Doom3 performance

[touchmyichi]

Doom III is in very small environments so making more detailed graphics is easier. Luckily for the game, the small rooms work perfect for the scenario.

 

[d00m]

Exactly. 60 FPS will be plenty enough for Doom III.

 

[poMONKey]

im getting 60 fps and its friggin beautiful!!!! and playable

BTW: whats the code on the keypad in map 2??? i thought it was 911 ( for Caramack's Porsche, not the date :Q ), but it aint...

 

[BoomAM]

The Doom3 Alpha runs quite good on my system.
I run it at the default settings, 800x600 i think, and i get around 50-60 fps, every now and then, it drops to about 20fps.
So with a bit of Carmacks optimisation, it`ll run fine on most systems out.

 

[dguy6789]

I would like to try it out, can someone point me to the Doom 3 alpha?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
if you read my post, i said "with all settings enabled".

sure enough, but i felt like the statement would be miconstured by people thinking that the game was not going to be enjoyable on anything but a top end machine. i am certian that is far from the case.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I would like to try it out, can someone point me to the Doom 3 alpha?

I would but ive already been cautioned about it. You have to find some other way to contact me....

 

[dguy6789]

email me at

dguy6789@earthlink.net

 

[BFG10K]

Do you guys really think Doom 3 will require a top o the line rig to run?

Absolutely. Sure the engine will be fast and scalable like all of ID's engines but at the end of the day you're going to need an R400/NV40 to truly experience the game how it was meant to be experienced.

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,

The target hardware is derived in terms of hardware features support, not in terms of performance. When it comes to mimimum specs a good rule of thumb is to triple them to see what you actually need.

im pretty sure that u could get away with playing it on a geforce2 ultra or similar card

No way.

28-40 fps is very playable.

Scores like that are totally unacceptable. I can't enjoy any game with scores like that and this is one of the main reasons why I didn't enjoy Unreal 2 as much as I could have.

unreal and unreal tournament (the originals) ran a lot faster with that voodoo 3000 when using glide drivers.

Not since the advent of the new OpenGL renderers which run far faster with higher image quality than the Glide renderers do.

 

[NYHoustonman]

BoomAM, can you contact me as well, about it? tedaf@msn.com, AIM SN=NYHoustonman

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Do you guys really think Doom 3 will require a top o the line rig to run?

Absolutely. Sure the engine will be fast and scalable like all of ID's engines but at the end of the day you're going to need an R400/NV40 to truly experience the game how it was meant to be experienced.

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,

The target hardware is derived in terms of hardware features support, not in terms of performance. When it comes to mimimum specs a good rule of thumb is to triple them to see what you actually need.

im pretty sure that u could get away with playing it on a geforce2 ultra or similar card

No way.

28-40 fps is very playable.

Scores like that are totally unacceptable. I can't enjoy any game with scores like that and this is one of the main reasons why I didn't enjoy Unreal 2 as much as I could have.

unreal and unreal tournament (the originals) ran a lot faster with that voodoo 3000 when using glide drivers.

Not since the advent of the new OpenGL renderers which run far faster with higher image quality than the Glide renderers do.

It seems to me that your standards are apparently astronomical. I'd love to kick your ass in a multiplayer game while running with an "inferior" sub 60 fps. I'd sure take the eleventy billion FPS over 30, but the point is that it is playable and does not give a gut wrenching sickness to most sane gamers out there. Please consider that not everyone is as die hard as you are and that they need not be pleased by such high standards from their mere video games.

Doom 3 will be playable on a GeForce 3/Radeon 8500. Expecting 1600x1200 will be absurd if you want anything better than 2fps, but you will be alble to play the game without ruining the experience.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd love to kick your ass in a multiplayer game while running with an "inferior" sub 60 fps.

Good luck with that. Also you do know that certain moves are impossible at a low framerate, don't you?

but the point is that it is playable and does not give a gut wrenching sickness to most sane gamers out there.

30 FPS is neither playable nor enjoyable.

Doom 3 will be playable on a GeForce 3/Radeon 8500.

Considering there are games that struggle on those cards today I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[dfloyd]

Actually Quake's first hardware acceleration was not OpenGL at all. It was Vquake (Verite Quake). Id first chose to support Rendtion. My Screaming 3d was fun in Vquake getting 30fps at 512 x 384.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I'd love to kick your ass in a multiplayer game while running with an "inferior" sub 60 fps.

