Doom3 Vs Half-life2

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mikey20

Gawd
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
762
which one of these will demand more from your system? I heard Doom 3 is more heavy. Will my setup run both ok? look at sig for specs below.
 
Doom3 can run on an XBOX. You'll be fine. Seriously man, read some articles and reviews out there.
 
the absolute truth here is that nobody knows how either game will run on anyone's current system :) . although if there was some way of knowing, i'd sure be interested.
 
Originally posted by obs
Doom3 can run on an XBOX. You'll be fine. Seriously man, read some articles and reviews out there.
Click to expand...

That's very probably wrong. The makers of HL2 have repeatedly emphasized that the game will run on relatively old hardware. Doom3, by contrast, is said to be much more demanding. No specifics there, but the previews indicate that.
 
These games aren't going to be out for another 4 months so you have pleanty of time to worry about it later ;)

I saw Doom3 was on pre-order at a local software store... crazy.
 
both half-life 2 and doom 3 are available for pre-orders....they are both scheduelled to be released on March!
 
well I beliieve the idea behind saying half life 2 will run on older hardware is by scaleing back the details and options. I'm sure the same thing will work for doom3. I'm betting that Doom3 won't look as well on the xbox as the PC, lower resolution and I'd imagine sacrificing some of the lvl of detail. no one knows for sure how well they will run on what kind of system. Especially doom3. however to give you an idea I do believe the E3 demo for Doom 3 was run with a 9800Pro at 640x480. But that was at pretty early stages of the game I believe... I'm sure its been optimized a little more since.

well thats all i can think of : /
 
It shouldnt be too bad on your setup... Your ram does hurt you a bit though, its slow and it would be better if u have 512 of pc3200 rather than 768 of pc2700.... but thats just me
 
heh, ID software is notorious for the amount of tweaking you can do on their games. My favourite is quake3, I swear with everything you can turn off (like animation and practically every special effect) on that game you can get it to run on an old 486.

I doubt their new games will be any different.
 
the reason doom ]I[ will need more power when compared to HL2 is because rendering a scene with multiple lights needs a lot of power. If you noticed, HL2 doesn't have much light sources.
 
Also from what I understand the amount of bump mapping doom III will use will be pretty killer.
 
Originally posted by laja
That's very probably wrong. The makers of HL2 have repeatedly emphasized that the game will run on relatively old hardware. Doom3, by contrast, is said to be much more demanding. No specifics there, but the previews indicate that.
Click to expand...
Sigh, Carmack said it himself. That's how I know (I was at Qcon 2002 as well).
 
If I remember correctly, the multiplayer demo of Doom III that many gaming sites and magazines played at QuakeCon was run at 640x480 on a 5600 Ultra. I'll post a link of I find one.
 
No one here can answer that question for you Mikey20 as no one here has played them. And guys...screw the press releases and Qcon. They're there to simply shut us up. If no one asked questions about the game 24/7 they wouldnt say squat about it because they know trying to realease hard facts about a game 1-2 years from its launch is a dangerous game. Nothings written in stone yet. You may be able play HL2 with mem. to spare while D3 may bring your PC to its knees. Who knows. 3 months till they hit.
 
if a 5600 ultra can run it, anything you pay money for now should be able to

i have a 9600 XT, but luckily with my birthday coming right when its released i will change that:D
 
Originally posted by 2phastPRO
And guys...screw the press releases and Qcon. They're there to simply shut us up.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a press release. It was what Carmack specifically said during his techno speech at Qcon.
 
Originally posted by BooyaAchieved
If I remember correctly, the multiplayer demo of Doom III that many gaming sites and magazines played at QuakeCon was run at 640x480 on a 5600 Ultra. I'll post a link of I find one.
Click to expand...

no, it was played on 5800 ultras....hardocp has a doom 3 early demo, the 5600 ultra got an ave of like 4 fps
 
well i hope that they dont dumb it down so that wussy little Xbox can run it, the doom legacy will in my heart be a true PC game, and if any xbox owners brag about having it, ill say "dude, you have an xbox..." and ill leave it at that
 
I find the statement about DoomIII for the Xbox sharing "full graphics fidelity" with the PC version funny. How much of an open ended statement is that? Thats like saying "our premium gas will burn the same way in your Yugo as it will in a Ferrari. While that statement is true, it tells us exactly jack shit about the end result.
 
If you notice the article say that they haven't even started working on the xbox version but they are very committed to it. I'd bet theres going to be some heavy tweaking going on just to get it to run well, You remember some of the DOOM ports right? :::Shivers::::(
 
Deus Ex 2 pulls off many of the same lighting tricks that D3 will do and it runs on the xbox. Not at a stellar framerate, but it does run, so D3 on the xbox is certainly possible.

