Doom3 only 24fps @ 640x480? wtf

Discussion in 'Games' started by RobHague, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. RobHague macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #1
    I made a post today about AGP and NVIDIA. I was just voicing concerns over the fact that no AGP for PC would mean no AGP for Mac users then..

    Anyhow someone in the thread was claiming that Doom3 runs at only 24fps @ 640x480 on the highest end mac?

    http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53346 <<< There, better than me posting the entire convo

    I thought the benchmarks i saw were pretty good but them im hearing stuff about "heavy optimizations" and what-not. Is this FUD or is there any truth to it? Sorry im just like a day or so away from placing my Mac order and you know what its like to hear bad things about your new toy before you have it :eek:
     
  2. Beigean macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    i'd say that person is wrong, unless they meant the highest-end Powerbook.

    http://www.macologist.org/viewtopic.php?t=1104

    at 1024x768/high detail, a 2GHz G5 does 31.6 fps, and a 2.5 does 47.1 (better than its 640 score). not that it's terribly impressive, but it's better than that person's claims.
     
  3. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    the G5 supports PCI-E fine (evaulation linux boards have pci-e slots), there is nothing holding apple back by not incudeing it atm, it'll probably come in the next revision, plently of pc's still use agp and it's no slower in real world use than pci-e.
     
  4. crachoar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ohio
    #4
    What does 'FUD' mean?

    Don't worry - Doom 3 is an awful game.

    And yes, it runs like balls. Get an Xbox if you want to play it - for whatever sick reason you might have to torture yourself like that...
     
  5. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #5
    according to urbandictionary.com it either means fear, uncertainty, and doubt; or ****ed up data. not sure which applies here :confused:
     
  6. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #6
    Doom3 performance is very much dependent on what kind of video card is in the Mac.
     
  7. crachoar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ohio
    #7
    Not really.
     
  8. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #8
    Speaking of FUD.... Actually, Doom3 is a decent game, just overhyped, and it runs pretty well on my G5. And yes, it very much is dependent on what graphics card you have; any number of benchmarks prove this....

    --Eric
     
  9. Striderdm1 macrumors regular

    Striderdm1

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    England
    #9
    dual 2ghz G5 with nvidia 6800 card @ 1280x1074. Just under 55fps in the timedemo test without shadows.. in game speeds are usually about that but can drop to 30/40fps during fightscenes or scenes where there's much going on.. iyswim. I leave shadows on fwiw.. stunning effects.

    Generally speaking it's superb and i'm happy. Doom3 rocks and i love it to pieces ;) Try it with Green Tech Mod enabled, good mod that! There's also some well excellent 3rd party maps out there, check out: Executive Quarters for one. Amazing stuff.
     
  10. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #10
    doom 3 without shadows turned on is quake 3 with bigger textures...
     
  11. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    i prefer quake, at least it supports head shots....
     
  12. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
  13. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #13
    24 FPS? is Totally False at 640*480 under 10.4.2 running a Dual 2.5Ghz G5 with Geforce 6800GT overclocked to Ultra I get about 55+ FPS. I can even go up to my native 1680x1050 resoltion in Ultra Quality mode with everything on except FSAA (which is not neccessary at that high of a native resolution) and can get as high as 44.2 FPS.
     
  14. Striderdm1 macrumors regular

    Striderdm1

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    England
    #14
    true. I think there are a lot of D3 haters in here, sadly.. :( My mac is the slower dual 2ghz but i suffer no areas that are unplayable, everything is nice and smooth. Superb game
     
  15. louis_sx macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    International House of Louis
    #15
    well, if 24fps (constant) is good enough to pass for "motion video" on DVD's, then it's surely good enough for me. :D
     
  16. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #16

    trouble is the framerate is only as good as it's lowest dip, like in WoW my pc dose 60fps 90% of the time but sometimes takes a nose dive so i have to run with some settings turned down.
     
  17. mindaugas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    #17
    just fyi, we humans see at 30fps ... anything there is awesome. Anything above is just bragging rights.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    Sort of but we dont have a shutter or stutter, when spinning around rooms and jumping around 30fps doesnt allways get it done but 65 FPS does and my single year old 2.2 ghz athlon can accomplish that and thats at 1280 x 1024. PPC is over rated folks.
     
  19. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #19
    Wrongo. Humans don't see using frames per second, and it's very possible for a normal person to tell the difference between, say, 60fps and 120fps. Anything past 100 or so tends to be hard or impossible for most people to distinguish, but 30 is way way too low. Which is not to say that 30fps isn't playable, 'cause it is, or else all those millions of PS2/GameCube/Xbox owners are deluding themselves. (And the PAL folks are stuck at 25fps....)

    PPC has zip to do with it. Enough resources thrown at re-writing Doom3 would have the performance at least on par with x86, but the amount of sales doesn't justify that, unfortunately. (Some games that were actually developed with PPC in mind, such as First to Fight, have lower system requirements than x86, at least as far as MHz goes.)

    --Eric
     
  20. freiheit macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    California
    #20
    Well as the ever wonderful comic strip User Friendly once noted, Doom3 requires the biggest and best hardware available and yet the game is completely dark. :)
     
  21. mindaugas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    #21
    My 2200+ (1.8GHz) and Radeon 9600XT managed pretty well too. Although that video card kept the frame rates down and me at 1024x768, but definately didn't have any problems. Of course this starts the age old flame war, Macs don't play games.

    Ok, maybe only I can't see above 30fps.
     
  22. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #22
    Gee... when I had my 900 MHz Duron, I was getting 15 FPS with a Radeon9600 and half a gig of RAM. 640x480. Was actually smooth, but when you went thru doors it dropped to around 8, then would build back up. Remember, that movies and such are only 30 FPS. And they look as smooth as butter.
     
  23. Xeem macrumors 6502a

    Xeem

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #23
    This is very true; no stock Mac video card is going to run Doom 3 very well. I'm very disappointed in Apple's decision to go with a Radeon 9650 in the highest end Powermac. If it wasn't good enough for my PC a year ago, it shouldn't be good enough for any Mac now. They could've at least gone with a 9800 or so...
     
  24. gammamonk macrumors 6502a

    gammamonk

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    #24
    My university did a study on this a few years ago. They wanted to find out exactly how many FPS is the limit of perception. The problem was they couldn't find a limit. They setup a lab with gamers and systems, control sets, the whole works. They found that no matter how high they went, the players just got better. They reached the limit of their hardware, and never found the human limit.
     
  25. DeSnousa macrumors 68000

    DeSnousa

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #25
    May i ask what fps this got up too. Sounds like an interesting study :)
     

Share This Page