I think Carmack has said it, its going to be awhile before Doom3 makes it to mac. in fact i would guess 2005 before we see it. the sad truth is most macs dont have the power so whats the point of making a mac version if there is no one who can run your game. Doom3 wont run on a current iMac and with the new imac reported to have fx5200 it wont be pretty on that machine either. Only reason i was wanting a 2.5 was for this. so I canceled my 2.5. that leaves one more machine for someone else. I ordered a Aurora last night with Amd3500 and 6800 in it. Macs are great for everything but........................gaming. guess ill just never hook it up to the net\
With the low end pentium PCs starting at 2.6 Ghz or so and the AMD low end at least as good, the non G5 macs are still trailing.
Thats a bad comparison because your saying higher MHz is faster performance. Wrong. Dual XEONs are way faster than entry level pentium processors at that speed, and if you recall old G4 comparison tests.
Quote:
What's the fastest PC in the world? Probably something with Dual Xeon's, according to Tom's Hardware. Speaking of Dual Xeon, you'll want to see this graph of a Dual Xeon versus Dual G4. Even though the Dual 2.8GHz Xeon has a 124% faster clock speed than the Dual 1.25GHz G4, it only runs the test suite 19% faster.
If those entry level 2.6GHz PC's are running DOOM 3, the 1.25, and 1.4GHz G4's should run it just as well. For this reason I think when Carmack says the app is not running fast enough on current hardware he is saying the Mac coding is incomplete IMO. That is all. There is no mystery in his statement. They are just not done with it.
They already said they would not finish it until the Linux, and XBOX versions were finished. It's that simple.
But I claim that if you would take a 1.4 GHz Intel PIII and AMD Athlon and a G4 and a IBM 970 AKA G5 and they would be similar in CPU rellated tasks. (it will vary from task to task and with what variant of CPU and bus is used)
The PCs reached 1.4 GHz late 2000 that is allmost 4 years ago so there is a lot of several old PCs with that level of CPU performance the Mac got there 2003 and and only the G5 has gotten a bit past 1.5 GHz.
I hope I will see a Gx that makes it worthwhile to replace my old G4 AGP but the current crop is not good enough. I think I get a low end AMD box (2500) and use that for some applications not aviable for the mac, and games as well
Getting a decent video-card may be more important than we know today. As 99% of all the macgames is ported from the pc-platform, the demand on hardware is dictated on what kind of hardware the pc´s have.
my main reason for not have a mac a my main pc is price alone
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.
At every level there are products that are of superior quality. Some people choose to forgo on this but others see the beauty. I hope Macintosh stays a premium brand focused on giving a great experience to its end users.
As for DOOM III sounds very pretty but I'm not really hearing much raves about the gameplay. I think ID has developed a bit of fan boy'ism with people that are afraid to be honest and say ID doesn't really make great playing games but rather great "looking" games. In essence ID is the Apple of gaming. Style over substance.
The game-play of Doom 3 itself can be said to not be the most important part. ID knows that a lot of people will buy their game, and the reasons may differ. One reason is the beautiful and great graphics, second might be that they believe or know that the game-play of Doom 3 is excellent (which ID games most often are), another reason might be future modifications (for multi-player) that will spring out for the game, just like they did for Half-Life and Quake 3.
Second, a lot of ID's income is based on licensing the game engine itself to other developers. Just look at how many Quake 3 based games there are. Some might argue that these games are better than Quake 3, although I personally maintain that Quake 3 is one of the best games ever. I predict that even more games will be based on the Doom 3 engine.
I think that the new iMacs need to handle (as in play it on at least medium quality, 800x600) the stuff I described in the first paragraph, while the stuff in the second paragraph might be so much different from the original game, both in hardware requirements and game-play, that the iMac does not need to handle them at all.
We have yet to see what kind of mac hardware that is needed to handle Doom 3.
At every level there are products that are of superior quality.
I get your point but I just needed to add one thing. Those brands on the left aren't necessarily higher quality than the ones on the right (except maybe the Mercedes). They just have more prestige and style.