Good luck with that. Also you do know that certain moves are impossible at a low framerate, don't you?

I fair pretty well in the world of multiplayer gaming. Not sure which game(s) you are considering, but certain "moves" don't make up all games. Some of the best players I know run on crappy systems, that's because they've been forced to adapt to survive, use their brains to figure out how to survive against spoiled players who more often than not end up getting far too lazy for their own good because their success is often ridden upon their elite systems.

but the point is that it is playable and does not give a gut wrenching sickness to most sane gamers out there.

30 FPS is neither playable nor enjoyable.

opinion, I've seen ppl play on it and be successful, I'm one who's done it. Although I'm going to have to agree that higher FPS is more enjoyable although doesn't merit immediate conclusion that the game will not be enjoyable at all.

Doom 3 will be playable on a GeForce 3/Radeon 8500.

Considering there are games that struggle on those cards today I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion.

You mean struggle as in they aren't able to run games at 1600 x 1200 with 4x FSAA and 8x AF? I find it hilarious that I'm baffled by all the players out there that slug away on a GeForce 2/4 MX and still are able to log in a good deal of success on a game where I average around 60 FPS and below on my 8500 with 1024x768 with full details. Taking away the eyecandy and as a last resort lowering the resolution even further may not be the most desirable thing to do, but the people that do it to get away with playable performance, those people still experience the game to more than an enjoybale extent of which turning up the eyecandy and resolution is only a bonus. These are the same people who want to enjoy online competition or an occasional single playe campaign but also want to spend their $400 on things such as rent.

owned

 

[brigden]

Before upgrading, I played MOHAA at 25 fps.

And I kicked ass doing it.

 

[dguy6789]

30 fps is extremly playable, ever played halo, that is locked at 30 fps, no more, no less.

 

[Richdog]

To simplify things, new games will always run ok on average hardware as long as youre prepared to sacrifice major graphical quality. If you want full eye-candy you'll need a top of the line rig for high resolutions.
And thats the way it should be, if people like Carmack didnt keep pushing the boundaries of graphical splendour, games wouldnt advance towards that sought after new level of realism would they?

 

[ASIMOS]

I don?t want to be pessimistic but I forecast that in order to run Doom III at High quality settings (All features enabled except Antialiasing, Anisotropic filtering and Stencil shadows) at 1024X768 at 30FPS we will need at least a Geforce 3 Ti 200 or a Radeon 9000PRO (I suspect that the Radeon 8500 will be faster than the 9000PRO model because of the greater fill-rate needs).
When Id released back in December 1999 Quake 3, the most advanced Graphics card at that moment was Geforce 256 DDR(September 1999).The results of Geforce 256 DDR & TNT2 Ultra in Quake 3 was the followings more or less:
(Quake 3 arena Q3DEMO1 High quality settings)
640x480X32
Geforce 256 DDR 87FPS
TNT2 Ultra 60FPS
1024x768X32
Geforce 256 DDR 62FPS
TNT2 Ultra 33FPS
1600x1200X32
Geforce 256 DDR 23FPS
TNT2 Ultra 13FPS
In 1999 the lowest resolution (for casual gamers) was 640x480, today is 1024x768.
In 1999 a usual resolution for gamers was 1024x768, today is 1280x1024 with 2X antialiasing and 4X anisotropic filtering.
In 1999 the highest resolution (for hardcore gamers) was 1600x1200, today is 1600x1200 with 4X antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering.
When Doom III is released the most advanced VGA will be R400 or NV35 (Both expected at September 2003).I expect comparable results with Q3 benchmarks back in 1999.
For example:
(Doom III D3DEMO All features enabled with highest quality standards)
1024x768X32
R400 or NV35 around 150FPS
R350 around 90FPS
1280x1024X32 2X antialiasing and 4X anisotropic filtering.
R400 or NV35 around 100FPS
R350 around 60FPS
1600x1200X32 4X antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering.
R400 or NV35 around 60FPS
R350 around 30FPS
Also it seems right for Id to release after a year (Q4 2004) Doom III for XBOX.
If we suppose that the XBOX version will run at 60FPS.It is a good analogy that what XBOX can do in 640X480 a Geforce 4Ti 4600 can do at 1024X768.
So if a 9800PRO (R350) is capable of 90FPS at 1024X768 at Doom III it is possible for a Geforce 4Ti 4600 to do 60FPS and possible for a Geforce 3 Ti 200 to do 30FPS (through the NV20 path).

