Jump to content


Doom 3 Universal Frame rates


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#41 Stop, Drop, and Roll

Stop, Drop, and Roll

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 09:56 PM

View PostHomy, on January 28th 2006, 07:13 PM, said:

If you always want to play the newest games with higher settings you should buy a computer you can upgrade (or a consol).
Getting a console is the best move if you don't want to worry about having to upgrade your machine every 6 months. A console can serve you for at least 5 years and you never have to worry about it being too slow to handle a certain game. However, if you want to get the most out of a console, you need to have a good TV to play them on. In 6 to 9 months, all the best console games are going to run on 1080p (1920x1080 progressive scan) natively, so don't buy a TV without it!

#42 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 10:37 PM

View PostStop, Drop, and Roll, on January 30th 2006, 09:56 PM, said:

you never have to worry about it being too slow to handle a certain game

Uhh, yeah, because if it can't handle a certain game it will never handle it. I play better Perfect Dark under emulation than I ever did on the N64, with my 2 controllers I can even do co-op like it was meant to be played instead of a stuttery mess. If the programmers aren't hacks their games will scale better than consoles can provide for.

#43 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 10:42 PM

So if what you're saying is right, i'd need (in a mac) 4 GB of Ram, a 512MB Video card, and a quad 3.0Ghz proccessor, and then I *might* be able to play Quake 4 on the highest settings. Okay... I can understand that.

#44 Stop, Drop, and Roll

Stop, Drop, and Roll

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 11:13 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 30th 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

So if what you're saying is right, i'd need (in a mac) 4 GB of Ram, a 512MB Video card, and a quad 3.0Ghz proccessor, and then I *might* be able to play Quake 4 on the highest settings.
Now you're talking! But still, a console is better for gaming.

#45 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 31 January 2006 - 07:36 AM

View PostStop, Drop, and Roll, on January 30th 2006, 11:13 PM, said:

Now you're talking! But still, a console is better for gaming.

From an affordability standpoint  about 10X better. But somehow I find gaming on my computer Mac/PC to be better.

-Hunt'n

View Postbobbob, on January 30th 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

Uhh, yeah, because if it can't handle a certain game it will never handle it. I play better Perfect Dark under emulation than I ever did on the N64, with my 2 controllers I can even do co-op like it was meant to be played instead of a stuttery mess. If the programmers aren't hacks their games will scale better than consoles can provide for.

I think you are ignoring his point, that a consol should run every game made for it. Your saying that there are games out there for the PS2 and Xboxs that are stuttery messes? I don't know as I infrequently play on a consol.

-Hunt'n

#46 Batcat

Batcat

    Uberspewer

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

Posted 31 January 2006 - 08:47 AM

View PostStop, Drop, and Roll, on January 30th 2006, 09:56 PM, said:

...However, if you want to get the most out of a console, you need to have a good TV to play them on. In 6 to 9 months, all the best console games are going to run on 1080p (1920x1080 progressive scan) natively, so don't buy a TV without it!
It would seem you're a Sony fan, but even on the PS3, only some games, the less graphically demanding ones at that, will have 1080p support. Sony backtracked as many suspected they would, and Xbox 360 only targets 720p, albeit with 4X FSAA. The graphics are ballpark for power. 1280x720 res in your TV is good enough for console gaming.

Yes, some console games have problems meeting their target framerates.

#47 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 31 January 2006 - 09:04 AM

I'm not getting a console. That's out of the question. I play games on my mac, and that's it. And I don't play very many games. I only play the highest quality games. All I want is a mac that can play those games very well. I'm not gonna go out and buy a device specifically for gaming.

Is there any reason for apple not to put the X1800 in their Intel Pro Mac?

#48 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 31 January 2006 - 10:27 AM

none.. its there for them to be able to offer. The only reason why they might hold out on it is for the X1900, but that would be such an improvement over the X1800 I doubt youd complain...

