Jump to content


Doom 3 Universal Frame rates


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 Ben

Ben

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 10:50 AM

Check out the benchmarks near the bottom of this article...

http://www.macworld....imacs/index.php

Sorry if it's already been posted, but I didn't find anything with a quick search...

Ben

#2 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 11:34 AM

WOW, 36 fps with Ultrahigh graphics AND shadows. Impressive! Now I'm convinced. I'm buying one of these. :)

#3 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 11:47 AM

That's not possible. The iMac has a 128mb graphics card, and Doom 3 had to have been running under Rosetta. There is no way it would run at 36 fps on Ultraquality. This is bull****.

#4 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 12:07 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 02:47 AM, said:

That's not possible. The iMac has a 128mb graphics card, and Doom 3 had to have been running under Rosetta. There is no way it would run at 36 fps on Ultraquality. This is bull****.
It's hard to believe but wouldn't they know the difference between Doom PPC and Doom Universal Binary Beta v1.3.1303?

#5 Kanamit

Kanamit

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 12:09 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

That's not possible. The iMac has a 128mb graphics card, and Doom 3 had to have been running under Rosetta. There is no way it would run at 36 fps on Ultraquality. This is bull****.

Its not running under rosetta, its a beta universal binary. VRam isn't everything, the card is still fairly good.

#6 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 28 January 2006 - 12:15 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

That's not possible. The iMac has a 128mb graphics card.

Ahem. You can get the 20" with 256MB.
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#7 flargh

flargh

    Macworld Magazine

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

Posted 28 January 2006 - 12:16 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 12:47 PM, said:

Doom 3 had to have been running under Rosetta...This is bull****.

Which part of "Universal Beta" are you unclear on, Sparky?
Peter Cohen, pcohen@macworld.com
Senior Editor, Macworld.com News
Columnist, Macworld "Game Room"

#8 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 01:44 PM

ah. So that explains it. Okay this is the gaming machine i'm buying, from apple.com

iMac Core Duo 2.0Ghz, 2GB Ram, 500GB Hard drive, ATI Radeon X1600/256mb Vram

#9 FortranDragon

FortranDragon

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Location:Kansas City, MO

Posted 28 January 2006 - 02:28 PM

View PostHomy, on January 28th 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

WOW, 36 fps with Ultrahigh graphics AND shadows. Impressive! Now I'm convinced. I'm buying one of these. :)

From the footnotes: "We ran the Demo 1 test on a beta Universal version of Doom 3, which was set to use Ultrahigh graphics at a resolution of 1,024 by 768; all advanced options were set to Yes except for vertical sync and antialiasing."

Ah, no anti-aliasing.  That may be important to some folks.  (It is to me.)  Still, that is a decent speed for that game.

#10 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 04:23 PM

View PostKanamit, on January 28th 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

the card is still fairly good.

That's better put as "the card's better than an X600 XT" ;) 40 fps in a year and a half old game isn't so great. CoD2, Fear, Splinter Cell: CT, Quake 4, and lots of more demanding games have come out since then and would run a bit worse.

#11 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 04:31 PM

View Postbobbob, on January 28th 2006, 05:23 PM, said:

That's better put as "the card's better than an X600 XT" ;) 40 fps in a year and a half old game isn't so great. CoD2, Fear, Splinter Cell: CT, Quake 4, and lots of more demanding games have come out since then and would run a bit worse.

Are you implying that even an iMac with a X1600/256mb card wouldn't be able to play CoD2, Quake 4 etc, on high quality settings?

#12 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

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

Posted 28 January 2006 - 05:02 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 05:31 PM, said:

Are you implying that even an iMac with a X1600/256mb card wouldn't be able to play CoD2, Quake 4 etc, on high quality settings?

Yes, and it won't. Not at full resolution and settings.
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

#13 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 05:22 PM

View Postnobody, on January 28th 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

Yes, and it won't. Not at full resolution and settings.

