Jump to content


Doom 3 on Dual 2Ghz/9800


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#161 Atticus

Atticus

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Location:Sternum's Ribcage

Posted 17 March 2005 - 11:41 AM

Those 16 x 12 folk are gonna go blind.

Anyone else have D3 in their dirty little mitts? CompUSA Web site indicates that my local store has D3 "in stock," but I trust CompUSA as much as Peter can throw 'em.

Atticus

flargh, on March 17th 2005, 11:43 AM, said:

The whole point of benchmarking the game as we have is to match as closely as possible the authoritative benchmarks that have been published on the PC side. What's more, while *you* may find 16 x 12 unnecessary, you can hardly speak for all gamers on the subject.

View Post


"I'm standing in the middle of life with my pants behind me."

#162 MacProject

MacProject

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1320 posts
  • Location:usa

Posted 17 March 2005 - 12:44 PM

Slightly off topic here...if one were to buy Doom3, install it on say a recent eMac, would the game actually boot up or will you be greeted with a "Your system does not meet recommended specs" warning followed by a black screen?  

I'm just curious.

#163 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17431 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 17 March 2005 - 02:57 PM

This was already answered in another thread I believe.  Which one it was escapes me for the moment.  The answer is no, you wouldn't get that message.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#164 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 12:00 PM

the Battle Cat, on March 17th 2005, 01:57 PM, said:

This was already answered in another thread I believe.  Which one it was escapes me for the moment.  The answer is no, you wouldn't get that message.

View Post


Correct, your computer would just melt!!

:P

#165 BadVermin

BadVermin

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 01:40 PM

I got my copy yesterday. Played it all last night, very fun. Running it on a Dual 2GHZ, 2.5GB, X800 at 1600 x 1200, high textures, no ANI, 4x AA, no shadows. Turning off shadows really gives you a huge speed boost. Everything still has the amazing lighting effects, they just dont cast a shadows on the ground, big woop, I've toggled it back and forth between levels and didn't notice much visual difference.

Also I HIGHLY recommend getting the "Duct Tape" or similar mod. To me it makes the game much more fun, it's still scary, plus you can see the monsters comming at you, blood splattering right where you shoot them, very graffic and creepy.

Fun, but repetitive.

#166 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 20 March 2005 - 01:48 PM

BadVermin, on March 19th 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

Also I HIGHLY recommend getting the "Duct Tape" or similar mod. To me it makes the game much more fun, it's still scary, plus you can see the monsters comming at you, blood splattering right where you shoot them, very graffic and creepy.

Give VariLight a try. I'm sure you'll like this (i downloaded it from FileFront)
cheers.
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#167 Algol

Algol

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 02:35 PM

BadVermin, on March 19th 2005, 01:40 PM, said:

I got my copy yesterday. Played it all last night, very fun. Running it on a Dual 2GHZ, 2.5GB, X800 at 1600 x 1200, high textures, no ANI, 4x AA, no shadows. Turning off shadows really gives you a huge speed boost. Everything still has the amazing lighting effects, they just dont cast a shadows on the ground, big woop, I've toggled it back and forth between levels and didn't notice much visual difference.

Also I HIGHLY recommend getting the "Duct Tape" or similar mod. To me it makes the game much more fun, it's still scary, plus you can see the monsters comming at you, blood splattering right where you shoot them, very graffic and creepy.

Fun, but repetitive.

View Post


How's performance? Does it run at over 30fps consistently? Can you notice any lag? I want to get this game and WOW haha... may have to get WOW first and give my soul to blizzard. Oh wait I already gave it away to apple. Oh well... It was worth it. :)

#168 loneAzdgari

loneAzdgari

    Legendary

  • IMG Writers
  • 1278 posts
  • Location:That layer of crap on the floor after a house party

Posted 20 March 2005 - 03:27 PM

OK, here's my experience on a 1.25GHz Powerbook Radeon 9600 and 512MB RAM. When I've expanded the pak001.pk4 file (just the textures) I get 22fps on the second run of the timedemo.

During gameplay there are some sections where I get solid 60fps, but generally in action against enemies I get abysmal framerates. Smoke effects and doors opening makes the framerate drop by upto 10-15fps.

For fun I loaded this up on my 800MHz eMac 384MB Radeon 7500. It was interesting to say the least... 8fps on timedemo... Also none of the textures rendered correctly, it they seem to flick in and out of the game.

#169 Endymion

Endymion

    Master Blaster

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1693 posts
  • Steam Name:Aleksael
  • Steam ID:Aleksael
  • Location:Miami, FL
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 20 March 2005 - 04:41 PM

id programmer Robert Duffy has stated that unpacking the pk4 files will reduce performance in almost all cases, here and here, he also mentions that it should only affect loading (not fps) and usually very negatively at that. So leave those pk4 files packed.

#170 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 04:43 PM

I wonder how much better it would do with a decent video card.  :)

If they could lower the settings enough to make this game work on an XBOX, I am sure something could be done to get it workable on an eMac.  :D

#171 BadVermin

BadVermin

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 07:20 PM

Algol, on March 20th 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

How's performance? Does it run at over 30fps consistently? Can you notice any lag? I want to get this game and WOW haha... may have to get WOW first and give my soul to blizzard. Oh wait I already gave it away to apple. Oh well... It was worth it. :)

View Post


Not sure what my fps is, never ran the tests, but it's playable. I get slowdown when entering new rooms, I think it's loading or something, but during firefights its pretty steady. The X800 video card ROCKS, I hav e the exact same specs at work, but with a ATI 9600- I had to run it at 1280x1024 to get a steady frame rate. But the game is pretty scaleable.