In general, D3 is going to be a fillrate whore with only a few pixel shaders. And in the whole ATi vs nVidia debate, I think at least on the top end cards, nVidia is going to win with D3 simply because the 5900's have more raw fillrate.

Edit: Forgot to mention. nVidia's 5900's also have UltraShadow which is probably why there is a big gap between the 9800 and 5900 in the benchmarks and also why nVidia hardware is using a special codepath. So any ATi fanboy who sais nVidia's inferior because they arn't using ARB2 code, tell them to STFU, cus its realy because Carmak just wanted to exploit nVidia's hardware more.
 
With ti4xxx you should be able to play it. Anandtech did a prebenchmark way back when, with a raw beta version. Nvidia hardware will simply rock on D3. Still though I am less worried about if it will play well on my system. More with it either being too short, or having major suckage. I had high hopes for the Deus ex2 sequel, but alas it is both short and the interface sucks. The same goes for HL2. I won't buy it if it runs only ~10 hours of play. I can still remember the first one with well over 40 hours of play. Now theres gaming.
 
Originally posted by SCSI-Terminator
Deus Ex 2 pulls off many of the same lighting tricks that D3 will do and it runs on the xbox. Not at a stellar framerate, but it does run, so D3 on the xbox is certainly possible.

In general, D3 is going to be a fillrate whore with only a few pixel shaders. And in the whole ATi vs nVidia debate, I think at least on the top end cards, nVidia is going to win with D3 simply because the 5900's have more raw fillrate.

Edit: Forgot to mention. nVidia's 5900's also have UltraShadow which is probably why there is a big gap between the 9800 and 5900 in the benchmarks and also why nVidia hardware is using a special codepath. So any ATi fanboy who sais nVidia's inferior because they arn't using ARB2 code, tell them to STFU, cus its realy because Carmak just wanted to exploit nVidia's hardware more.
Click to expand...

Rofl :rolleyes: more like Carmack had to because of the FX's poor architecture just like Gabe Newell has to run mixed modes and dumb down the quality for FX's with Half-Life 2.
 
Kayoss, you must be going off this quote...

Not doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, to are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just to special houses of HL2 tails preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?

Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has to custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the Gf-fx, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is to lot slower. The precision doesn' t really matter to Doom, but that won' t be to reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as to minimum spec.

John Carmack
Click to expand...

So your right in the fact that there is going to be mixed mode stuff in doom. But note that Carmak sais the precision differences don't realy mater to Doom. So, if your doing less work for the same result, am I dumming down or optimizing? nVidia has also been quoted as saying that "The NV35 was built to play DOOM." (its in that benchmarking article I linked earlier) and the huge fillrate and new shadowing tech certainly supports their claim, as doom heavy lighting effects are going to need both.

Now DX9 stuff is a completely different beast, and there I do believe ATi is the winner hands down. So don't go thinking I'm a huge nVidia fanboy. I know the strengths and weaknesses of both, and right now, all of nVidia's strengths are something doom can take advantage of.
 
im sure that we will have to wait and see what the the new R420 core has to say about Nvidias 350 line being "made" for it:D

im sure either way will please you no doubt though
 
I think a lot of the pressure on the cards will come from the amount of expertise from each company. The one who knows more will be able to optimize it better, make it more dependant on whichever, and stuff like that. Same goes for the content, if the content is really hardcore, then it may run slower, may not.
 
Way back when the original Geforce3 was coming out, Carmack was talking about how it will allow him to do so much more in Doom3 and how you will need it to run the game in all its glory. When the Geforce4 came out, it was sort of the same thing. That was the new incredibley awesome card that was going to cost 400 bucks and run Doom3 like butter. Then the 9700 Pro came out and I remember all those videos at E3 a year or so ago were done on that, and they were really smooth. It is my opinion that these titles are just like any new game we've gawked at over the years. You'll need a top of the line system to run them with all the goodies on, but the larger part of the enthusiast crowed will have systems enough to enjoy the game with.

(BTW, friend with a Geforce4 TI4200 could run the leaked Doom3 and it looked great...that was unoptimized and low end (relatively) hardware. Relax, everyone, you'll be able to play these great games)
 
Just wait till the official demos are out people. Quoting old old news does nothing but bait the flamers. Fact is if you have the latest 400-500 dollar video card and a good, serious gaming rig, your gonna play the games fine and go :eek: for the first week or two.
 
