bring up the frame rates when hit.



    If I remember I'll go ahead and do a frame rate test in Nanosaur. I don't own RtCW so I can't test it for you.
  • Reply 231 of 247
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    I always felt Open GL looked better.



    Dx always looked 'card boardy' to me.



    I noticed it when Unreal Tourney first came out. The GL seemed to look way better...richer than M$'s cardboard X.



    Things are probably different now...?







    I think you are just comparing the looks of different engines.



    DX and OGL will render whatever you tell them to, all they are is APIs which feed instructions to the GPU.



    Take a look at Half Life 2, that's running on Direct X 9c, and is certainly a pretty game. Or Far Cry, which is also DX9.
  • Reply 232 of 247
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    I don't own RtCW so I can't test it for you.



    Yes, you can. You can always download the demo, unless you are under dialup internet.
  • Reply 233 of 247
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Anyone who thinks they will have a good gaming experience with a imac and Doom3 is either drunk as a skunk or higher then kite. CPU is to slow and the GPU Fx5200 is cheap crap. enough said. now back to that Doom3 on my AMD3500+ and 6800GT. Its tough playing with everything on but someone's got to do it.
  • Reply 234 of 247
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    The most amusing thing I find about this thread is how so many people are concerned about how well the iMac will be able to handle a pile of steaming excrement.
  • Reply 235 of 247
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Great. Could you post here the frame rates you obtain? If I am not mistaken, hiting F8 in this game will reveal you the frames per second. Can you too try some of the older demanding games, like RtCW for example (at native resolution, if it is still playable)? Somewhere in the preferences of this game, you can set up a key of your choice to bring up the frame rates when hit.



    I got roughly 60 frames/sec in Nanosaur at the highest settings. I'll check RtCW demo framerates soon.
  • Reply 236 of 247
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    Anyone who thinks they will have a good gaming experience with a imac and Doom3 is either drunk as a skunk or higher then kite. CPU is to slow and the GPU Fx5200 is cheap crap. enough said. now back to that Doom3 on my AMD3500+ and 6800GT. Its tough playing with everything on but someone's got to do it.



    And you know that a 3500+ doesnt actually run at 3500 mhz??? Depending on the exact model it is around 2200 mhz, not much better than the imac's 1800. I found some spec numbers, and the 1800 g5 compares to a 2400 p4 on integer, and 3400 p4 for floating point. Seeings as games are pretty dependant on floating point these days the 1800 should be a fine cpu.



    The gpu, well thats another story...
  • Reply 237 of 247
    Quote:

    Anyone who thinks they will have a good gaming experience with a imac and Doom3 is either drunk as a skunk or higher then kite. CPU is to slow and the GPU Fx5200 is cheap crap. enough said. now back to that Doom3 on my AMD3500+ and 6800GT. Its tough playing with everything on but someone's got to do it.



    You tease.



    But you're right.



    :P



    Lemon Bon Bon



    Rev B with 1.8-2.3 gig G5s and a better graphics card eg GT 6600 and it would be a terrific machine...in 2D AND 3D!
  • Reply 238 of 247
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Anyone who thinks they will have a good gaming experience with a imac and Doom3 is either drunk as a skunk or higher then kite. CPU is to slow and the GPU Fx5200 is cheap crap.



    After upgrading my RAM from 256MB to 512MB, I'd be inclined to postulate that the base 256MB of RAM could be a main problem for Doom 3 on the iMac. (Doesn't stop the 5200 being the next problem ).



    Anyway, I'm waiting until someone makes a game with it.
  • Reply 239 of 247
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    I got roughly 60 frames/sec in Nanosaur at the highest settings. I'll check RtCW demo framerates soon.



    Thanks. I am curious to see how Wolfenstein performs in this machine.
  • Reply 240 of 247
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Thanks. I am curious to see how Wolfenstein performs in this machine.



    Do you know the command to display framerates in RtCW? I've downloaded the demo but I don't know any of the console commands.
Sign In or Register to comment.