Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by MacsRgr8, Mar 21, 2005.
Doom 3 timedemo demo1
Mac 1) vs Mac 2) vs. PC
sorry the layout is not so nice....
But it does show some nice results:
Notice the same framerates on the Mac 2) , running medium or high quality on rez. up until 1024...
There are too many variables here to conclude anything. Maybe it you use the same gfx card and keep the memory the same...
I know it's not very clear...
But Mac 1) and Mac 2) are different Macs.
I have run these tests on both Macs.
640 x 480 medium and high
800 x 600 medium and high
1024 x 768 medium and high
Should cover most setups.
The 1600x x 1200 tests were only done on the Mac 2)
take screenshot of this data in a more readable format (a table, for example) and upload that screenshot here.
any way you could do some others? for example, more than 1 with the PC?
why don't you have results of the macs running doom 3 at ultra high?
I'll do that
OK, I'll add mine into the mix...
19.4fps/21.6fps for the two runs, as suggested on barefeats. I ran command "timedemo demo 1 1", all details turned off at 640x480 - no, not at the defaults, I went in and turned all the snazzy stuff off.
My machine is a Powerbook rev. c 12"!
Much, much better than expected... considering I'm below both the minimum CPU and RAM totals, using the FX5200. Ran it in a window so I could see my MenuMeters performance; the CPU was not maxed out, but I was disk swapping. I played through the first portion of the game, it was a little jerky but playable - again, down to the lack of memory.
So, in conclusion. This game will certainly run on your older machines, just deal with low details. Can't wait to get another 1G stick in this thing...
OK. Apologies for not being clear.
Hope this is better:
That's interesting. I still highly doubt my 12 incher will be any good at all for it because it's a generation older (only 1GHz and with 32MB VRAM) - in fact I'd say no hope in hell, right?
BTW, sorry for appearing dumb, but what exactly is the time demo? Can I download if from somewhere?
It is a non-audio 2148 frames demo measuring the amount of time needed for rendering these frames.
Press <CTRL> <OPTION> <~> and type "timedemo demo1" to start it.
Always do this demo twice for "real" readings
It's a command you can run inside the game, which runs a predefined sequence and measures the time taken, to acquire an average frames/sec result.
And no, you cannot download a timedemo. At this point, there is only the retail doom3 avaliable. Perhaps they will release a demo that will allow us to run a timedemo at some future point.
On another note, Were these benchmarks with shadows on or off?
Shadows were on! Didn't want to mess around too much.
thanks for showing more of the PC numbers so that people could see.
this game is normally very GPU-limited...but clearly the dual 2.0 with RAID 0 still isn't getting past the CPU limitation...that's why the FPS is still pretty low on low resolutions...I don't think the OpenGL implimentation is the biggest hurdle anymore...it looks like the G5 is the slow-down...ugh.
As you can see from the PC numbers, at 640x480, the game should be FLYING with a fast processor and good graphics card...there is a difference between that and 1600x1200 on the Mac, but not nearly as much as there should be...Which tells me that at low resolutions, the G5's graphics card...at least when using a 6800...is waiting around for things to do...
No support for widescreen like 1680 X 1050?
I do agree with you that at lower resolutions such as 640x480 the game rather utlizes the main cpu than the gpu but somehow I have a feeling that the game wasnt G5 optimized at all or if it was then they need to hire better programmers... Anyway, one example of a game that quickly entered my mind when I saw theses benchmarks was like is this a Quake 3 deja vu again? Quake 3 back in its day was the most sophisticated graphics engine of its time... anyway, the first version of that game for a mac the frame rates were definately lagging behind the PC counterparts... But through better programming after a few patches that same game on a Mac suddenly gave PC counterparts a real run for its money where the top high end Macs with top high end GPUs were actually giving faster frame rates than high end PCs... So I will make this short, graphics drivers are one thing but optimizations are another and somehow I know that Doom developers didnt put too much heart in developing for the Mac version simply because it costs money to really do so and knowing that Apple has a small market share to begin with they just wanted to get rich the easiest possible way...
Hold Down Command when starting the game - wide screen works!