IMO, Macs are actually superior in every way except raw speed and game availability.
If you look at benchmarks for this game, proc. speed makes very little difference compared to the gpu.
There is no doubt in my mind this game will play on an imac unless apple ships with a craptastic videocard.
I don't understand all the bashing going on with this game...
What exactly were you expecting. I play tons and tons of PC games and after finishing Doom3, I have to say that it ranks very high in my book
Its the best looking game out there right now and the gameplay is fine (and i do own farcry which is not as good a game). Doom has always been about running around and shooting things...no more, no less. The game has scary moments and the darkness adds to that. Use the freaking flashlight and hot key it. It is very easy to switch out your last gun and the flashlight. People are so freaking picky about everything these days and cant seem to just enjoy something for what it is. I have had more fun playing Doom that a lot of games that have come out lately. People who call this a tech demo are morons or just using words they heard someone else say and thought it was catchy.
My PC is a 2.6 P4 with an Ati 9800 pro 128 and I have 1 gig or ram
Ran the game at high quality (even though they recommend 256mb of texture memory) at a res of 1280 by 1024 and the game ran pretty much smooth. The only time i had problems was when something onscreen was on fire, which would cause some slowdown.
My experience of modern games doesn't go back further than DukeNukem 3d for the mac, im not an avid gamer, the games I own could be counted on both hands.
I think your charge of calling me a moron for saying Doom3 is a tech demo is somewhat unjustified. I cant see any improvement in actual gameplay over my fav old game Duke Nukem. If you can, explain it to me.
Doom3's graphics, sound, atmosphere, physics, etc are all groundbreaking, but the level design, plot, gameplay, puzzles, and scripting or AI are all decidely average verging on monotonous. What is the point of the first 12 levels? They all look the same, all play the same.
It does get better around the time you reach DeltaLabs and to the rest of the game. But apart from the non-gameplay items, what is really that spectacular? IMO its DukeNukem with the most advanced game engine yet to date.
Doom 3 is a tech demo for people with Althon 64's 3500+ and Nvidia GF6800 Ultra's. At full setting the graphics might be the best in class, I have seen glimpses of genius, Expecting it to run on a 1.6GHZ iMac with Ultra 5200 graphics is a joke. Expect to be very disappointed. Even then, the gameplay might be pretty lame on such a system.
Waiting for half life 2, cant be any worse!
Half Life 1 was/is the best first person shooter/game I've seen played to date.
It is THAT good. Shame the port never made it to Mac.
Doom 3. Hmmm. A good mate of mine lent it to me because he's finished it and doesn't want to touch it until he has a rig (3 gig plus with an Nvidia 6800 card) that can run it as it was meant to be.
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.
Sorry, your G5 1.6 aint going to run with baby with its lame ass 5200mxfxwhateveroutofdatenesscrap.
You should be getting a card in the 1600 price range that should allow the iMac G5 to run at 1200x1000 with some effects on. A Radeon 9700-9800 for the high end iMac.
Stupid not to at least have that option.
1.8 G5 and a 5200? If you make 40 frames per second with the game running naked? You'll have some fun.
Doom 3. I like it. But I don't think it's any better than Castle Wolfenstein 2. In fact, I think that's the better game.
Half Life 2 is...IS going to blow it away in game play. Environments are better lit and more varied and sumptious. The narrative makes Doom 3 look linear and sparse. The variety and GameA.I of Half Life 2 looks set to blow Doom 3 and Id' off the map.
Doom 3 has A nasty that pops up now and again.
Half Life 2 will hit you with a swarm of beasts that will have your head ringing.
And I think Half Life 2 will offer more intelligent gameplay, better physics...more varied interaction with the backgrounds...more horror...more atmosphere.
All without the aid of a flashlight.
Let's face it, Id paid Valve the ultimate complement with the rip offs of scenary, air vents, sound effects, scenario, talking, interaction...yeesh.
Doom 3 is putting better graphics on Half Life 1 and trying to be...
Doom 3 doesn't quite capture the fun or zest of the original Doom.
