[Scott_Arm]

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Provided by ID software. Just read it. I'm a little worried about my 9500Pro. I think I can make medium playable.

[oddfellow]

Thanks for the heads up. 8)

I don't think your 9500pro will have any problems with medium quality.

[Blade]

It says that a GF3 is fine and that's a good deal slower than a 9500.

[Scott_Arm]

Yah, it even says the GF3 is fine, which is odd. Considering the flagship cards aren't pushing outrageously huge numbers, and considering my card is probably 25% as fast as the 6800 or X800, you'd think the GF3 would be dead meat. There may be a vast difference between low, medium and high quality, even though they may all look quite good. I'll be really interested in seeing what type of graphics features are altered with those respective settings other than the level of texture compression.

[trinibwoy]

According to an interview in this month's PCG they say every card up from a GF4 MX will be 'fine' at max quality. However, they make no mention of resolution and of course AA/AF is out of the question. Based on the [H] benches no way is a GF3 running Doom3 at 1024x768 high quality.

The sweet spot for those cards is going to be nothing more than 800x600 medium quality.

[thop]

Wow the 9800XT is rather slowish at 1024x768 at medium quality. 50FPS is way too low for competetive online play. I guess we'll have to wait at least another year for D3 to show up at competitions and stuff.

I guess i can finally bury my thoughts to play the game at 1280x960 on my 9600XT.

[rainz]

Originally Posted by thop

Wow the 9800XT is rather slowish at 1024x768 at medium quality. 50FPS is way too low for competetive online play. I guess we'll have to wait at least another year for D3 to show up at competitions and stuff.

I guess i can finally bury my thoughts to play the game at 1280x960 on my 9600XT.

Btw ... 4 players on the net ..

RainZ

[Gabrobot]

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

According to an interview in this month's PCG they say every card up from a GF4 MX will be 'fine' at max quality.

No, they said that it ran fine while still looking great. No one ever said that Doom 3's lowest settings look like crap.

[K.I.L.E.R]

Don't forget the SP experience will be much easier on the hardware.

I would expect the NV20 to do quite well with high IQ settings.

[pcchen]

Since timedemo is just running a fixed sequence without stressing the CPU much, I'd expect that most game play will perform worse than timedemo results since they stress the CPU even more.

Of course, SP games stress the CPU much less than MP, and if it can give a steady 30 fps most people should be fine with it. I am actually more worry about my CPU (a 533 FSB P4 2.8, upgraded from a P4 2.26) than my video card (a Radeon 9700 non pro).

[embargiel]

Originally Posted by K.I.L.E.R

I would expect the NV20 to do quite well with high IQ settings.

Ruling out better AA, AF and higher resolution, what graphical features / effects Doom 3 supports that NV20 doesn't which will make the game actually look better? Does the game have any DX9 (or its OpenGL equivalent) features at all? Will ARB2 rendering path have any image quality advantage that is purely because of DX9 equivalent effects?

[anaqer]

Originally Posted by embargiel

Will ARB2 rendering path have any image quality advantage that is purely because of DX9 equivalent effects?

Like The Man said - post processing effects like heat shimmer and stuff & overall higher precision.

I'm a bit shaky with a 9800XT doing just 46FPS in 1024 HQ though, and then there's this OC warning... damn, if my softmod suddenly decides to crap artifacts all over screen, I'm going to leak blood simultaneously through various orifices. :?

[aZZa]

Where are the screen shot comparisons????

I wouldnt take these early results with too much shock. The nv3x & nv4x architectures were designed with doom in mind. It seems ATI had enabled their optimisation (mentioned by Carmack) & Nvidia would have most likely done their own optmising too.

Lets wait till official drivers (ATI - OpenGL rewrite hopefully)- something seems a little strange that AA & AF enabled lowered ATI much more than nVidia. Where are the 16xAF benchmarks, which would probably show r420 in better light??? I expected ATI to close the gap with AA & AF enabled. Look at the 8xAF settings at 10x7 vs 16x12??

I would like to check 2xAA vs 4xAA results on nVidia in particular- as the nv35 gains an unusually large advantage on the r360 with 4xAA & 8xAF. Maybe its just the underlying architecture or could it be driver related. Are the settings enabled in the control panel or game? Could it be that they are enabling lower settings, buggy drivers ??? :?

[Diplo]

I'd have liked to see actual figures for lower-spec cards like ti4400/4600/MX and Radeon 9600/9700 etc. I'm a bit suspicious this time given that iD haven't released a demo or technology test.

[cristic]

and also some systems with lower spec CPU, like Athlon 2000-3000 and/or P4 2.0-3.0.

[Quitch]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Of course, SP games stress the CPU much less than MP

I think it's the other way around. MP doesn't have AI.

[london-boy]

Looks like it will run OK on my A64-3200, 1GB Ram and 5900U...

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Quitch

I think it's the other way around. MP doesn't have AI.

Of course, it depends on the complexity of the AI system. However, MP has other burdens, such as predicting the position of each player (in case of network congestion). Some games can have more players in MP than the number of active monsters in a normal SP game.

Oh the other hand, it seems that Doom 3 supports only 4 player deathmatch. If so, it could stress the CPU less than a normal SP game.

[BoddoZerg]

If an Xbox can run it (Albeit with extremely low texture settings) then my Athlon2000 / 512mb RAM / Geforce4Ti4400 should run it just fine.

[thop]

Originally Posted by BoddoZerg

If an Xbox can run it (Albeit with extremely low texture settings) then my Athlon2000 / 512mb RAM / Geforce4Ti4400 should run it just fine.

If you're happy with 640x480, then yes

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by BoddoZerg

If an Xbox can run it (Albeit with extremely low texture settings) then my Athlon2000 / 512mb RAM / Geforce4Ti4400 should run it just fine.

You mean low textures, lower polygons, lower precision, loewr shadows, lower resolution (640x480).
But yeah i guess ur system should "run it" at some setting.
I just hope my A64-3200, 1GB Ram and 5900U will be enough for high settings even with no AA...

[rainz]

Originally Posted by london-boy

You mean low textures, lower polygons, lower precision, loewr shadows, lower resolution (640x480).
But yeah i guess ur system should "run it" at some setting.
I just hope my A64-3200, 1GB Ram and 5900U will be enough for high settings even with no AA...

For a decent FPS

9800 Pro / 5900U = Medium Setting

X800 / 6800 = High Setting

512mb video card = Ultra Setting

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by rainz

For a decent FPS

9800 Pro / 5900U = Medium Setting

X800 / 6800 = High Setting

512mb video card = Ultra Setting

Define decent.
I'm sure i can take an indecent framerate in a single player game that does not throw 29million enemies at you at the same time, if you know what i mean. So, for me, High settings all the way!!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoddoZerg

If an Xbox can run it (Albeit with extremely low texture settings) then my Athlon2000 / 512mb RAM / Geforce4Ti4400 should run it just fine.

XBOX


PC


And last time they talked about it they were having some problems keeping it at 30 fps for the xbox version.[/b]

[thop]

Wow the XBOX version almost looks N64ish