Jump to content


Doom 3 on Dual 2Ghz/9800


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#21 Algol

Algol

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 01 March 2005 - 07:41 PM

GlendaAdams, on March 1st 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

Yes, Doom 3 does have Altivec specific optimizations on the Mac.

Glenda

View Post


Wow that's great! How much of a difference does it make though?

#22 AscheXL

AscheXL

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 01 March 2005 - 10:15 PM

When do you think doom 3 will be on the shelf in the mac store?

#23 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 02 March 2005 - 12:07 AM

It ships on March 14.  It should be there a couple days after that.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#24 TheYAK

TheYAK

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 04:45 AM

I see no mention of network play. Does it have it? To what extent ?

#25 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 02:10 PM

GlendaAdams, on March 1st 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

Yes, Doom 3 does have Altivec specific optimizations on the Mac.

Glenda

View Post


your so good with the quick in out answers.  :lol:

could you elaborate more on that?  Like, the other poster said.  How much does it help, if you were to lets say not have had it to use in the first place.  Not that I care really cause I have a G5 system.  But, being that its RARE to hear of games using Altivec, at all really.  Just want to know what it can do for you as a game developer.  

ALSO< CAN we get some benchmarks up in this piece?  Something like the following

PB 1.5GHz ATi 9700 128MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs itself)= X
G4 dual 1.42GHz ATi 9800 128MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X
G5 1.6GHz Nvidia 5200 64MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X
G5 1.8GHz (dual) Nvidia 5200 64MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X
G5 1.8GHz ATi 9800 128MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X
G5 2.0GHz ATi 9800 128MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X
G5 2.5GHz ATi 9800 128MB @ 1024x768 standard settings (game configs)=X

And the same for the Nvidia 6800 and ATi X800 cards for the G5 towers.  All systems with 1GB of ram.  I don't think any one would care about FSAA or AF settings.  If anything they can be off.  Just the standard 10x7 res and whatever the game sets itself too is fine.  I know I am asking for a lot here and I also just asked for the 9800 card as well but, I figured it is the cheaper of all the GOOD enough cards to run the game fairly.  As we don't have all the various versions of their respective cards.  

YES I am asking for a lot.  :) SORRY....

#26 benj

benj

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 02:31 PM

I have a dual G5 1.8, 768 MB RAM, and a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra w/ 64 mb MB VRAM.  Despite being a bit low on the VRAM front, I think Doom will play well on my computer. And if it dosen't I'll be saving up for a higher end card with at least 126 MB VRAM. But I'm still gonna buy Doom the minute it comes out.
Dual 1.8 G5 768 MB RAM Radeon 9800  OS:10.4
"holy crap is this really the blood of christ? that guy must've been wasted 24/7!" -Peter Griffin
"They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

#27 ehuelga

ehuelga

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Steam Name:El Spud
  • Location:Mill Valley, CA

Posted 02 March 2005 - 03:56 PM

dj phat 2000, on March 2nd 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

… CAN we get some benchmarks up in this piece?…YES I am asking for a lot.

View Post

I don't think Aspyr will be in the business of benchmarking it for you. Your best bet it to wait and check out the full review here, maybe check out what Bare Feats posts. Ars Technica may even throw us a bone and do some reporting on the release.
The commute from Mill Valley to Cupertino is a real bitch.

#28 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 04:33 PM

There will be benchmarks galore on various web sites over the coming weeks...

As far as Altivec, how much does it help- I  don't have a hard number, since we haven't built a non-altivec version in several months.  Its faster than without Altivec, but we're not getting double the speed or anything like that.  It helps a few percentage points, since its mostly for sound and physics.

Most of the application level optimizations for Doom3 are also like this- they gain a few percentage points here and there.  The engine is well engineered and optimized to start with, so it is feeding data to OpenGL about as fast as the drivers/cards can handle it.  The PowerPC architecture does have some inherent overhead issues (float to int conversion, data alignment problems) that can't be optimized away, so most of the app level things we did were spot fixes.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#29 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 04:35 PM

One other quick answer about network play - Doom3 Mac has the same net play as the PC, and plays between the PC & the Mac.
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#30 monkeyphonix

monkeyphonix

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Sydney what happened to my damn summer?

Posted 02 March 2005 - 08:08 PM

GlendaAdams, on March 2nd 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

One other quick answer about network play - Doom3 Mac has the same net play as the PC, and plays between the PC & the Mac.

View Post


Music to many of our ears! Thanks for the feedback Glenda and can't wait to sink some of my next paycheck in this...

#31 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 March 2005 - 10:26 PM

benj, on March 2nd 2005, 03:31 PM, said:

I have a dual G5 1.8, 768 MB RAM, and a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra w/ 64 mb MB VRAM.  Despite being a bit low on the VRAM front, I think Doom will play well on my computer. And if it dosen't I'll be saving up for a higher end card with at least 126 MB VRAM. But I'm still gonna buy Doom the minute it comes out.

View Post


The VRAM is not what will make the difference. The fact that the 5200 is a very underpowered card in terms of clock speed and features is what will. Higher RAM on the card will allow you to play with higher resolution textures, but if you want to enjoy all the eye-candy, I definitely recommend upgrading your card.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#32 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 10:40 PM

GlendaAdams, on March 2nd 2005, 03:33 PM, said:

There will be benchmarks galore on various web sites over the coming weeks...