I dont like consoles for FPSs.. the ONLY way to play is to be able to completely and utterly configure your controller. The best control settings on a console shooter I found was the standard for the Turok series on N64. And then thats because you have the digital yellow buttons for WASD simulation, and the stick for looking. I gave Halo 2 a go in multiplayer today and hated it... Only thing I was good at was running people over, and thats only cos ive had plenty of practice on my mac.. Id literally have to spend 15 minutes configuring the controller to get it even vaguely how I like it, and still wouldnt like it cos of the controll stick for movement... annoying.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#49 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:15 PM

View Postteflon, on January 31st 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

none.. its there for them to be able to offer. The only reason why they might hold out on it is for the X1900, but that would be such an improvement over the X1800 I doubt youd complain...

I dont like consoles for FPSs.. the ONLY way to play is to be able to completely and utterly configure your controller. The best control settings on a console shooter I found was the standard for the Turok series on N64. And then thats because you have the digital yellow buttons for WASD simulation, and the stick for looking. I gave Halo 2 a go in multiplayer today and hated it... Only thing I was good at was running people over, and thats only cos ive had plenty of practice on my mac.. Id literally have to spend 15 minutes configuring the controller to get it even vaguely how I like it, and still wouldnt like it cos of the controll stick for movement... annoying.

Good, i'm glad to hear that, about the X1800/X1900. If they went straight to the X1900 at the cost of waiting another 3 or 4 months, I definetaly would not complain.

#50 Endymion

Endymion

    Master Blaster

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

Posted 31 January 2006 - 03:26 PM

View Postbobbob, on January 30th 2006, 11:37 PM, said:

Uhh, yeah, because if it can't handle a certain game it will never handle it. I play better Perfect Dark under emulation than I ever did on the N64, with my 2 controllers I can even do co-op like it was meant to be played instead of a stuttery mess.

Mm yeah, you know an N64 can be overclocked?

#51 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

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

Posted 31 January 2006 - 10:22 PM

View Postmacgeek2005, on January 31st 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

Good, i'm glad to hear that, about the X1800/X1900. If they went straight to the X1900 at the cost of waiting another 3 or 4 months, I definetaly would not complain.

You really think Apple would go with a X1800 ?? X1900 is out of the question. My guess would be in between a X1600 and X1800. Whether its from ATI or nVidia. For ATI, my take would be X1600 XT. Maybe a nVidia 6800... Apple has NEVER put a high end card in its computers.

I have to admit, though, that I was impressed to see a Radeon X1600 in the iMac. It is the first time the iMac gets a decent graphics card, so there is hope. Maybe they decided everyone has the right to play Doom 3 ?  :P

#52 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 31 January 2006 - 11:49 PM

View PostiRolley, on January 31st 2006, 10:22 PM, said:

Apple has NEVER put a high end card in its computers.

That's all you got?

#53 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 01 February 2006 - 01:01 AM

View PostiRolley, on January 31st 2006, 11:22 PM, said:

You really think Apple would go with a X1800 ?? X1900 is out of the question. My guess would be in between a X1600 and X1800. Whether its from ATI or nVidia. For ATI, my take would be X1600 XT. Maybe a nVidia 6800... Apple has NEVER put a high end card in its computers.

The 6800 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.5 G5.  The X850 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.7 G5.  The 7800 was high-end when Apple put it in the quad-core G5.  I fully expect to see the X1900 in the Mac Pro.

--Eric

#54 Unshra

Unshra

    Fan

  • IMG Pro Users
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 February 2006 - 09:02 AM

View PostEric5h5, on February 1st 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

The 6800 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.5 G5.  The X850 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.7 G5.  The 7800 was high-end when Apple put it in the quad-core G5.  I fully expect to see the X1900 in the Mac Pro.

--Eric

Not to mention that the X1600 is high-end when you consider that the iMacs use notebook video cards, the X1600 is ATi's high-end notebook video card.

In all honesty Apple has for the most part released the high-end card available during the time of release. I have no doubt we will see the X1900 for the Mac tower however once it's released the new Nivida card will most likely be out and we more then likelynot see that card for the Mac tower.

Personally if apple sticks with ATi I would like to see crossfire make it's way to the Mac however I highly doubt that will happen as they will still want to leave room for Nvidia to make a card should they feel so inclined. As well I doubt they would work that closely with ATi to create a new chipset for the Mac that allowed for dual cards.