Mac gamers won't be able to appreciate this until they have a dual 2.5 with 6800 ultra with 2 gigs of ram.
And probably Open GL 2.
Mac owners? Relax. The iMac aint gonna cut it. Your G4 is not going to cut it.
Wait until you get you 3 gig MP Antares processor with a 6800 or Spring refresh graphics card. Put in 2 gigs of ram with Tiger.
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.
In that sense? They're in the same boat as we are.
Both Mac and PC guys are going to have to wait until June 2005 before a mainstream or high end system can comfortably play the next gen in games like Doom 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2...ie with all bells and whistles on.
We have much in common in that sense. Sure, 1.6 G5 is equivalent to a 2-2.2 gig Pentium 4. A 1.8 G5 is probably equivalent to a 2.2-2.4 gig Pentium 4. So, Apple are okay with that as entry. But as a high end consumer cpu? Apple should be putting in 2 gig and 2.5 early 2005 aka soon as possible.
2.5 gig = 3 gig Pentium 4. But Apple offers you two...so you probably got a fair Doom 3 rig with a 6800.
Come 'Tiger' hopefully with Open GL 2 and 'Antares'...whether Doom 3 runs well will be a mute point. I doubt Doom 3's interest level will last half as long as the original's.
Sorry, that's wrong. The Radeon 9600 and the 8500 are totally different cards. The 9600 is much faster, especially the later offerings like the 9600 XT.
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.
Comments
With no SMP anything below 1.5 to 2 GHz CPUs are pretty useless so that leaves us with G5 gaming rigs...
With the low end pentium PCs starting at 2.6 Ghz or so and the AMD low end at least as good, the non G5 macs are still trailing.
IF, the port have very good SMP then dual G4 1.0-1.25-1.42 will work.
IF, the ports performance is unaffected by the very slow bus speed on the mac
IF, the port as good soundcard support (M-audio) of loading the CPU
IF, 10.4 open audio etc improves game support
Then the Mac DOOM III market looks better, but that is a lot of "Ifs"
IF, the port as good soundcard support (M-audio) of loading the CPU
I thought that Doom 3's audio code is CPU based? Could it be done on the second CPU ?
Originally posted by DrBoar
With the low end pentium PCs starting at 2.6 Ghz or so and the AMD low end at least as good, the non G5 macs are still trailing.
Thats a bad comparison because your saying higher MHz is faster performance. Wrong. Dual XEONs are way faster than entry level pentium processors at that speed, and if you recall old G4 comparison tests.
What's the fastest PC in the world? Probably something with Dual Xeon's, according to Tom's Hardware. Speaking of Dual Xeon, you'll want to see this graph of a Dual Xeon versus Dual G4. Even though the Dual 2.8GHz Xeon has a 124% faster clock speed than the Dual 1.25GHz G4, it only runs the test suite 19% faster.
If those entry level 2.6GHz PC's are running DOOM 3, the 1.25, and 1.4GHz G4's should run it just as well. For this reason I think when Carmack says the app is not running fast enough on current hardware he is saying the Mac coding is incomplete IMO. That is all. There is no mystery in his statement. They are just not done with it.
They already said they would not finish it until the Linux, and XBOX versions were finished. It's that simple.
But this still keep's me wondering why the Quicktime newsletter say's: If you?re prepared for the horror, check out the ?Doom 3? game trailer.
I do not claim that MHz equals performance, a 2.8GHz celeron gets spanked by 1.6 GHz AMD. Asn the Xeon is one hell of a performer at least in FPU (http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/efficiency.htm)
But I claim that if you would take a 1.4 GHz Intel PIII and AMD Athlon and a G4 and a IBM 970 AKA G5 and they would be similar in CPU rellated tasks. (it will vary from task to task and with what variant of CPU and bus is used)
The PCs reached 1.4 GHz late 2000 that is allmost 4 years ago so there is a lot of several old PCs with that level of CPU performance the Mac got there 2003 and and only the G5 has gotten a bit past 1.5 GHz.