I don't get it!!!!!! How can that be??? What the **** do these ****ing games require, a Power Mac with 8 dual core proccesors, 128GB of Ram, and a 16GB Video Card?

The 20" iMac is the Newest fastest Mac available right now. How could it not play the games extremely well?

#14 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 05:52 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

The 20" iMac is the Newest fastest Mac available right now. How could it not play the games extremely well?

A PowerMac with a 7800 gets better framerates, so I think you're missing something. Maybe the new Mac Pros with 7800s or X1900s will be even better, but until then...

Oh, and 40fps at high settings isn't great. My 2GHz Athlon and 6600GT gets better than that, and this thing is more than a year old and half the cost of the iMac. 60FPS is good, and settling for worse settings to get that is pointless if competing computers can do that for less cost.

#15 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:18 PM

View Postbobbob, on January 28th 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

A PowerMac with a 7800 gets better framerates, so I think you're missing something. Maybe the new Mac Pros with 7800s or X1900s will be even better, but until then...

Oh, and 40fps at high settings isn't great. My 2GHz Athlon and 6600GT gets better than that, and this thing is more than a year old and half the cost of the iMac. 60FPS is good, and settling for worse settings to get that is pointless if competing computers can do that for less cost.

What would you do if you were me. I am planning on buying Quake 4 and Cod 2 when they are released, and i'd like to play them both with EVERYTHING on MAXIMUM.

What would you have me do?

#16 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:38 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 08:22 AM, said:

The 20" iMac is the Newest fastest Mac available right now. How could it not play the games extremely well?
iMac Core Duo may be the newest Mac but it's not the fastest Mac (or pc) for gaming. There are better video cards than X1600 Mobility. iMac Core Duo should play most games well in the near future but just not extremely well as you expect. Let's hope that future games will take more advantage av dual-core processors.

Update: Quake 4 supports dual-core already. Hope it's the same for Mac. Link

#17 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:43 PM

View PostHomy, on January 28th 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

iMac Core Duo may be the newest Mac but it's not the fastest Mac (or pc) for gaming. There are better video cards than X1600 Mobility. iMac Core Duo should play most games well in the near future but just not extremely well as you expect. Let's hope that future games will take more advantage av dual core processors.

My thinking though is... why wait half a year for a Intel PowerMac, if the iMac Will play the games I want to play at fairly high settings. Let's say I don't need the absolute maximum. Would Quake 4 at LEAST play on the second to highest quality setting on a iMac Core Duo 2.0Ghz, 2GB Ram, ATI X1600/256vram?

If so, I don't see the point in waiting for a Intel Tower, and spending more money on a moniter etc... if the iMac will play the games at least "Very Good".

#18 macmanZ

macmanZ

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:09 PM

The answer is we have no idea how well the imac will play those games... because, those games have not been released as universal binaries, and this is only a beta.  If you want to play games (on max or nearly max)... an imac is not and has never been the machine for it.

#19 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:13 PM

Hard to answer when iMac not even been tested properly with native games. Quake 4 comes in March and CoD 2 in May according to Aspyr. They'll give the system req. 4-6 weeks before the games ship. So I guess we just have to wait. But then there will always be newer games around the corner that require more from your computer. If you always want to play the newest games with higher settings you should buy a computer you can upgrade (or a consol). As I wrote earlier Quake 4 for pc supports dual-core so maybe iMac will last a bit longer as gaming machine this time.

#20 Kanamit

Kanamit

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:15 PM

View Postbobbob, on January 28th 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

That's better put as "the card's better than an X600 XT" ;) 40 fps in a year and a half old game isn't so great. CoD2, Fear, Splinter Cell: CT, Quake 4, and lots of more demanding games have come out since then and would run a bit worse.

That's what I meant by fairly good. Personally, I would consider 40 fps on Doom 3 w/ ultrahigh settings great, but then again I'm stuck with a Geforce FX 5200.