Doom3 performance

[dguy6789]

Do you guys really think Doom 3 will require a top o the line rig to run? Would they dare to make a game that only .5% of the people can play it? Would it look good on lower settings, what is the minimum card it would run on, and so on... Opinions Please.

 

[Lonyo]

When Unreal Tournament (original) came out, the system that played it well almost didn't exist. Doom 3 will run on lower spec machines, but to get its full potential, you'll have to wait a while. I remember UT at 1024x768, 16 bit with about 40fps average on a machine that cost about £2000 only a very few months before (P3 600, TNT2 Ultra, 384MB RAM)

 

[Glitchny]

this question comes up wayy too often, and Caramack has said multiple times that hsi target hardware is the radeon 8500 and geforce3ti series. Therefore no u wont need a brand new graphic card, and no the game wont be unplayable, im pretty sure that u could get away with playing it on a geforce2 ultra or similar card

 

[Brian48]

The (very) unoptimized alpha demo seems to play just fine with my GF3+2000XP at 800x600 with medium to high settings. Looks great too. I would imagine that if you had a GF3 or similiar class video, it should play fine for you. Carmack has historically been very good at squeezing as performance as possible out of his engines. True, his graphics engines have always raise the bar (and this one WILL do it again), but it's never been so high that everyone is left behind.

 

[kylebisme]

yep, id software acutaly has respect for the fact that people want a game that will run good on their computer. i wish more companies followed suit.

 

[gururu]

By the time it comes out, P4s will be obsolete, and onboard graphics will be as fast as the 9700pro.
So I doubt we have anything to worry about.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: Glitchny
this question comes up wayy too often, and Caramack has said multiple times that hsi target hardware is the radeon 8500 and geforce3ti series. Therefore no u wont need a brand new graphic card, and no the game wont be unplayable, im pretty sure that u could get away with playing it on a geforce2 ultra or similar card

riiight. Look at the minimum requirements for Unreal II: it only "needs" a 32Mb GeForce 2 MX.

However, people are showing horrible results, and to quote:

CheapTOFU:
"I have geforce3 and xp2000+
Unreal2 @1024x768 maxed setting
I only get 28-32 fps..

BoomAM:
"AMD AthlonXP 1800@Stock
Abit KT7A-RAID
SB Audigy w/ Creative 5300 5.1 speakers
768mb PC133 Memory
Sapphire Atlantis 9700PRO
WinXP Home w/SP1 + All Updates

Game Settings
1280x1024@32bit
Max Detail on every thing.
max of 3 visable shadows(i think)
EAX HD on(i`ve found a fix for my machine, search the forums for my info on it)

FPS = 40fps
Occasionally drops to 25fps when there lots going on."

BFG10K:
"I've managed to get it to run at 50 - 60 FPS with no action by running at 1152 x 864 with disabled shadows and FSAA. Everything else is on high except I turn off particle effects so the game doesn't slow down too much during firefights (usually 30-40 FPS)."

(all quotes from this thread)

So dun believe everything you hear is all I'm saying. Based on Unreal II performance, I speculate needing the highest end card for the game to be playable at a reasonable resolution.

~Aunix

 

[DarkKnight]

The performance they are reporting is fine. 28-40 fps is very playable. on my computer, specs noted below, the game is very playable.

 

[dguy6789]

so a radeon 9000 pro will do then? With new drivers, it outperforms my 8500, really cool, it used to be behind it, i have 2 comps i wanna play doom 3 on.

 

[Ferocious]

Nonsense.

To play this game with all the bells and whistles at a good framerate.....you will need a 9700 PRO or better.

If you want a high resolution and AA + AF.....you will have to wait.....because the card you will need isn't even out yet.

 

[FFactory0x]

I disagree on the UT system. That game was very cpu dependant. I bought it just when it came out for my new system
p3 600
voodoo 3 3000
128mb ram.

That game flew at 1024x768 max detail.

 

[sambao21]

unreal and unreal tournament (the originals) ran a lot faster with that voodoo 3000 when using glide drivers. I had a voodoo 3000 and a p3 450mhz and it ran it just as well as an athlon 1.2 with geforce 2mx. glide drivers kicked ass, but it was proprietary of course and no body like that one company had sole control of it.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

how many of you actually need to play at 1600x1200 w/max AA and AF and max in game settings? Jesus, if you're getting bad performance then just slack on the AA and AF...people are too damned picky if one little jaggy is on the damn screen...Will it really hurt you that bad?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Nonsense.

To play this game with all the bells and whistles at a good framerate.....you will need a 9700 PRO or better.

If you want a high resolution and AA + AF.....you will have to wait.....because the card you will need isn't even out yet.

wrong, I've runny the super buggy Alpha version @ 1024x768 a few months ago with my 1.47GHz Athlon XP and a 64MB Radeon 8500. The demo was playable before it would crash which seemed to be very soon after you walked around for any considerable distance. You have to keep in mind that Doom III is not being designed to be just a prettier verison of Quake or UT type games, Doom III (from what I experienced) felt alot more like a 1st person Resident Evil type of game. The game isn't designed with the intent to fill the screen with enemies and players using dozens of explosives to blow them away in a short period of time. No longer will you constantly be sprinting around at full speed, Doom III seems as if it will be all about suspense and environment, not mindless fragging.