I hope I will see a Gx that makes it worthwhile to replace my old G4 AGP but the current crop is not good enough. I think I get a low end AMD box (2500) and use that for some applications not aviable for the mac, and games as well
http://www.insidemacgames.com/featur...?ID=300&Page=2
Releasing a consumer mac with a crippled or less than good videocard will make it harder for people like Glenda Adams to port games.
Apple needs to beat the PC's to dual core and release a PCI express chipset with DDR 2 support
multi-threading would be nice as well
Originally posted by ibookgeek
my main reason for not have a mac a my main pc is price alone
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.
At every level there are products that are of superior quality. Some people choose to forgo on this but others see the beauty. I hope Macintosh stays a premium brand focused on giving a great experience to its end users.
As for DOOM III sounds very pretty but I'm not really hearing much raves about the gameplay. I think ID has developed a bit of fan boy'ism with people that are afraid to be honest and say ID doesn't really make great playing games but rather great "looking" games. In essence ID is the Apple of gaming. Style over substance.
Second, a lot of ID's income is based on licensing the game engine itself to other developers. Just look at how many Quake 3 based games there are. Some might argue that these games are better than Quake 3, although I personally maintain that Quake 3 is one of the best games ever. I predict that even more games will be based on the Doom 3 engine.
I think that the new iMacs need to handle (as in play it on at least medium quality, 800x600) the stuff I described in the first paragraph, while the stuff in the second paragraph might be so much different from the original game, both in hardware requirements and game-play, that the iMac does not need to handle them at all.
We have yet to see what kind of mac hardware that is needed to handle Doom 3.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Tiffany diamonds cost more than other diamonds.
Mercedes cost more than Ford
Rolex cost more than Casio
Leica cost more than Sigma.
At every level there are products that are of superior quality.
I get your point but I just needed to add one thing. Those brands on the left aren't necessarily higher quality than the ones on the right (except maybe the Mercedes). They just have more prestige and style.
IMO, Macs are actually superior in every way except raw speed and game availability.
There is no doubt in my mind this game will play on an imac unless apple ships with a craptastic videocard.
I don't understand all the bashing going on with this game...
What exactly were you expecting. I play tons and tons of PC games and after finishing Doom3, I have to say that it ranks very high in my book
Its the best looking game out there right now and the gameplay is fine (and i do own farcry which is not as good a game). Doom has always been about running around and shooting things...no more, no less. The game has scary moments and the darkness adds to that. Use the freaking flashlight and hot key it. It is very easy to switch out your last gun and the flashlight. People are so freaking picky about everything these days and cant seem to just enjoy something for what it is. I have had more fun playing Doom that a lot of games that have come out lately. People who call this a tech demo are morons or just using words they heard someone else say and thought it was catchy.
My PC is a 2.6 P4 with an Ati 9800 pro 128 and I have 1 gig or ram
Ran the game at high quality (even though they recommend 256mb of texture memory) at a res of 1280 by 1024 and the game ran pretty much smooth. The only time i had problems was when something onscreen was on fire, which would cause some slowdown.
My experience of modern games doesn't go back further than DukeNukem 3d for the mac, im not an avid gamer, the games I own could be counted on both hands.
I think your charge of calling me a moron for saying Doom3 is a tech demo is somewhat unjustified. I cant see any improvement in actual gameplay over my fav old game Duke Nukem. If you can, explain it to me.
Doom3's graphics, sound, atmosphere, physics, etc are all groundbreaking, but the level design, plot, gameplay, puzzles, and scripting or AI are all decidely average verging on monotonous. What is the point of the first 12 levels? They all look the same, all play the same.
It does get better around the time you reach DeltaLabs and to the rest of the game. But apart from the non-gameplay items, what is really that spectacular? IMO its DukeNukem with the most advanced game engine yet to date.
Doom 3 is a tech demo for people with Althon 64's 3500+ and Nvidia GF6800 Ultra's. At full setting the graphics might be the best in class, I have seen glimpses of genius, Expecting it to run on a 1.6GHZ iMac with Ultra 5200 graphics is a joke. Expect to be very disappointed. Even then, the gameplay might be pretty lame on such a system.
