Doom3 Benchmarks

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

 

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!!

 

XBOX


PC


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

 

Wow the XBOX version almost looks N64ish

 

there's a better shot of the hellknight for the xbox. It's the one with his left arm sticking out in a grab position..


edit: btw, polygon counts look the same to me...very much the same. The angle of the head can be misleading with the higher resolution bumpmap for the hellknight above, but the arms and the shoulders look identical (in polygons).

 

Here's another comparison

XBOX


PC

 

I just saw the second in 4000x3000.
Looks pretty disappointing up close.

 

The Xbox version should look similar with the PC version run on a Geforce 3. Your PC should do relatively well in comparison to the Xbox version (the main difference would be the textures). I presume you might expect running it at 800 * 600 resolution with all settings set to either low, medium or a few of them, high.

 

Thanks. Will the difference be noticable for non-techie heads like me anyway? I mean, I know that there will be a visible image quality improvement on DX9 level of hardware like Radeon 9800 XT when compared to DX8 class like GF 4Ti series, but I think it's more because of better texture quality and higher screen resolution than anything else.

 

Am i the only one that finds that comment very very very funny.....

 

If you mean "DOH! It's *obvious*, stupid."-funny, I agree.
Everything that's been zoomed in on that much is bound to look... well, just bad.

enbargiel, frankly, I have no idea how much of a difference it would mean in this particular case.
With resolution / texture detail / etc. being the same, I somehow don't think it would be disturbingly apparent though.

 

Mordenkainen: yeah, that's about the best comparison I can think of with respect to fire and texture res although it's a bit more difficult to compare the lighting on the chest because of the different areas being shown.

Also, both models look the same to me (with respect to polygon count) *shrug*.

 

Yeah, I guess that's one way to put it. 8)

 

The reason Doom 3 looks so much worse on the Xbox is because the Xbox only has 64MB of Ram. The Xbox is fast enough to handle Doom 3, but it doesn't have the memory to handle higher resolution textures (which are actually made up of several images...diffuse+normal+specular+luminosity). In fact, I would bet that a PC with a Geforce 3 and 512 MB RAM would look noticeably better than the Xbox.

 

*wishes xbox had 128MB of ram*

(a "realistic" wish )


@640x480, a 512x512 res texture would look awesome on tv.

 

Not the stuff that we're making here Then again it's certainly not for realtime use...

 

Should I compete with you?

 

I've worked on an 8192*4096 texture last week (well, actually 3 for color, displace, specular). And this was a simple object, as it has only one map - most of the characters have more.

Then again, PRMan is quite the advantage here, poor 3dsmax would probably be unable to load such textures at all...

So, have I won?

 

Did I mention any 3dsmax?

What do you consider as one image?
Because I can just load up this "female_skeleton1.raw" file - happens it's on a list on my screen -, counted in gigabytes...