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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 \
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.
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.
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
The game that I am most looking forward to is Close Combat: First to Fight, which amazingly is being developed simultaneously for the Mac and PC. This game is going to excellent. They then have Red Phoenix following up at the beginning of the year. It is the Close Combat RTS version.
Comments
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by mattyj
Doom 3 runs on a 3200 Athlon XP with Radeon 9800 pro just fine (1024x768 high quality everything on).
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
www.stalker-game.com
Big Honking Screenshot
[edit by Amorph: Changed inline to link to restore board formatting.]
Originally posted by MarcUK
[B]Has anyone gotten excited over this game, looks and sounds fantastic!
www.stalker-game.com
The game that I am most looking forward to is Close Combat: First to Fight, which amazingly is being developed simultaneously for the Mac and PC. This game is going to excellent. They then have Red Phoenix following up at the beginning of the year. It is the Close Combat RTS version.
Check it out:
First to Fight