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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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?
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.
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...
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.
t3h G5 is t3h ultramega
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.