There will be no point to playing a game with graphics so incredible if all you are doing is running around like a chicken with its head cut off while not laying off the trigger. Doom III's environment and pace will not only allow you to take in the incredible visuals, I bet it will almost force you to.

 

[Soulkeeper]

this game will look nice
can't wait

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: AunixM3

Originally posted by: Glitchny
this question comes up wayy too often, and Caramack has said multiple times that hsi target hardware is the radeon 8500 and geforce3ti series. Therefore no u wont need a brand new graphic card, and no the game wont be unplayable, im pretty sure that u could get away with playing it on a geforce2 ultra or similar card

riiight. Look at the minimum requirements for Unreal II: it only "needs" a 32Mb GeForce 2 MX.

However, people are showing horrible results, and to quote:

CheapTOFU:
"I have geforce3 and xp2000+
Unreal2 @1024x768 maxed setting
I only get 28-32 fps..

BoomAM:
"AMD AthlonXP 1800@Stock
Abit KT7A-RAID
SB Audigy w/ Creative 5300 5.1 speakers
768mb PC133 Memory
Sapphire Atlantis 9700PRO
WinXP Home w/SP1 + All Updates

Game Settings
1280x1024@32bit
Max Detail on every thing.
max of 3 visable shadows(i think)
EAX HD on(i`ve found a fix for my machine, search the forums for my info on it)

FPS = 40fps
Occasionally drops to 25fps when there lots going on."

BFG10K:
"I've managed to get it to run at 50 - 60 FPS with no action by running at 1152 x 864 with disabled shadows and FSAA. Everything else is on high except I turn off particle effects so the game doesn't slow down too much during firefights (usually 30-40 FPS)."

(all quotes from this thread)

So dun believe everything you hear is all I'm saying. Based on Unreal II performance, I speculate needing the highest end card for the game to be playable at a reasonable resolution.

~Aunix

and that is made by a compleatly different group of people. you might as well say lamborginis are not fast look at how slow my yugo is!

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I'm pretty sure id software isn't going to let such a large project over so many years only available to .5% of the people. When they put this much time and money into a game, they usually make sure more than 1/2 a percent of people can play it...

 

[SickBeast]

I'm pretty sure id software isn't going to let such a large project over so many years only available to .5% of the people. When they put this much time and money into a game, they usually make sure more than 1/2 a percent of people can play it.

Umm...do you not remember the release of Quake 1? It required a voodoo-1 card in order for hardware acceleration to work...at that time the voodoo01 was like a 9700 is today.

Also, remember quake 2 and 3...they both required the best systems available at the time in order to run with all features on at higher resolutions.

I personally think that Carmack likes to push the envelope with every 3d engine that he produces.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I'm pretty sure id software isn't going to let such a large project over so many years only available to .5% of the people. When they put this much time and money into a game, they usually make sure more than 1/2 a percent of people can play it.

Umm...do you not remember the release of Quake 1? It required a voodoo-1 card in order for hardware acceleration to work...at that time the voodoo01 was like a 9700 is today.

Also, remember quake 2 and 3...they both required the best systems available at the time in order to run with all features on at higher resolutions.

I personally think that Carmack likes to push the envelope with every 3d engine that he produces.

Ok. I see your point. My problem is that I'm 15 and I wasn't really into gaming except on systems for the most part at the time of the releases of those games...

 

[SickBeast]

well when you're old and grey like me you can reflect on P4's and athlons and the like

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I'm pretty sure id software isn't going to let such a large project over so many years only available to .5% of the people. When they put this much time and money into a game, they usually make sure more than 1/2 a percent of people can play it.

Umm...do you not remember the release of Quake 1? It required a voodoo-1 card in order for hardware acceleration to work...at that time the voodoo01 was like a 9700 is today.

Also, remember quake 2 and 3...they both required the best systems available at the time in order to run with all features on at higher resolutions.

I personally think that Carmack likes to push the envelope with every 3d engine that he produces.

quake1 did not run in hardware acceleration when it came out, it was only pathed to do it latter.

as for quake2 and quake3, i played them both on fairly dated systems when they were new and both ran just fine at default settings.

 

[SickBeast]

if you read my post, i said "with all settings enabled".

 

[brigden]

You can't compare the release of Quake to the release of Doom 3.

 

[Glitchny]

another thing which i have heard form reputable sources, actually an email caramack has written about the engine and testing it on certain cards... and i do recall him saying that the framnrate will be locked at around 30 so dont expect to get quake3 like framerates. it wouldnt fit the game

i cnat find a link right now but ill look

 

[chsh1ca]

From my understanding, Doom III is oriented around single player. Single player anything generally doesn't require the outstanding framerates that multiplayer does, simply because single player maps don't generally have a LOT of outdoor areas where video cards would lag. Getting 60FPS average is all you need to play most games single player. If you don't believe me, boot up QIII Arena single player against 1 bot on any map. Unless there's a lot of bots and/or a lot of weapons fire and a large open map, it doesn't really slow down.