Jump to content


Doom 3 Universal Frame rates


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#21 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:17 PM

Okay. I've made my decision. I'm getting the iMac. It's not practical to wait for a Intel Pro Mac or whatever. It's like looking a gift horse in the mouth. They just doubled the speed of the iMac, and i'm looking for better.

The 20" iMac will run the games fine, i'm sure. Even if not on the highest settings.

#22 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:44 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

It's like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
So you'll get a iMac Core Duo 20" as a gift? Lucky you  :P
Maybe you can wait until those games are out. Meanwhile you could look for more test results before you make your final decision. Barefeats is going to do a full test of iMac 20" soon.

#23 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:08 PM

View PostHomy, on January 28th 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

So you'll get a iMac Core Duo 20" as a gift? Lucky you  :P
Maybe you can wait until those games are out. Meanwhile you could look for more test results before you make your final decision. Barefeats is going to do a full test of iMac 20" soon.

That looks like a full test to me. What do you mean by a "full test"? and is he gonna do it will 2 gigs of ram, and a 256 video card?

#24 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:11 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 06:22 PM, said:

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

It's already been explained that adding more VRAM rarely does much of anything.  The X1600 is low-mid range.  Period.  Adding 500 terabytes of VRAM won't make it go faster.  In order for Doom3 to perform well with all settings maxed, it needs a high-end card.  Like an X800/6800 or upwards.  Not a low-mid range card.  Don't refer to video cards by VRAM size...for example, both the PC/Mac edition of the 9600 and the X850 are "256 cards", but the X850 is about 4-5 times faster.

--Eric

#25 Homy

Homy

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:14 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 11:08 AM, said:

That looks like a full test to me. What do you mean by a "full test"? and is he gonna do it will 2 gigs of ram, and a 256 video card?
"We plan to have full test results in a few days but here's two tests to tantalize you. "

He's going to test more apps and specially games like this and this.

#26 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:17 PM

View PostEric5h5, on January 28th 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

It's already been explained that adding more VRAM rarely does much of anything.  The X1600 is low-mid range.  Period.  Adding 500 terabytes of VRAM won't make it go faster.  In order for Doom3 to perform well with all settings maxed, it needs a high-end card.  Like an X800/6800 or upwards.  Not a low-mid range card.  Don't refer to video cards by VRAM size...for example, both the PC/Mac edition of the 9600 and the X850 are "256 cards", but the X850 is about 4-5 times faster.

--Eric

Okay, then which mac has the fastest video card right now?

#27 Endymion

Endymion

    Master Blaster

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

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:30 PM

That would be a dual core G5 tower with PCI Express nvidia 7800, or a Quadro card although its extra features do little to nothing for game use.

#28 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 28 January 2006 - 08:36 PM

I'll wait for those full tests to come out in a few days, but i'm already pretty set on what i'm getting. If i'm satisfied with Doom 3 on my Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 Tower, ATI Radeon 9000/64mb vram, then a maxed out 20" iMac will do me just fine. And while Quake 4 might not play on the highest quality settings, there is no doubt that on the setting it can play on, it will play very nicely.

#29 rbarris

rbarris

    Valve Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Irvine CA

Posted 28 January 2006 - 10:49 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 02:36 AM, said:

I'll wait for those full tests to come out in a few days, but i'm already pretty set on what i'm getting. If i'm satisfied with Doom 3 on my Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 Tower, ATI Radeon 9000/64mb vram, then a maxed out 20" iMac will do me just fine. And while Quake 4 might not play on the highest quality settings, there is no doubt that on the setting it can play on, it will play very nicely.

We have a maxed out 20" iMac in the lab.. 2GB RAM, 256MB VRAM

it's fast enough to run WoW at 20-30 FPS in the crowded part of Ironforge..(*)

so we like it.

Rob

(*)while also replaying a Warcraft III competition game in the background.  In Rosetta.

#30 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 29 January 2006 - 06:28 AM

View Postrbarris, on January 29th 2006, 05:49 AM, said:

We have a maxed out 20" iMac in the lab.. 2GB RAM, 256MB VRAM

it's fast enough to run WoW at 20-30 FPS in the crowded part of Ironforge..(*)

so we like it.

Rob

(*)while also replaying a Warcraft III competition game in the background.  In Rosetta.


Oooooook, so how much longer till I can lay my grubby hands on it?... :)
I can't wait much longer...Must...play...WoW...  :lol:

Greetz, E.

