Doom3 graphics vs. Battle of Proxycon (GT2)

New design.

-Neutrality-

 

Here's a quote from our 3DMark03 WP:

There!

 

Looking at Doom3, and looking at 3DMark, I think the 3DMark characters have higher polygon count, making the situation a bit more complicated so that a direct comparison of methods may not be fully thruthful.

If Doom3 has low poly (relatively speaking, of course) characters, silhouette finding with CPU may make more sense. You do need to transfer the vertices over the AGP bus also, so there is a poly count after this method is not efficient. Further, the extrusion could be considered to be a more straightforward method.

Don't all current NVidia shadow volume demos use extruding vertices to create the shadow volume, and none use the Doom3 technique?

 

Just a question... What about memory consumption? FM says that GT2 consumes way more than 64Mb of video mem (don't know about AGP memory), while I don't think Doom3 goes that high. Are the speed differences so acute on 128Mb vram cards?

 

Yeah, DoAXXX.

 

My first real post about 3DMark03!

DOF and "bloom" via PS_1_1 in 3DMark = messy blur = not good

I have had a few runs of 3DMark03 and never once was I impressed by such post-processing effects, try as hard as I might. It's more of blurry CGI-like cutscenes more than anything else.

I am, most of all, disappointed in 3DMark03's choice/implementation of showing off PS_2_0.

BUT every one of the Game Tests still "look good". Personally, I was most impressed with Troll's Lair.

As an aside, I'm conducting an interview with Markus Maki (some of you may know who he is). While I definitely stayed away from talking about 3DMark/Futuremark (he's not as involved with 3DMark as before), there are questions there regarding the relationship between/amongst benchmarks, games and video cards that, hopefully, will prompt some interesting answers from Markus.

 

Don't you mean dead?