Doom 3 reviewed!

Discussion in 'Games' started by Soulstorm, Mar 5, 2005.

  1. Soulstorm macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #1
    Yes, here!!

    http://www.macologist.org/portal.php?topic_id=1015

    Unfortunately, it is I had expected. Performance is a total crap! Read it for details!

    I'd just like to ask you... WHAT TOOK ASPYR SO LONG, SINCE THE PERFORMANCE IS THAT CRAP?

    What were they trying to do so many months? To increase performance? What performance? Even on a G5 Dual 2 Gbytes RAM and 9600XT the game reaches 15 fps, imagine how bad it would be at G4 systems. So what did aspyr actually do for the mac port so many months?
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    "Something to overcome this might have been building the game with multi-processor support, which id had chosen not to do."

    Is this true? And if so, if it did have multi-processor support would that make for a better gaming experience?
     
  3. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #3
    In other words, they were to lazy to build multi-processor support for the Mac.
     
  4. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #5

    No they choose to put the time and money else where to a more imporant task. There are Very few multi processor out there. 2nd the gains are very limited compare to what the same amount of time that would be put else where.

    Got to love how everyone is going to whin because they choose to spend the time doing something more imporanted in the port.
     
  5. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #6
    I would guess a lot of Mac users who expect to play Doom 3 have a dual processor system.
     
  6. Santaduck macrumors 6502a

    Santaduck

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #7
    couple of things...

    * Aspyr got the game out, and it's solid. Just like BF1942 and MacSoft's UT2004, later patches optimized the code and fixed minor issues, I'm sure we'll see the same here, regarding optimization, 5.1, etc. Would you rather have waited until Dec 2005?

    * DP support was rejected even by id Software, as not really providing much of a benefit. Even UT2004 only offloads audio only.

    * True CPU usage can be seen by disabling 3D rendering, such as in the MacWorld benchmarks of last week. We'll post a followup on this, trying to separate the two. Also, Rob-ART Morgan of barefeats.com will be on this soon, and his results are extremely thorough.

    * Framerate and "Feel" are often two different things. The reviewer had both a high end PC gaming rig as well as several Macs, and indicated the "feel" was good on the Mac side, even when directly comparing to D3 on his PC rig.

    * He wanted to give you a wide range of possible macs-- note the middle Mac had only 512M memory. Take the given rigs, and your likely resolution, and you can reasonably extrapolate your performance. To me, something like 10 FPS is unplayable, 18-25 can be enjoyable (depending on the game, and D3 seems to fit the bill), and 30+ for competitive clanning.

    * We'll try to post some followups before the release, which may include short movies of in-game play on a Mac.
     
  7. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #8
    The G5's lose a lot of performance potential when they can't take advantage of the dual CPUs, but then again not a lot of games support it.
     
  8. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #9
    And how many mac users have a Daul Processor G5.... Oh that right very very few. 2g for just a tower is a lot of money to put down for a computer an is high end. so that was the reason why.
     
  9. JordanNZ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #10
    This is nothing to do with a hardware..

    The problem is bad software... Eg, open gl drivers.
     
  10. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #11
    Do you realize that the game isn't even optimized for G5??? Since the same application supports G4 it cannot take full advantage of g5's 64 bit processing.
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    Looking at the Powermac scores with the single G5 1.8 and fx5200 it appears it will be almost unplayable unless everything is off and at 640 x 480. Not good. This will go for the new iMacs as well. Below 30 fps and you have lag and skipping to me thats very annoying. Good article that gives us a good idea what to expect :( still a little shocked but i think most Macfans have gotten use to this. Guess thats why i bought a PC after 20 years of Macs. im a slow learner. At least it will be on Mac. :cool:
     
  12. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #13
    I just wanted to say there might be too much emphasis on the timedemo benchmarks. This is my reply from the Doom3 now Gold thread:

    Even though the benchmarks are reporting the game may be just barely playable, seems like in-game that's not the case:

    So, I say play it and then see what happens. Not that I'm expecting things to be great, but probably better than these numbers.

    I recommend reading the IMG thread: http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19287&st=0 for some info as well.
     
  13. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #14
    Limited gains?

    When enabling SMP on my computer I see an increase of over 100FPS in Quake 3, about a 30%-35% performance increase.
     
  14. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #15

    Again the question goes back to HOW many daul Processor macs are out there comepared to none Daul processor. Yeah next to none. The gains made in Daul processor support would of been mostly wasted time and effort for the most part since very few people could even use it.
    The gains are limited due to the fact apple piss poor driver support that lag a year or more behind the PC drivers. They choose to put there money and time to better use. But no the mac people are going ot complain because no daul processor support but then most of then whining about it dont have a daul processor computer that could run it.
     
