Final Doom3 benches at HardOCP

im very interested in seeing some 6800nu results,

could see it holding its own to the X800Pro if not better. 8)

 

It's been said and emphasized a number of times how they're going to concentrate more on the story this time around. Color me gullible, but going by the cutscene-kinda parts, I tend to believe them. Sure, you can't expect Final Fantasy MCXIII level story and execution, but I think it'll be a quite significant step forward.

As for artistic talent... huh? I think Tim's been doing a fine job with the levels so far and textures / models / sound in past id games have mostly been just great. OK, so they have this knack for gothic stuff and went overboard with it in Q3, could have happened to anybody.

Granted, I would have liked if they moved away from Q3-level texture resolutions, but somehow I can't blame the artists for following the limitations set by the engine and current HW performance level.

 

I'm thinking good but not outrageously good PC sales, but very strong Xbox sales for the same reasons you mentioned - one of the reasons I think the PC gaming industry is dieing, and will be in serious trouble when Xbox2 and PS3 are released.

 

Exactly! I am sure I can find equally beautiful renders of Doom 3 as well. The point is, you (or anyone for that matter) can find the good and bad in either game(s) screen captures. Does that mean one is not equally as great as the other, not at all.

Both game(s) look great, gameplay will be the victor I believe. HL2 may have that on Doom 3, it may not... we just don't know yet. nVidia is doing well in both areas, DX/OpenGL and Drivers. I wish I could say the same for ATi.

Point is, after reading that caption that gordon posted, what the hell is going on with ATi?

 

Co-op was never in the PC version...and was never promised. Carmack said that.... so it couldn't be taken out.

VV added co-op to the xbox version.

 

Something seems to be messed up with those results. Why only 2.2 Mpix/s for colour fill? The 6800 Ultra gets 5.7 Mpix/s, so you should be near 3.5 MPix/s. Also, even NVidia said it takes 2 cycles per pipe to do 4xMSAA, so 2.2 Mpix with 4xAA is too high. Any overclocking?

I saw the following benchmark used in a thread recently:
http://www.gzeasy.com/ours/benchmark/FillrateBenchmark_V092_b.zip

It seems to give better agreement with theory. The PS detection seems to be messed up, but the other numbers are fine. Maybe someone else can try it on a X800XT-PE and/or X800Pro?

EDIT: Never mind, there's another thread started using this benchmark in the 3D Tech forum.

 

I doubt that means the GF4MX is pullin better numbers than the ATI cards. If anything it means whether you have an ATI card, or Nvidia card that's moderately new, you'll have a good gaming experience.

 

yes, you did. It's just too obvious to start a debate onthis, hohohoho.

Weel, I guess I'm supposed to be frightened now, right?

 

Actually that was good, indeed.

 

Sure, that's fine... but a GF4MX honestly shouldn't be doing so well imho. A friend has one and played Battlefield Veitnam with his, wasn't spectacular... though that is a DX8.1 game. As old as the tech is on the GF4MX is, I would believe when drawing a comparison of the a highend ATi product, the ATi product(s) would be doing much better than they are.

I dunno, that's my opinion though.

 

´

Yes, they were given to them. But...

... they got a copy to try out. No benchmarking allowed of course.

 

TBH I've seen/heard a lot of people on both sides. i.e. ATI still own DX9/OGL is minor compared to DX and are waiting for HL2 before making up their mind etc etc.

My personal opionion in the GT is priced in such a way it will own in both for it's price point .

I couldn't get a GT now anyway, none of my favouritie online stores have them in stock.

 

Read a little bit later. I had vsync enabled.

 

Did you confuse this thread, with that one over at rage3d?
That was fun last night, but it cant happen here

 

Now you are being very stupid.

At what point did Kyle draw a comparison between the Gf4MX and an ATI high end product?

Do they even say what quality/resolution the Gf4MX is set to?

At what point is the game performing badly on an ATI high end product in settings likely to be used? Look at the boost using compressed textures makes, some games don't even allow you not to use uncompressed textures.

JC says all high end cards perfrom very well. the Pro only gets low averages for an FPS at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF. How many people expected to play D3 at high rez with AA anyway?

Will people stop talking like an X800 will run D3 like snail on valium.

 

Stupid huh, ummm...

Friend was playing BF:V on similar system. I wouldn't say it played it well, that would be like saying my 5200 Ultra can run DX9 apps well... and it doesn't (unless you consider 10fps well). His graphics settings were set to the lowest they could go in BF:V and NV Control Panel was setup for pure performance.

So what I am saying, not Kyle, is if Kyle is suggesting a GF4MX is able to play Doom 3 well (And that is like 3 year old hardware), why isn't ATi (after three years) got their pooh straight... now?

 

I hadn't thought of that angle, thanks DT.

Yup, right now it sure is.

 

Please try to not get personally abusive......ok? Malfunction is not stupid....but he is fairly biased.

 

ok the comparison he is drawing is fairly stupid then, and he still doesnt get why, as his reply shows.

and who made you a mod?