Hehe, the moment you said Quake 3 reminded me of how Apple claimed that the P4 got 275 frames. Puahaha, that was a good laugh. Too bad that stuff has been taken down.
Really? Is that documented? I have game coming in tomorrow.
the problem with the quake 3 example is that by the time Macs were as fast as PCs in Quake 3, PCs had moved on and added all of the shader-based graphics stuff that you see today, and the engines (even the Q3 engine) that were in use relied on things that Macs still don't do very well.
An example of this that PC gamers will understand:
3D Mark 2001 has been a very useful benchmarking tool for years, but as time goes on, it becomes less and less relevant. When you are averaging 200 fps in most of the tests, then the results become less important, because you don't care if you are getting 200 or 240 fps...you can't see the difference. Let's say there are 2 machines that you can buy. One of them gets 24,000 3dMark01 points and 2,000 3dMark05 points. The other one gets only 20,000 3dMark01 points, but gets 3,500 3dMark05 points.
If you play Quake 3, then the first computer will be of more interest to you.
If you play doom 3 or HL2, then you'll be wanting the 2nd machine, because it does better when processing more complex and modern graphical elements like shaders, etc. I made those numbers up, so there isn't a real-world example of a graphics card that does Dx7-level stuff slower and Dx9 stuff faster. In general, they are faster on both fronts...
but the time is coming soon when, because of complex calculations and specialized programming, a computer will be able to do good on modern tests, but still fall behind an "older" one with less recent technology.
So what if you get 400 fps in Quake 3. That doesn't improve your Doom 3 experience...indeed, focusing on squeezing out some more Q3 frames is a total waste of time.
The technologies that Doom 3 uses test parts of the computer/graphics card that didn't even exist when Q3 was released. Today's game graphics are beginning to focus more on feature sets and less on raw speed. There will always be people who want to play everything at 100+ fps...and they can go buy SLI motherboards and put 2 6800 Ultras in there...woo hoo.
I'd rather buy a car with that money, though, because a DX9-level graphics card that can do 200 fps in Doom 3 benchmarks won't mean anything when Doom 5 comes out and runs better on 150 dollar then-modern graphics cards that can only manage 100 fps in doom 3.
I find it very interesting what really made the big difference between the two Dual 1.8 GHz G5s running @ 640 x 480, Medium quality.
29.9 vs. 37.8 on these low settings on a similar GPU seems like a huge difference to me...
Is the Radeon 9600 the bottleneck here?
Is it RAM?
Or the RAID0 vs. no RAID?
I think it is the 9600 vs. 6800.
Increasing the rez to 800 x 600 with the same medium settings, made no difference on the "faster" Mac, but did show quite dramatic framerate drops on the Mac with the Radeon.
Anyone have a DP 1.8 GHz G5 with Radeon 9800 (OEM or SE or XT) who would care to run the same tests?
People hated Quake when it was first introduced. The graphics were so far beyond Doom that the systems at the time couldn't deal with the game efficiently enough. It was only after 2 years when the PC and graphic cards were fast enough to handle Quake that the game started to take off.
I'm sure the same goes for Doom 3. The graphics engine of this game is completely amazing. Very realistic, especially if they could in the future support s-curve and bezier splines inside of those chunky polygons. In 2 years as well, Doom 3 and their subsequent mods will be very popular.
It probably won't be for another decade before John Carmack and the folks at Id come up with a new, more amazing graphics engine to drive the next generation 3D shooter.
yup, it says it in the readme file. just launch Doom 3, then immediatly hold the APPLE key, a small window will pop up with custom resolutions and a couple options.
oh, and for the record (I have said it in mulitple posts here). the time demo on my PB (see sig), 896x480, Low detail, I get an average of 24fps. see my post 'doom 3 on a powerbook...' for more information
My point was that Quake 3 in the beginning Mac lagged big time behind PCs BUT as time went on and the ID programmers actually took some time to improve and optimize the game for a Mac all of a sudden Apple wasnt such a bad gaming machine at all... I am more than sure that Doom 3 is heavily SSE2 and 3DNow optimized where they barely touched upon Altivec cuz all in all Altivec is a couple of years old and nothing in the Wintel world comes close...