-Unshra

#55 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

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

Posted 01 February 2006 - 09:43 AM

View PostEric5h5, on February 1st 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

The 6800 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.5 G5.  The X850 was high-end when Apple put it in the dual 2.7 G5.  The 7800 was high-end when Apple put it in the quad-core G5.  I fully expect to see the X1900 in the Mac Pro.

--Eric

Dude, none of the PowerMacs ever came bundled with ANY of these cards !!!  :blink:

You have to pay 350$US for the 7800, and 1650$ for Quadro. Otherwise you get a low-mid 6600 !

The X850 is not an option, and I think it doesn't even exist on Mac. You can pay ATI 400$ for the X800 XT though.

When the iMac had a Radeon 9600, the Powermacs had a 9600 XT. When the iMac moved to a X600, the PMs got a 6600 (LE for the low end). High end card (6800, 9800, X800...) never came bundled with the PowerMac.

Sure you can pay for an upgrade, but that's like saying apple puts 4 Gig in the iMac because you can pay for the upgrade!

#56 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 01 February 2006 - 11:37 AM

View PostiRolley, on February 1st 2006, 10:43 AM, said:

Dude, none of the PowerMacs ever came bundled with ANY of these cards !!!  :blink:

They most certainly did, and do.  If you're talking about "coming bundled with those cards AS DEFAULT," of course not.  That wouldn't make any sense, because lots of people buy Power Macs for things that require speed but not necessarily the latest and most expensive graphics card, so why make everyone pay extra for something that only a subset of users are going to need.

However, that's not the question.  The question was: "Is there any reason for apple not to put the X1800 in their Intel Pro Mac?"  The answer is no.  Wait!  The answer is yes.  The reason for Apple not to use the X1800 is because they're going to use the X1900 instead.  Notice how Apple has been switching between nVidia and ATI, and since the 7800 is the high-end model in the current Power Mac, it's ATI's turn next.  The X1900 will still probably be the high-end ATI card when the Mac Pros are released.

Quote

The X850 is not an option, and I think it doesn't even exist on Mac. You can pay ATI 400$ for the X800 XT though.

You gonna tell the Battle Cat that his X850 doesn't exist?  ;)  Seriously, of course the X850 exists on the Mac.  It came with the previous generation of Power Macs if you ordered it that way from Apple.

At any rate, you can't very well say "Apple has NEVER put a high end card in its computers," when in fact the ONLY way to get those high-end cards (6800, X850, 7800) is from Apple, bundled with Power Macs.  They aren't separate retail products.

--Eric

#57 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 01 February 2006 - 12:52 PM

View PostUnshra, on February 1st 2006, 09:02 AM, said:

Not to mention that the X1600 is high-end when you consider that the iMacs use notebook video cards, the X1600 is ATi's high-end notebook video card.

The iMac's a desktop, though, so the argument's a wash.

#58 Unshra

Unshra

    Fan

  • IMG Pro Users
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 February 2006 - 12:58 PM

View Postbobbob, on February 1st 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

The iMac's a desktop, though, so the argument's a wash.

What argument? As for a desktop yes it's used as one but the hardware powering it is closer to that of a notebook then a desktop so they can keep the small form factor. So in terms of its hardware the point is still valid as the X1600 is ATi's top notebook video card.

-Unshra

#59 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 01 February 2006 - 01:24 PM

View PostUnshra, on February 1st 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

So in terms of its hardware the point is still valid as the X1600 is ATi's top notebook video card.

It's not a high-end card, it doesn't provide a high-end experience compared to high-end cards, and it's not all that great a notebook chip in comparison with a Go 7800 GTX which falls within 10%-15% of a high-end card.

#60 FortranDragon

FortranDragon

    Notorious

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

Posted 01 February 2006 - 02:51 PM

View PostiRolley, on February 1st 2006, 09:43 AM, said:

The X850 is not an option, and I think it doesn't even exist on Mac. You can pay ATI 400$ for the X800 XT though.

The Radeon X850 XT was a build, err, configure to order option when Apple decided to drop the Geforce 6800 Ultra.

While it wasn't the base option, Apple certainly has included high-end cards in the Macs.  High-end cards that they would support through Apple Care.  :)  That said, I'm happy to see Apple raising the bar on the base graphics card in the new iMac Core Duo.  Game developers have to love that.