Will we get a .plan update from Carmack on Radeon 9x00?

[cybamerc]

alexsok:

> Carmack is a genius!

He can't make the hardware do the impossible.

> DOOM III won't be slow even on GF3

I bet it will. PC developers are notorious for underestimating the specs needed to run the games at acceptable speed.

> (30fps is what they're targeting with all features enabled and the max
> fps is limited to 60).

That is what Carmack said a long time ago but now the GF4 has replaced the GF3 as main development platform and even the Radeon 9700 runs the game at 30 fps. And even if the GF3 could manage 30 fps in average that still doesn't guarantee that the framerate won't drop like a bomb when the action heats up - another typical PC game issue. Average framerates are pretty useless.

> Carmack is targeting GF3/XBox level of hardware for DOOM III to truly
> shine

The GF3 is the baseline card. It will be able to run Doom III will all features enabled but I'm positive it will be slow as hell. Carmack has also stated that by using more powerful hardware you will be able to enjoy greater speed and higher quality effects. GF3 won't make Doom III shine.

Xbox is a different story altogether. It has two vertex shaders and Carmack will be able to optimize to a greater degree. OTOH, the Xbox CPU is quite slow compared to what most ppl with GF4s have, it has less rendering bandwidth and a lot less RAM.

> I truly think GF4TI4600 for example or Radeon 8500 could
> run the game at 30fps with all features enabled at a resolution of
> 800x600 (if not higher).

Carmack has said the Radeon 9700 is far faster than GF4 for Doom III. The Radeon 9700 currently manages 30 fps at 800*600. I think you're being quite overoptimistic.

 

[KimB]

The GF3 is the baseline card.

The GeForce1 is the baseline card.

 

[cybamerc]

Chalnoth:

> The GeForce1 is the baseline card.

GF1 will run the game but it won't run it well. GF3 is the minimum requirement if you want to run the game with all feature enabled and therefor I would consider it the baseline.

 

[OpenGL guy]

The Radeon 9700 currently manages 30 fps at 800*600.

Uh, where and when was this stated?

 

[KimB]

GF1 will run the game but it won't run it well. GF3 is the minimum requirement if you want to run the game with all feature enabled and therefor I would consider it the baseline.

No, the GF1 will be able to run the game with all features enabled, but it will be slow as hell. It's been specifically stated that you'd want to turn off specular highlights on a GF1-class card (which includes GF2, GF4MX, btw).

 

[pascal]

The GF1 is the baseline.
IIRC the main difference between cards will be only speed and resolution, not features.

IIRC the GF2mx and GF1 SDR will play it well at 320x240

My optimal guess is that:
- GF3/+1GHzCPU
- no aniso and compressed textures
- 640x480x32 resolution
- 40fps average

 

[cybamerc]

OpenGL guy:

> Uh, where and when was this stated?

See my first post... and second.


Chalnoth:

> No, the GF1 will be able to run the game with all features enabled, but it
> will be slow as hell.

What's the point then? Do you really want to play at sub-30 fps framerates? I don't think too many PC gamers would accept that.

 

[pascal]

They will have to upgrade. That is life. Lets move on.

 

[Tahir2]

Knowing what kind of game Doom III is supposed to be, do we need it to run at 200fps?

It is not exactly going to be a high octane shooter like Serious Sam.

Another thing, 800*600 with FSAA on old drivers and still ran without noticable slowdowns is impressive for beta hardware and beta drivers.

I don't see why people are getting so up tight about a game that is many months away. Why not discuss something more tangible like UT2K3. Let us see how that scales with different graphic cards and processors first before discussing yet more vaporware

 

[Saem]

In a gamespy interview at Quakecon. It was mentioned that the game was running in real-time at 800*600 with full detail. AA and ansiotropic were up and running IMO, but that's more from casual observation.

Also, I believe one of the people that was in the interview stated, the improved quality was all thanks to ATI's drivers.

Hopefully I got all of that right, unfortunately I can't find the interview right now. But I remember Carmack wasn't part of it.

 

[xamfear]

I have read/listened to all the id interviews and haven't seen it stated that the 9700 ran Doom3 at 30fps, please provide exact linkage. John Carmack has always stated Geforce3 would run Doom3 at 30 fps, listen to the old Macworld video. I'm sure the 9700 is much faster than a Geforce3...