#31 Batcat

Batcat

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • Location:In Flux

Posted 29 January 2006 - 07:13 AM

View PostEric5h5, on January 28th 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

It's already been explained that adding more VRAM rarely does much of anything.  The X1600 is low-mid range.  Period.  Adding 500 terabytes of VRAM won't make it go faster.  In order for Doom3 to perform well with all settings maxed, it needs a high-end card.  Like an X800/6800 or upwards.  Not a low-mid range card.  Don't refer to video cards by VRAM size...for example, both the PC/Mac edition of the 9600 and the X850 are "256 cards", but the X850 is about 4-5 times faster.

--Eric
True to a point, but the reason D3 Ultra quality (and Quake 4, and...) is spec'ed for a 512MB videocard is that it averages around 500MBs of texture info per level at that quality. You need a 512M card to preload that much data and avoid thrashing, altho 256s anecdotally perform pretty well. They do hitch here and there, tho.

#32 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 29 January 2006 - 11:27 AM

View PostBatcat, on January 29th 2006, 08:13 AM, said:

True to a point, but the reason D3 Ultra quality (and Quake 4, and...) is spec'ed for a 512MB videocard is that it averages around 500MBs of texture info per level at that quality. You need a 512M card to preload that much data and avoid thrashing, altho 256s anecdotally perform pretty well. They do hitch here and there, tho.

Doom3 hitches here and there even on settings below Ultra, usually when opening doors or otherwise going into new areas, so really there is no performance difference at all.  On the other hand, there's barely any visual difference at all either....

--Eric

#33 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 29 January 2006 - 12:17 PM

Would the gaming experience be THAT much greater on a Intel PowerMac? Remember if I get that, I have to buy a seperate moniter too, another $800. If the gaming quality is a clear step above the maxed out 20" iMac, then i'll wait for it, but otherwise.. I don't see the point.

#34 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17376 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 29 January 2006 - 03:12 PM

View PostBatcat, on January 29th 2006, 05:13 AM, said:

True to a point, but the reason D3 Ultra quality (and Quake 4, and...) is spec'ed for a 512MB videocard is that it averages around 500MBs of texture info per level at that quality. You need a 512M card to preload that much data and avoid thrashing, altho 256s anecdotally perform pretty well. They do hitch here and there, tho.
The last time I played Doom 3 I had it on Ultra quality with this 256M X850 XT card.  The game told me that it didn't recommend me doing that but I anecdotally report it performing very well along with the others you mentioned.  I didn't notice any "hitches".  Maybe I just don't know what to look for and possibly after playing on a far lesser card for so long, even hitches seemed smooth by comparison.  I expected to encounter freezes in the action when new textures loaded up but nothing occurred that interfered with the game.  I'm not arguing that they don't "hitch", I'm just saying that I had a good gaming experience without annoying freezes and I wanted to add to the voices that said they performed pretty well.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#35 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 29 January 2006 - 03:16 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 29th 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

Would the gaming experience be THAT much greater on a Intel PowerMac? Remember if I get that, I have to buy a seperate moniter too, another $800.

$800 for a monitor?  Why?  I'd rather spend $300 or so for a good 19" CRT.  Sure they're big and heavy, but gaming support for widescreen is still spotty at best, plus you can set the resolution to whatever you want and not have the image quality go kerflooie, and for the graphics work I do, I still haven't seen color quality on a LCD that can compete.

Even if you don't want a CRT, IMO it's still better to have a separate display, so you can get whatever you want, and if it ever needs repair or something, you can use a spare monitor instead of having no computer at all.

Quote

If the gaming quality is a clear step above the maxed out 20" iMac, then i'll wait for it, but otherwise.. I don't see the point.

A maxed out G5 Power Mac is a very clear step above a maxed out G5 iMac, so I'd expect the same would be true of the Intel versions.  Namely, an nVidia 7800 is many times faster than the X600 in a G5 iMac, and likewise the X1900 you could put in an Intel Power Mac would be many times faster than the X1600 you're stuck with permanently in an Intel iMac.  (Assuming a Mac X1900 will be available of course.  In any case, the point is that you'll be able to get much faster cards than the iMac comes with.)

--Eric

#36 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 29 January 2006 - 04:27 PM

Yes, a PowerMac (or MacPro ??) will always be a much better solution than a non-upgradable iMac. But when you look at the price of these things, I think an iMac has a better value/price ratio than a PowerMac. By upgrading your tower you also end up paying so much more than a gaming console that it kind of feels stupid. What's more, upgrades have a limit. You may extend the computer's life by a year or two, but after that the motherboard becomes the bottleneck.