  15. shake macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, CANADA
    #16
    guys,
    the performance of a mac running doom3 is comparable to a pc (at the same clockspeed & graphics card. the tester in the above link used a 9600xt graphics card for the mac. for the record, the 9600 series cards only have 4 pipelines, while the nvidia in the pc has 8 pipelines (its also pci-e). the nvidia (or any other 8-pipeline card) will process 2x as much data than the 9600's. so, if u put a 3.0ghz G5 mac (which doesnt exist yet) with a radeon x800xt against a 3.0 ghz pc with a similar graphics card, you will get much closer numbers. i'll bet the PC will still edge out the mac, but not like these numbers. that test wasnt fair. the 9600 could never keep up to the 6600. and there was a 1.4ghz difference in cpu speeds (3.4ghz penitum4 vs. 2.0 ghz G5). of course the pc will destroy the mac.

    i have an idea, lets take a 2.5ghz G5 with a radeon x800xt and a 2.0ghz PC with a 9600xt and see who comes out on top. and lets test them at 1680x1050 resolution too.
     
  16. Santaduck macrumors 6502a

    Santaduck

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #17
    Good point.

    The X800 has in fact been benchmarked last week by MacWorld. However, I would posit that the majority of Mac users considering buying Doom3 do not own an X800xt/GF 6800 Ultra. Given the MacWorld and Macologist numbers, you should be able to estimate where your framerate will lie, at least for the initial retail version before subsequent optimization patches.

    Also we expect thorough benchmarking results of all configurations by Rob-ART Morgan of barefeats.com, in a continuation to his mac vs pc article here and here. Especially interesting to note are his comments on AGP vs PCI-express in the Mac:
    : "5. PCI-Express has a theoretical bus speed four times that of 8X AGP, but I postulate that the bandwidth advantage is under utilized. The current generation of graphics cards and motherboard designs don't even saturate a 4X AGP bus.".

    At any rate, we'll have more benchmark data coming in for various configurations soon, Aspyr has just started shipping out review copies, so this is just the tip of the iceberg. The PC rig had to be a good one, or else all the PC fans would be complaining that we handicapped the PC to make the Mac look good. I'll try to look for a D3 benchmark using a similar vidcard as the Mac today.
     
  17. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #18
    No-one tested the GeForce 6800 Ultra yet??? :confused:

    I know ATi has finally come up with the X800 XT for Mac, and that they deliver better drivers.....

    But the 6800 Ultra is the grfx card for an OpenGL game like this on the PC.

    Maybe a nice Doom 3 -testing machine would be a Dual G5, GeForce 6800 Ultra and 2 GB RAM orso.

    I expect many Mac gamers fortunate enough to have a (Dual) PowerMac G5, would have gotten the GeForce 6800 before ATi announced the X800.

    I would love to see the comparison:
    X800 vs 6800 Ultra running Doom 3.

    This game will settle the scores... or have Apple build better drivers for the nVidia products.... :rolleyes:
     
  18. Santaduck macrumors 6502a

    Santaduck

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #19
    Expect to see such a comparison soon from barefeats.com.

    Some further comments:
    * Most Mac owners considering buying the game don't own either card. A review that was only a x800 vs 6800ultra shootout would not be relevant for these people.

    * Future patches may improve speed
     
  19. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #20
    The Mac owners expecting to be able to run Doom 3 decently probably have made some sort of upgrade to their PowerMac G5 by now (grfx card or RAM).
    Especially the Rev A owners who could only choose between a GeForce 5200 (absolute nog-go), Radeon 9600 Pro (64 MB VRAM - better choice than the 5200, but still not a gr8 card), or Radeon 9800 Pro (lower clocked 9800 Retail, 128 MB VRAM for a huge price) would have been tempted to get the first next-gen grfx card available: The nVidia GeForce 6800.
    Half a year later the X800 arrived, and I wonder how many have been sold: More or less than the GeForce?

    I know not many would have either of these cards, but the MacWorld tests were done on the X800 with some disappointing results. I just wonder if their Dual 2.5 GHz (how many have this Mac??) with Radeon X800 XT really is the best Doom 3 Mac out there.
    I believe not.

    Here's to hoping the 6800 does better.
     
  20. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21
    On a positive note, the article suggested that this is the graphics engine that Id will go with for the next three or four Dooms. The first three releases were all on the original engine with minor tweaks.

    So as computers get replaced, the game will be more and more managable. The article also hinted that this incarnation of the games engine will be around for a long time.

    I'll be getting this release for my Xbox, it sounds as though it will run better on that and my iMac can't match a 55" big screen.
     
  21. Santaduck macrumors 6502a

    Santaduck

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #22
    Anandtech has benchmarks with a 9600xt on a PC (AMD Athlon 64 FX53, oc to 2.6GHz), so you can compare the results with the MacWorld X800 Mac benchmarks. In fact the anandtech article is very thorough and goes over everything from high end cards to the low end, and ditto with CPUs, and gauges the effect of the CPU (nothing that the game is often GPU-limited).
     
  22. gangst macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    i kno the mac graphic cards have poor drivers, but why do pcs pretty much always destroy macs? is it to do more with clock cycles than to math done per a cycle?
    Whereas a 2.0G5 9600xt would beat pretty much any pcs at head to head editing and after effects work.
     
  23. JordanNZ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #24
    The reason why this game is running 'slowly' has nothing to do with the G5. It all comes down to graphics drivers/cards.

    Thats where the the slowdown is taking place.
     
  24. deanbo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    #25
    Doom 3 on Mac

    I wouldn't consider playing this game on anything less than a X800 XT PC or Mac.

    But when I look at the framerates of the Mac version, I agree with the first poster, this port is crap!
     

Share This Page