OpenGL guy:

> Uh, where and when was this stated?

See my first post... and second.


Chalnoth:

> No, the GF1 will be able to run the game with all features enabled, but it
> will be slow as hell.

What's the point then? Do you really want to play at sub-30 fps framerates? I don't think too many PC gamers would accept that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have read/listened to all the id interviews and haven't seen it stated that the 9700 ran Doom3 at 30fps, please provide exact linkage.

It was posted earlier in this thread. Gamespot interview at QuakeCon with Todd Hollenshead:

mms://a1241.m.akastream.net/7/1241/5372/1/gamespot.download.akamai.com/5372/netshow/gslive/100k/thint8211.asf

It's at about 3:45 minutes in, he does state that 30 FPS was the speed that the Doom3 presentation in the theatre was running at. And other sources clarified that the resolution was 800x600, "high quality" settings with Aniso. (FSAA enabled is not known AFAIK).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I know thie following quote has been posted elsewhere on this board, but it is relevant to this thread (as it is Carmack on the (mobility) Radeon 9000:

The M9 laptop part allows state of the art high end game development to be accomplished on a laptop platform for the first time really since we've moved to hardware acceleration."

"You know, on our current work at Id right now we're still pushing really hard to make Doom run well on various high end desk top cards. So it's pretty startling to be able to fire it up on a laptop and see it run at a really pretty startling good pace."

So it looks like the Radeon 9000 is in fact at least a decent chip for Doom3. I still wonder how it compares relatively to the 8500 though.

 

[xamfear]

Thanks... Must have missed that part.

I have read/listened to all the id interviews and haven't seen it stated that the 9700 ran Doom3 at 30fps, please provide exact linkage.

It was posted earlier in this thread. Gamespot interview at QuakeCon with Todd Hollenshead:

mms://a1241.m.akastream.net/7/1241/5372/1/gamespot.download.akamai.com/5372/netshow/gslive/100k/thint8211.asf

It's at about 3:45 minutes in, he does state that 30 FPS was the speed that the Doom3 presentation in the theatre was running at. And other sources clarified that the resolution was 800x600, "high quality" settings with Aniso. (FSAA enabled is not known AFAIK).

 

[Ichneumon]

I know thie following quote has been posted elsewhere on this board, but it is relevant to this thread (as it is Carmack on the (mobility) Radeon 9000:

The M9 laptop part allows state of the art high end game development to be accomplished on a laptop platform for the first time really since we've moved to hardware acceleration."

"You know, on our current work at Id right now we're still pushing really hard to make Doom run well on various high end desk top cards. So it's pretty startling to be able to fire it up on a laptop and see it run at a really pretty startling good pace."

So it looks like the Radeon 9000 is in fact at least a decent chip for Doom3. I still wonder how it compares relatively to the 8500 though.

We got up our 9000 Pro review at Rage3D today. It has performance comparisons to a 64mb 8500, a 128mb 8500DV, and a GF4 MX-460. That ought to give you a pretty good idea of relative performace to the 8500.

Oh, and while i'm linking, might as well mention our M9 preview is up as well.

 

[Pete]

[q]The GeForce1 is the baseline card.[/q]I think JC said it had the baseline tech, not speed.

 

[OpenGL guy]

OpenGL guy:

> Uh, where and when was this stated?

See my first post... and second.

So because you say it, it's true?

The link that Joe provided said 30 fps was the speed the demo ran when it was presented, but that was quite a while ago. You said "currently manages 30 fps at 800 * 600" and I wanted to know where you got this current info from.

Please provide a source that gives the current speed of the Radeon 9700 with Doom 3.

 

[ben6]

Ichneumon you mean AIW Radeon 128MB 8500 . The 8500DV doesn't have 128MB

Ben

 

[cybamerc]

OpenGL guy:

> So because you say it, it's true?

No... it's true because Todd Hollenshead said it.

> ... but that was quite a while ago

Two weeks.

> Please provide a source that gives the current speed of the Radeon
> 9700 with Doom 3.

Take it easy mr. ATI employee of the month. I'm not criticizing the Radeon 9700, just relaying information which, if anything, raises questions about new the Doom engine rather than various gfx chips.