doom 3 plays just fine on intel-60fps on 1024X768

[Winstonp]

doom 3 plays just fine on intel-60fps on 1024X768

That's what I'm getting, it flickers between 59 and 60 fps when running through map , plays smooth. I don't see anything in the twenties, around 30's and 40's when there's some action.


I suggest buying this game if you want some fun on a new intel.

[jessica.]

Wow that is fantastic! I play doom on a p4 2.4 pc and it's great, but it is a hog. It ran even better on my acer 3.0.

[MacRumorUser]

doom 3 plays just fine on intel-60fps on 1024X768

That's what I'm getting, it flickers between 59 and 60 fps when running through map , plays smooth. I don't see anything in the twenties, around 30's and 40's when there's some action.


I suggest buying this game if you want some fun on a new intel.

It would help if you told us what settings you are using other than just resolution. If everything is set to low and shadows are off etc.. then it's not that stellar impressive, if they settings are high and shadows on, then I'll be impressed :)

[CubeHacker]

You didn't mention what system you played it on, nor what settings. Specifically, were shadows turned on? You can't really really measure performance of Doom3 and compare it to that of PC's if shadows weren't turned on. Not to mention, the entire point of the DOOM3 engine is its realtime shadows, which if turned off kind of takes away from the entire point of the game.

[Winstonp]

You didn't mention what system you played it on, nor what settings. Specifically, were shadows turned on? I will get back to you on the shadows.


You can't really really measure performance of Doom3 and compare it to that of PC's if shadows weren't turned on. Not to mention, the entire point of the DOOM3 engine is its realtime shadows, which if turned off kind of takes away from the entire point of the game.


I was not comparing to a pc, I am just saying that it plays fine.

This was on the macbook pro in my signature. Allow me to check the settings, I'll get back to you on the entire specs of my setup. as of now the settings are

1024X768 = 30-60 fps

[Winstonp]

ok, here is the update. Shadows ARE on. The only effects that are not on are:

1. Vertical Sync

2. Antialiasing

Resolution is 1024x768

Up to 60fps during play, as low as 30. It once said 5-8fps, but that was when the new map was loading.


The system is the macbook pro below, with 128mb of video memory, and no other applications running on the same system.

[MacRumorUser]

ok, here is the update. Shadows ARE on. The only effects that are not on are:

1. Vertical Sync

2. Antialiasing

Resolution is 1024x768

Up to 60fps during play, as low as 30. It once said 5-8fps, but that was when the new map was loading.


The system is the macbook pro below, with 128mb of video memory, and no other applications running on the same system.

Then I am impressed :) Especially on the X1600 which isnt truly a gaming card (the X1800 & 1900 are the proper gaming cards..)


EDIT: Oh yeah as RJ say's what setting are you using medium/high/ultra
(ultra by the way is only for machines with 512mb GPU ram)

[BlizzardBomb]

The X1600 has 12 pixel shader pipes, so it's fine for gaming.

[Dagless]

I'm sorry, but what mode were you running it in? If you were in Ultra Mode then I'd cry for the power of the MacBook Pro. My semi-gaming PC stutters on that. I never get above 30fps in games, but they're certainly playable.

Case in point;

CounterStrike Source; Everything on full. AA *4, Anisotropic filtering * 4. 1050*1024. High Dynamic Range. VSync on. average on the "graphics stress test" is 32.4fps.
Machine is a P4 2ghz, Radeon 9600 pro, 512mb DDR, 19" LCD monitor.

[Uma888]

I'm sorry, but what mode were you running it in? If you were in Ultra Mode then I'd cry for the power of the MacBook Pro. My semi-gaming PC stutters on that. I never get above 30fps in games, but they're certainly playable.

Case in point;

CounterStrike Source; Everything on full. AA *4, Anisotropic filtering * 4. 1050*1024. High Dynamic Range. VSync on. average on the "graphics stress test" is 32.4fps.
Machine is a P4 2ghz, Radeon 9600 pro, 512mb DDR, 19" LCD monitor.

Replace the Radeon 9600 for another card, your framerate will double!!! (had the same problem, but from radeon 9800 to a 6800Ultra)

[Dagless]

I'm going to upgrade as soon as we get a new desktop. The 9600 is fine at the moment (sweet jesus... I've just imagined whats going to happen when our current PC is shifted to the 1024*768 monitor. AA and Anisotropic city!). a 9800 looks to be a good choice as an upgrade. they're a fair bit more expensive than a 9600 which is reassuring. if my 9600 gave me brilliant results than anything better for less than £100 will bring marvellous results.

without trying to hijack the thread, can anyone recommend a good sub-£100 GFX card for my upcoming PC?