#172 MacProject

MacProject

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1320 posts
  • Location:usa

Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:31 AM

loneAzdgari, on March 20th 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

For fun I loaded this up on my 800MHz eMac 384MB Radeon 7500. It was interesting to say the least... 8fps on timedemo... Also none of the textures rendered correctly, it they seem to flick in and out of the game.

View Post


Hmm....most intriguing.
This does give me hope...perhaps I'll be able to grind out 12-15fps on my new eMac.  Of course, there's the issue of the texture glitching, but still.

#173 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:36 AM

Endymion, on March 20th 2005, 03:41 PM, said:

id programmer Robert Duffy has stated that unpacking the pk4 files will reduce performance in almost all cases, here and here, he also mentions that it should only affect loading (not fps) and usually very negatively at that. So leave those pk4 files packed.

View Post


thanks for posting this! I was thinking maybe i was doing something wrong, cos when i have the files unpacked i notice zero framerate increase. But loading times are much better..
thanks! :)
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#174 Endymion

Endymion

    Master Blaster

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1693 posts
  • Steam Name:Aleksael
  • Steam ID:Aleksael
  • Location:Miami, FL
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:42 AM

striderdm1, on March 21st 2005, 11:36 AM, said:

thanks for posting this! I was thinking maybe i was doing something wrong, cos when i have the files unpacked i notice zero framerate increase. But loading times are much better..
thanks! :)

View Post


raduffy, on from shacknews, said:

The pk4 files are only referenced during level load time. Everything is precached into memory during that time and not continually throughout the level.

Generally speaking accessing the files via the .zip system is a lot faster as you may see level load times double or triple with everything unpacked.

Now if there are some hard numbers that show there is an actual FPS performance difference then I'll sure have a look to see why but it should have zero effect on FPS and a negative effect on load times.

robert...

You should be seeing slower loading with unpacked files, not the other way around...

#175 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 21 March 2005 - 01:56 PM

Sorry guys, but my initial impression of a 33% gain on the PowerBook G4/1.5 when I uncompressed the .pk4 files turned out to be false. I reported earlier a jump from 18fps to 24fps after unpacking.

When no other Mac I tested recorded a significant increase in frame rates, I began to wonder about my PowerBook results.

So I reran the tests on the PowerBook.
When I restored the compressed versions of the files in the BASE folder, I still got 24fps. Huh?
I tried changing Energy Saver to "Longest Battery Life." Same result.
All I can figure is that I must have had Shadows turned ON when I thought they were OFF.
That's the only way I can get the PowerBook back to 18fps at 800x600 Medium.

Having said that, the really good news is that I get a solid 30fps by using the ATI Displays overrides to select Anisotropic Filtering OFF. I don't know why that one override makes a difference but it works for me -- and gives a boost to even a G5/2.5 Power Mac.
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#176 mrnintendoguy

mrnintendoguy

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:The smallest house on the block

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:25 PM

loneAzdgari, on March 20th 2005, 02:27 PM, said:

OK, here's my experience on a 1.25GHz Powerbook Radeon 9600 and 512MB RAM. When I've expanded the pak001.pk4 file (just the textures) I get 22fps on the second run of the timedemo.

During gameplay there are some sections where I get solid 60fps, but generally in action against enemies I get abysmal framerates. Smoke effects and doors opening makes the framerate drop by upto 10-15fps.

For fun I loaded this up on my 800MHz eMac 384MB Radeon 7500. It was interesting to say the least... 8fps on timedemo... Also none of the textures rendered correctly, it they seem to flick in and out of the game.

View Post

Doom 3 needs 512mb ram, so, maybe it would run faster with more ram. I hope it does, that emac is just like my computer :D

#177 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:53 PM

Endymion, on March 21st 2005, 09:42 AM, said:

You should be seeing slower loading with unpacked files, not the other way around...

View Post


deffinetly not. It's much faster when it's the folders rather the the pk4 files!
Dunno why.. just is :?
(Fwiw the 'caching' also seems better when reloading maps or starting from a save game)
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#178 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:55 PM

mrnintendoguy, on March 22nd 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

Doom 3 needs 512mb ram, so, maybe it would run faster with more ram. I hope it does, that emac is just like my computer :D

View Post


Well, i've got 3.5gig now inside my dual G5. Sure i've got one on the ATI boys ;p by having an nvidia 6800 card, but generally speaking my results are no different to other same'ish G5's with the same gfx card and less ram. Sorry  :mellow:
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)

#179 Endymion

Endymion

    Master Blaster

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1693 posts
  • Steam Name:Aleksael
  • Steam ID:Aleksael
  • Location:Miami, FL
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:08 PM

striderdm1, on March 22nd 2005, 04:53 PM, said:

deffinetly not. It's much faster when it's the folders rather the the pk4 files!

View Post


You can always take it up with the man himself if you like. When a programmer involved in the programming says "load times double or triple with everything unpacked" though, I'd believe him.

#180 striderdm1

striderdm1

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:19 PM

Endymion, on March 22nd 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

You can always take it up with the man himself if you like. When a programmer involved in the programming says "load times double or triple with everything unpacked" though, I'd believe him.

View Post


fair enough, so would i!  But i'm using the pk4 files again now.. and it appears slower to load a map. Maybe he meant during gameplay? I dunno.. i'm back to the pk4's now anyhow as they're compatible with mods that i've downloaded whereas the folders way wasn't.
AppleCrypt Mods  (as dead as a Dodo!)