Fine, the iMac won't play games at their highest settings, but it offers so much more ! You can easily move it around the house to watch a movie wherever and whenever (oops Shakira copyright...  ;) ), it has a built-in iSight, its speakers are already good enough (really I was amazed by their quality), its screen is great...

Although I am pretty hard-core on upgrades (my Sawtooth AGP PowerMac G4/400Mhz, now has 2 hard drives, a DVD burner, a Radeon 9800, 832 Mg CAS2 RAM, a 1.4 Ghz G4...), the iMac will ALWAYS be a great computer. Even in 3 years, it will still be an awesome multimedia machine that could sit in the living room for music, photos, movies...

And since it plays Doom 3 fine enough, the iMac will play Doom 3's generation games fine enough. I find Macs too expensive to play the performance game. I drool over great graphics, but in the end, i'd take gameplay over graphics any time.

#37 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 29 January 2006 - 04:30 PM

View PostiRolley, on January 29th 2006, 05:27 PM, said:

Yes, a PowerMac (or MacPro ??) will always be a much better solution than a non-upgradable iMac. But when you look at the price of these things, I think an iMac has a better value/price ratio than a PowerMac. By upgrading your tower you also end up paying so much more than a gaming console that it kind of feels stupid. What's more, upgrades have a limit. You may extend the computer's life by a year or two, but after that the motherboard becomes the bottleneck.

Fine, the iMac won't play games at their highest settings, but it offers so much more ! You can easily move it around the house to watch a movie wherever and whenever (oops Shakira copyright...  ;) ), it has a built-in iSight, its speakers are already good enough (really I was amazed by their quality), its screen is great...

Although I am pretty hard-core on upgrades (my Sawtooth AGP PowerMac G4/400Mhz, now has 2 hard drives, a DVD burner, a Radeon 9800, 832 Mg CAS2 RAM, a 1.4 Ghz G4...), the iMac will ALWAYS be a great computer. Even in 3 years, it will still be an awesome multimedia machine that could sit in the living room for music, photos, movies...

And since it plays Doom 3 fine enough, the iMac will play Doom 3's generation games fine enough. I find Macs too expensive to play the performance game. I drool over great graphics, but in the end, i'd take gameplay over graphics any time.

Well said. I'll take the iMac.

#38 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 30 January 2006 - 07:34 AM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

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?

I think the goal of having everything on maximum is not realistic nor is it required to have a great gaming experience. And as noted even the tests performed in the link had antialiasing and vertical sync turned off so they were not on maximum settings. On the PC side it's not unusual to have frame rates above 80. Although some gamers swear that in all cases higher frames are good, I think above 30 fps is playable for a shooter and 70 or above is even better. Frame rates never stay locked on a single number, they vary acccording to the action. The problem with 30 fps is that during moments of high action, the frames tend to drop into laggy territory which is not good if you need to react quickly as first person shooters require. My G5 tower played Doom 3 "ok", with frames around 30 but even then, I got these really annoying pauses when doors opened. I'd like to mention that playing WoW at 60 fps is pretty darn good, which was reported running on a new intel iMac. So it sounds like these new iMac have double the performance over the PPC iMacs.

But if the requirement is max settings the choices seem to become- Macintel tower (maybe), consol (which has no settings) or PC. We'll just have to wait and see on the new Macs.

-Hunt'n

#39 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 11:58 AM

I might be selling my collection of magic cards for $800, and that will allow me to get the 20" Apple Display. If the collection sells, i'll probably be waiting for a Intel Tower, hopefully with Radeon X1800!!!!

edit: Barefeats has the full test results for the 20" iMac up, and I don't like them. Doom 3 set on Medium Quality without shadows get's 53 pfs.

I'm waiting for the Mac Tower Pro, or whatever it'll be called.

#40 The Mail Man

The Mail Man

    Purdy Mouf

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Miami / Homestead

Posted 30 January 2006 - 09:20 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 28th 2006, 07:18 PM, said:

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?
Well man I would wait for the second or third generation of these new Macs. A rule of thumb thats always helped me in Mac gaming is 1. Wait for the final system requirements and then 2. Triple them for your Mac and you MIGHT run everything as good as a PC. I know Jobs dont want you to know this but Macs are not gaming machines. Their work horses that cant be beat but in no way a gaming machine.  :)
The Mail Man Cometh!

Always remember the following:

1. Lock em, Cock em, and Rock em!

2. Everyone hates a Redneck until their car breaks down.

3. REDNECKS: AMERICAS PITBULLS!