[Rocksaurus]

without trying to hijack the thread, can anyone recommend a good sub-£100 GFX card for my upcoming PC?

Do a little research so you know the right one to buy and get an X800 GTO and then flash it with an XT BIOS. Will unlock 4 extra pipes for a total of 16. Smooth.

[greatdevourer]

Do a little research so you know the right one to buy and get an X800 GTO and then flash it with an XT BIOS. Will unlock 4 extra pipes for a total of 16. Smooth. Thanks for the advice! I was looking into summat like that (eg, some of the X800 cards are just sub-standard X850s, and so they can be OCd a lot)

However, from his description of having a 9600, it sounds like he has AGP rather than PCIe (unless he has a Biostar board like mine, in which case it could have both). ATi dropped out of AGP at the 9800 Pro, but nVdia have got some good AGP cards (I think they go up to the 6800s).

One great thing about the graphics industry - their constant attempts to leapfrog each other push prices down so much (eg, the X1800 is now £100, maybe less) :D

[MacRumorUser]

However, from his description of having a 9600, it sounds like he has AGP rather than PCIe (unless he has a Biostar board like mine, in which case it could have both). ATi dropped out of AGP at the 9800 Pro,

Err NO THEY DIDN'T !!! both my Mac & PC both have Radeon X800XT PE AGPx8 gfx cards. Some of the X850 were AGP too......

X800XT is a great card in a powermac, made a huge difference to gaming and applications like MOTION compared to the crappy 9600 stock they supplied..

[greatdevourer]

Err NO THEY DIDN'T !!! both my Mac & PC both have Radeon X800XT PE AGPx8 gfx cards. Some of the X850 were AGP too......

X800XT is a great card in a powermac, made a huge difference to gaming and applications like MOTION compared to the crappy 9600 stock they supplied.. OMG SORRY!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: Capslock disengage!

I have personally never seen an AGP X card, and have always been under the impression that the move to the X series meant a move to PCIe (eg, the X300 is just a PCIe version of the 9600). A quick Google proves you to be right, but please, cool it with the capitals :rolleyes:

[MacRumorUser]

OMG SORRY!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: Capslock disengage!

I have personally never seen an AGP X card, and have always been under the impression that the move to the X series meant a move to PCIe (eg, the X300 is just a PCIe version of the 9600). A quick Google proves you to be right, but please, cool it with the capitals :rolleyes:

LOL!!! Got too excited there :p Not sure the X1---- series cards were ever made AGP though.

I dont understand how the mac book pro is producing better framerate with the X1600 card though.

On my PC with timedemo 1 (P4 3ghz HT, 1.5gb Ram, X800XT PE) I get 62 FPS at 1280x1024

On my Powermac Dual G5 1.8, 2.5gb Ram, X800XT - with timedemo 1 I get 41 FPS

On my iMac Core Duo 2ghz, 2gb Ram, X1600 256mb - timedemo 1 - I get 34 FPS

All 1280x1024. All High. All with Shadows on. No Antialiasing & VSYNC off.

The results for the macbookpro can't have been set at high, and OP please run timedemo1 and post result with HIGH setting..

Run timedemo twice, It's the second result that's important. The first is never as acurate and always lower...

[mcmillan]

WOW!!:eek: That's amazing performance Winstonp

[Dagless]

Thanks for the advice! I was looking into summat like that (eg, some of the X800 cards are just sub-standard X850s, and so they can be OCd a lot)

However, from his description of having a 9600, it sounds like he has AGP rather than PCIe (unless he has a Biostar board like mine, in which case it could have both). ATi dropped out of AGP at the 9800 Pro, but nVdia have got some good AGP cards (I think they go up to the 6800s).

One great thing about the graphics industry - their constant attempts to leapfrog each other push prices down so much (eg, the X1800 is now £100, maybe less) :D

Yea my current PC is a AGP but no doubt our next one will have something a little better. especially if this is to last us another 3 years.

[macgeek2005]

Winstop, were you playing Doom 3 on Low quality, Medium, High or Ultra?

Thanks

[milner007]

I was playing doom 3 on my MBP with 256mb x1600
and it runs smoth but when i open doors it takes about halp a sec to load the room then its fine, not sure about other qualitys

[Winstonp]

Winstop, were you playing Doom 3 on Low quality, Medium, High or Ultra?

Thanks

I beleive it to be medium

[Winstonp]

I hooked the mbp up to my 24 inch dell LCD and I get framerates of 20-40...not as great unfortunatly. I generally use the computer with the LCD too....

With the 15 inch lcd it gets the 30- 59/60 fps.


I havent been using timedemo. How does one do that? I simply watch the framerate counter on the upper right hand of the screen.


Winston