As far as Altivec, how much does it help- I  don't have a hard number, since we haven't built a non-altivec version in several months.  Its faster than without Altivec, but we're not getting double the speed or anything like that.  It helps a few percentage points, since its mostly for sound and physics.

Most of the application level optimizations for Doom3 are also like this- they gain a few percentage points here and there.  The engine is well engineered and optimized to start with, so it is feeding data to OpenGL about as fast as the drivers/cards can handle it.  The PowerPC architecture does have some inherent overhead issues (float to int conversion, data alignment problems) that can't be optimized away, so most of the app level things we did were spot fixes.

Glenda

View Post


(Showers Glenda and her team with Roses and good blessings for there futures)

THANK YOU!!!!  :)

#33 Alexandre

Alexandre

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 02 March 2005 - 11:20 PM

GlendaAdams, on March 3rd 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

As far as Altivec, how much does it help- I  don't have a hard number, since we haven't built a non-altivec version in several months.  Its faster than without Altivec, but we're not getting double the speed or anything like that.  It helps a few percentage points, since its mostly for sound and physics.

View Post


With regards to AltiVec code, do you use Apple's Accelerate (vecLib) framework or are you writing your own custom AltiVec code?  Just curious.

Also, can I ask about 5.1 sound?  Will it be in the Mac version of Doom 3?  Aspyr's Doom 3 site has removed all mention of 5.1 surround sound (where previously Aspyr had 5.1 surround sound on Doom 3's feature list), which worries me.

A third question:  Does Doom 3 use OpenAL or does it talk to Core Audio directly?

#34 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 03 March 2005 - 12:49 AM

dj phat 2000, on March 2nd 2005, 01:10 PM, said:


ALSO< CAN we get some benchmarks up in this piece?

View Post

Heres A start
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#35 Algol

Algol

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 03 March 2005 - 02:42 AM

Those benchmarks don't look too promising. I don't want to be struggling along at under 30 fps and dropping into the low 20s in battles and not being able to hit popsnizzle.

#36 Arenzera

Arenzera

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 March 2005 - 04:24 AM

With Tiger, things should pick up a little bit. But, Doom 3 won't be too bad on the Macintosh.

Thanks to Aspyr for all the hard work done on optimising the living (or undead?) crap outta Doom 3.

Kiel :-)

#37 Robo-X

Robo-X

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 March 2005 - 07:54 AM

Algol, on March 3rd 2005, 09:42 AM, said:

Those benchmarks don't look too promising. I don't want to be struggling along at under 30 fps and dropping into the low 20s in battles and not being able to hit popsnizzle.

View Post


7 months late and bad performance even on the top of the line G5s. This is just sad. Another reason for Win users not to switch to the Mac. :angry:

//Rob

#38 ehuelga

ehuelga

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Steam Name:El Spud
  • Location:Mill Valley, CA

Posted 03 March 2005 - 08:25 AM

Robo-X, on March 3rd 2005, 08:54 AM, said:

Another reason for Win users not to switch to the Mac. :angry:

View Post

Frames-per-second may be your reason for existence (this is a game forum after all ;)), but I seriously doubt that game performance is the fulcrum leveraging anyone's decision to use a Mac or not. Games are the cherry on top, not the sundae itself.
The commute from Mill Valley to Cupertino is a real bitch.

#39 flargh

flargh

    Macworld Magazine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Location:Mashpee, MA

Posted 03 March 2005 - 08:50 AM

Algol, on March 3rd 2005, 03:42 AM, said:

Those benchmarks don't look too promising. I don't want to be struggling along at under 30 fps and dropping into the low 20s in battles and not being able to hit popsnizzle.

View Post


You know, I made the point right after the benchmark table that the demo isn't representative of most of what you find in the game. So please don't start tearing at your hair and clothes because the numbers aren't as high as you'd like them to be.

I ran an FPS counter while I was playing the game -- I did most of playtesting at 10 x 7 or 12 x 10, mainly without FSAA because I think it's a waste of cycles (especially on a Cinema Display, where at 10 x 7 you're looking at a scaled image that's sort of naturally anti-aliased anyway), and I rarely saw that counter drop out of the 40s.
Peter Cohen, pcohen@macworld.com
Senior Editor, Macworld.com News
Columnist, Macworld "Game Room"

#40 flargh

flargh

    Macworld Magazine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Location:Mashpee, MA

Posted 03 March 2005 - 08:54 AM

Arenzera, on March 3rd 2005, 05:24 AM, said:

With Tiger, things should pick up a little bit.

View Post


You should really caution your optimism about Tiger. As I understand it, we're looking at a zero sum situation for Doom 3, at least to start. In other words, it won't be better, but it won't be worse either.

I'm sure that Apple, ATI and Nvidia will be working to improve OpenGL and card driver performance in iterative Tiger releases, just as they have in Panther and Jaguar, but I don't think that there's anything that's going to be in Tiger right away that's going to dramatically boost Doom 3 or general game performance.
Peter Cohen, pcohen@macworld.com
Senior Editor, Macworld.com News
Columnist, Macworld "Game Room"