Waiting for half life 2, cant be any worse!
Half Life 1 was/is the best first person shooter/game I've seen played to date.
It is THAT good. Shame the port never made it to Mac.
Doom 3. Hmmm. A good mate of mine lent it to me because he's finished it and doesn't want to touch it until he has a rig (3 gig plus with an Nvidia 6800 card) that can run it as it was meant to be.
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.
Sorry, your G5 1.6 aint going to run with baby with its lame ass 5200mxfxwhateveroutofdatenesscrap.
You should be getting a card in the 1600 price range that should allow the iMac G5 to run at 1200x1000 with some effects on. A Radeon 9700-9800 for the high end iMac.
Stupid not to at least have that option.
1.8 G5 and a 5200? If you make 40 frames per second with the game running naked? You'll have some fun.
Doom 3. I like it. But I don't think it's any better than Castle Wolfenstein 2. In fact, I think that's the better game.
Half Life 2 is...IS going to blow it away in game play. Environments are better lit and more varied and sumptious. The narrative makes Doom 3 look linear and sparse. The variety and GameA.I of Half Life 2 looks set to blow Doom 3 and Id' off the map.
Doom 3 has A nasty that pops up now and again.
Half Life 2 will hit you with a swarm of beasts that will have your head ringing.
And I think Half Life 2 will offer more intelligent gameplay, better physics...more varied interaction with the backgrounds...more horror...more atmosphere.
All without the aid of a flashlight.
Let's face it, Id paid Valve the ultimate complement with the rip offs of scenary, air vents, sound effects, scenario, talking, interaction...yeesh.
Doom 3 is putting better graphics on Half Life 1 and trying to be...
Doom 3 doesn't quite capture the fun or zest of the original Doom.
Mac gamers won't be able to appreciate this until they have a dual 2.5 with 6800 ultra with 2 gigs of ram.
And probably Open GL 2.
Mac owners? Relax. The iMac aint gonna cut it. Your G4 is not going to cut it.
Wait until you get you 3 gig MP Antares processor with a 6800 or Spring refresh graphics card. Put in 2 gigs of ram with Tiger.
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.
In that sense? They're in the same boat as we are.
Both Mac and PC guys are going to have to wait until June 2005 before a mainstream or high end system can comfortably play the next gen in games like Doom 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2...ie with all bells and whistles on.
We have much in common in that sense. Sure, 1.6 G5 is equivalent to a 2-2.2 gig Pentium 4. A 1.8 G5 is probably equivalent to a 2.2-2.4 gig Pentium 4. So, Apple are okay with that as entry. But as a high end consumer cpu? Apple should be putting in 2 gig and 2.5 early 2005 aka soon as possible.
2.5 gig = 3 gig Pentium 4. But Apple offers you two...so you probably got a fair Doom 3 rig with a 6800.
Come 'Tiger' hopefully with Open GL 2 and 'Antares'...whether Doom 3 runs well will be a mute point. I doubt Doom 3's interest level will last half as long as the original's.
Half Life 2.
I can see it having far more impact.
Lemon Bon Bon
Don't get me wrong. I think Doom 3 is incredible.
But I think it's ahead of itself in terms of what the machines can do.
To really appreciate it?
It's gonna cost you.
Mac owners...don't hold your breath.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Ati 8500 (aka Radeon 9600).
Sorry, that's wrong. The Radeon 9600 and the 8500 are totally different cards. The 9600 is much faster, especially the later offerings like the 9600 XT.
The 8500 was repackaged into a 9xxx series. Could you tell me which one? I know it was rebadged.
Perhaps you could link me to a benchmark showing a performance difference between the two?
Academic, because neither are going to give you a compelling doom 3 experience.
But it would still be nice for an iMac G5 top of the range machine to have at least a 9600xt. Rather a 9800xt for best part of two grand.
I know Apple. These new machines won't be priced any lower than the old iMac 2 and they'll wonder why sales peter out after 2 quarters.
Lemon Bon Bon
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.