 

[Excelsior]

interesting, and your speculation does seem supported , at least somewhat. Oh well, I know my 9700 will do fine.

 

[SickBeast]

i agree, interesting speculation.

it all depends on when the game is actually released tho.

 

[BoomAM]

A UK Online Game site says:-
Link

 

[BFG10K]

I fair pretty well in the world of multiplayer gaming.

And?

Not sure which game(s) you are considering, but certain "moves" don't make up all games.

Well let's put it another way, everything sucks at a low framerate. Since the framerate is the direct window into the game it means that every aspect of the game is affected with the key areas being physics, aiming and shooting.

Some of the best players I know run on crappy systems, that's because they've been forced to adapt to survive, use their brains to figure out how to survive against spoiled players who more often than not end up getting far too lazy for their own good because their success is often ridden upon their elite systems.

So what you're saying is that they win because they're playing crappy opponents, which is certainly plausible. You also seem to be agreeing with me because you're claiming that elite systems are helping people to increase their skill level.

But keep in mind that:

• A good player on a crappy system will perform much worse than he would on a good system. Likewise an average player on a good system will often play much better than he normally does.
• Assuming two relatively identical skilled players, the one with the better system will win.

opinion, I've seen ppl play on it and be successful, I'm one who's done it.

Great but they and you will always get tooled against good players on faster systems unless the problem is network related (which is beyond the scope of this discussion).

although doesn't merit immediate conclusion that the game will not be enjoyable at all.

30 FPS is a jerky, unplayable slideshow. You try doing fast turns/spins/jumps and try to hit targets at long range with precision weapons and you'll fail miserably. An equally skilled guy on a faster system will simply run rings around you.

You mean struggle as in they aren't able to run games at 1600 x 1200 with 4x FSAA and 8x AF?

No, I mean struggle at medium resolutions such as 1152 x 864 x 32 and 1280 x 960 x 32 with no FSAA.

I find it hilarious that I'm baffled by all the players out there that slug away on a GeForce 2/4 MX and still are able to log in a good deal of success on a game

Yes but you don't know what settings they're using and against what skill level they're playing. 640 x 480 x 16 against crappy opponents isn't fun at all.

These are the same people who want to enjoy online competition or an occasional single playe campaign but also want to spend their $400 on things such as rent.

An occasional gamer does not pay $400 for a card, nor would he be concerned about Doom 3 performance this early on. I am giving realistic and honest answers and I'm not overestimating the power of current hardware, nor am I trying to pass off a low framerate as playable.

owned

 

[Glitchny]

well u arent overestimating the current hardware but I am of the mind that u are definatly underestimating it

 

[NYHoustonman]

I think that Doom III will run well enough at 800x600 mid-high settings, 1024x768 mid-high settings when I get a 2400+. Right now I am sitting at a 2000+ XP with a GF4 Ti4400.

30 FPS is a jerky, unplayable slideshow

Maybe to you, but to me this statement just sounds so out of this world that it boggles my mind. 30 fps in any game is playable, although in most games I do expect more given my computer. Splinter Cell is perfectly playable at 30 fps right now, as are virtually all games.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

You know, many of the best multiplayer game players I've known aren't on a great system as you'd think. A while back, I still played Tribes 1 competitively and my clan leader ran at 800x600 with hitting on 30 FPS. Now you may say "well he must've sucked." But no, he was one of the best.

There are kids at my school who are incredibly good at these games and dominate the lan parties. What do they run on? One of them, one of my better friends, is running on like a 300 or 400mhz computer with I think 4 or 8mb of video ram with a Voodoo based card but I don't remember which one.

The best of the best gamers, don't require the best system, their skill compenates above and beyond for it. It likes playing a 56ker while your on a cable. He'll be pinging 300 and I'll be pinging 60. I'll think its gonna be an easy game, but no, he kills me. Not just once, but plenty times after.

I hope this shows just why FPS isn't everything.