Ive been playing a haxed version of doom3 for about 8 months, and trust me.. any card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines WILL NOT WORK. Dont even assume it will, it wont. I dont care what review say, they say it will run on mid ranged cards, which it will.. but it will run like crap.

NOTE* - If you want HL2 and D3, upgrade your pc, and get a $250+ video card.
 
Originally posted by theNoid
Ive been playing a haxed version of doom3 for about 8 months, and trust me.. any card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines WILL NOT WORK. Dont even assume it will, it wont. I dont care what review say, they say it will run on mid ranged cards, which it will.. but it will run like crap.

NOTE* - If you want HL2 and D3, upgrade your pc, and get a $250+ video card.
Click to expand...

the alpha in no way, shape, or form represents final, retail gameplay. i, too, have seen this run on a geforce4 ti4600 long ago and it did not run well. the code probably was far from final and hadn't been optimized much. id would be crazy to release a game that required such a graphics card.
 
Read the HardOCP article, it will run well on even a 5200Ultra. If you're really worried get a 5900SE for $189.
 
i've played the alpha version as well with the system in my sig except half the ram and without softmodding the 9800se so it was running with four pipelines.

basically it was running playable framerates. I do realise that the alpha version will be very different to the final version especially as it was made well over a year ago now. considering it will have most likely been greatly optimised since then i dont think your gonna have any problem running it.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the market the developers are aiming at here and assuming that you absolutely will have to have the best hardware to run the games. thats bullshit, if hl2 and D3 were made that way they are gonna be ignoring the bulk of the market, the people with 9500's and 5600 account for a huge portion of the market and if the games are not made to run on these then a huge amount of revenue will be lost.
 
Originally posted by theNoid
Ive been playing a haxed version of doom3 for about 8 months, and trust me.. any card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines WILL NOT WORK. Dont even assume it will, it wont. I dont care what review say, they say it will run on mid ranged cards, which it will.. but it will run like crap.

NOTE* - If you want HL2 and D3, upgrade your pc, and get a $250+ video card.
Click to expand...

So........... anyone with a "card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines" won't be able to run "a haxed version of doom3" very well. So what.

The final D3 will work fine with older cards (ID wants to make a lot of $$).
 
Originally posted by theNoid
Ive been playing a haxed version of doom3 for about 8 months, and trust me.. any card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines WILL NOT WORK. Dont even assume it will, it wont. I dont care what review say, they say it will run on mid ranged cards, which it will.. but it will run like crap.

NOTE* - If you want HL2 and D3, upgrade your pc, and get a $250+ video card.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is not even close to what the final will be like.

Besides you must be pretty bored to be playing 3 levels for 8 months ... :D
 
Originally posted by theNoid
Ive been playing a haxed version of doom3 for about 8 months, and trust me.. any card that doesn't support 8 pixel pipelines WILL NOT WORK. Dont even assume it will, it wont. I dont care what review say, they say it will run on mid ranged cards, which it will.. but it will run like crap.

NOTE* - If you want HL2 and D3, upgrade your pc, and get a $250+ video card.
Click to expand...
That is so totally ignorant it's beyond belief. That alpha version was NEVER meant for public consumption. It was meant to run on one specific computer well enough to not have visual slowdown. That computer was a P4 w/ 9700 pro. Anything other than that computer and it will really run like shit.
 
Dang... Seven days in the New Year and already those goes that New Year's Resolution of not having another Doom 3 vs. HL2 thread.

*** Spoiler Warning! ***

This thread will soon further degenerate into a small flamewar based on past quotes, outdated web articles and speculation. From there terms like fanboi, nazi, lamer and "that's so ghey" are used to the point where the thread collapses under it's own weight, then forms a black hole from which posters memories of this thread are then sucked in. Posters, having lost their memory then post another D3 vs HL2 thread asking the same questions causing the cycle to continue over and over again.
 
Originally posted by Torgo


This thread will soon further degenerate into a small flamewar based on past quotes, outdated web articles and speculation. From there terms like fanboi, nazi, lamer and "that's so ghey" are used to the point where the thread collapses under it's own weight, then forms a black hole from which posters memories of this thread are then sucked in. Posters, having lost their memory then post another D3 vs HL2 thread asking the same questions causing the cycle to continue over and over again.
Click to expand...


Hahhaa, nice.
 
i think we've gone over this a zillion times.

doom 3 and half-life 2 will run on geforce 2's with 600 mhz processors. BUT if you want all the frilly crap at full blast then get the highest end crap. why is that so hard to understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top