The Official DOOM 3 [H]ardware Guide thread.

zioburosky13 said:
Hi there.This is my first time :cool: in the forum and I have some question about my hardware and Doom3.I want speed and performance too.What quality should I use based on my system?

AMD AthlonXP2800+
Gigabyte GA-7VA
2 sticks of Kingston VAlueRAM PC2700 512MB=1GB
Ati Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB.

Also,does a 7200Rpm HD and 2 MB buffer really speed-up the load-time of the game?
Click to expand...

Based on the data shown on this page

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQ0LDY=

I would say you are looking at playing 800 x 600 and Medium quality settings, but that's my intrepretation based on the data presented.

A 2mb buffer HD is considered one of the "slower" these days. 8mb buffers are faster in almost every case.
 
Disabling shadows will only hurt the campers, lol.

Anybody who knows what they're doing will be running the same old routes between rocket launcher, quad, and red armor. ;)


Lets assume there is a great, completely shadowed 'camp/ambush' site. Everybody will know about it and you know what they'll do? Every time they run by, they'll splash it and listen for pain sounds.
 
jesteadt said:
I've seen this asked several times, but no good answer. Mike Ryan was asking almost the same thing. Intel systems and 9800 pro = med quality. AMD XP systems (a lesser system, comparing similar classes of CPUs, by all accounts I've seen) and 9800 pro are shown with a high quality setting. Doesn't make any sense. Kyle or Brent, fill us in!!!
Click to expand...

After looking at the results, we see that the high quality setting on the 9800 pro got a minimum 7 fps while the medium setting on the 9800 pro got a minimum of 21 fps. We just need to wait for the game to come out to see which setting would be the best playable but yet have the IQ as well. Maybe for multiplayer, we need to put the quality down to medium.
 
Arkanian said:
I wonder if Doom 3 will have PB for multiplayer.
Click to expand...
Didn't Q3A have PB? Not really sure, but if it did, Doom 3 will probably have it as well.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
I think Half Life will be just about as big as D3...especially with mods and CS:S and all that stuff...but I also think the 6800s will beat ATi there too...:)
Click to expand...

Remember, Doom 3 is OpenGL while HL2 is DirectX. Nvidia arctitecture and drivers are better for OpenGL games while ATI is better for DX games. I think that in HL2, ATI will win but by like 1-3 fps. Think about, everyone is going to buy the 6800 series just for one game!! Personally if I had the cash, I would buy the 6800 too. But even if I did buy it, I wouldn't be able to run at Ultra settings because it only has 256 megs of RAM. I am going to wait until 512 meg cards come out :D
 
Arkanian said:
Remember, Doom 3 is OpenGL while HL2 is DirectX.
Click to expand...

i'm pretty sure he knows that. but with a sm3.0 going to be implemented for halflife 2 and nvidia and ati are pretty neck and neck in directx, so why not?
 
Arkanian said:
After looking at the results, we see that the high quality setting on the 9800 pro got a minimum 7 fps while the medium setting on the 9800 pro got a minimum of 21 fps. We just need to wait for the game to come out to see which setting would be the best playable but yet have the IQ as well. Maybe for multiplayer, we need to put the quality down to medium.
Click to expand...

Kyle already said that the last minute of the chart is part of a cutscene and isn't a good indicator of actual gameplay... which is where EVERY card has a low spike. And that 7fps is for two seconds, tops. I'm not even talking about the FPS ratings. All I want to know is why the Athlon XP and the 9800 got high quality, and the Intel P4 with the 9800 got medium... sorry if I'm being belligerent, but inquisitive minds want to know...
 
Arkanian said:
Remember, Doom 3 is OpenGL while HL2 is DirectX. Nvidia arctitecture and drivers are better for OpenGL games while ATI is better for DX games. I think that in HL2, ATI will win but by like 1-3 fps. Think about, everyone is going to buy the 6800 series just for one game!! Personally if I had the cash, I would buy the 6800 too. But even if I did buy it, I wouldn't be able to run at Ultra settings because it only has 256 megs of RAM. I am going to wait until 512 meg cards come out :D
Click to expand...

ATI isn't better for DX Games. ATI rarely squeekes out a win in a DX game without AF enabled. That means its their AF performance thats holding them in it. Its their driver optimizations that give their cards a boost. If you would see how much performance the X800's lose with Tri and AF ops off you would know what i mean. The 6800's lose very little performance with Tri and AF ops. They lose like 1-2 fps with AF ops off. The 6800's havn't hardly even been optimized yet. Wait till the 62.xx series drivers start coming out. nVidia is supposedly increasing their optimizing scheme then. Much of a performance boost and the 6800's will take the lead in DX games. The 6800's are already the faster cards for Anti Aliasing and for high resolutions without AF.

Were not buying the 6800 for ONE game. Were buying it for EVERY game. The 6800 can compete against the X800 in any DX game out there. And alot of the time it can do it while running full Trilinear filtering. Something the X800 cannot do.

Here are a couple of of the newest 6800 vs X800 reviews:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_con...D95DDC4A8F963FC2C3E5C22B472046C051310D91DDA7A
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=675

Looks like the 6800u is the better card in ALOT of games and not just in ONE. I'm not sure about the tweaktown review though because the 6800 pummeled the X800XT into the dirt lol.

The X800XT PE definitely does not lead in DirectX. You guys need to get out and look at more benchmarks then Far Cry and UT2004 considering there are hundreds of DX games and games like that are the most highly optimized by graphics companys.

And i'm sick of seeing that stupid vanilla X800XT in Anandtech's reviews lol:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1363347&enterthread=y
 
Heh, my friend, who's somewhat new to PC gaming, insists that Doom3 is going to be complete ass on his system. He has a P4 2.4B, GF4MX 128mb, 512mb DDR. He even read the hardware guide, and he insists that the game won't even be worth playing on his computer.

I keep telling him that it'll be fine, it'll have all or almost all of the special effects; most notably the universal lighting. But nooooooooooooooooo he dosen't want to "get into it" until he get's a new card. Since he's being so stubborn, I'm not going to let him even see it on my PC (3.0c, 9700np) until he gives it a shot on his PC. He'll break, oh yes, he'll break. I don't think he could handle that I have Doom3 and I'm playing it and he could very well be doing the same if he weren't such a stubborn shithead who scarcely know what he's talking about concerning of PC gaming and hardware performance.
 
LOL you should atleast let him see like 5 minutes of it, that will change his mind. :D
 
burningrave101 said:
And nVidia hasn't even began to optimize their drivers for the 6800's yet. Their still pretty much running with beta's. ATI's X800XT PE is running off mature drivers that are highly optimized. If you turn off Tri and AF ops for the 6800's they lose very little performance. AF ops even come OFF by default now. This just shows that nVidia hasn't needed to optimize very much to have a card that runs as fast as the X800's.
Click to expand...

I honestly think the x800 have just as long to go with driver updates as nVidia.

It's like saying "Oh, that game uses the same engine as "blah" so it doesn't need to be patched."
 
Smith said:
I honestly think the x800 have just as long to go with driver updates as nVidia.

It's like saying "Oh, that game uses the same engine as "blah" so it doesn't need to be patched."
Click to expand...

the new nvidia drivers haven't really been given much chance to mature yet, just wait with future releases. while ati have had their newest series of drivers out for a bit now,
 
lorcani said:
Didn't Q3A have PB? Not really sure, but if it did, Doom 3 will probably have it as well.
Click to expand...

It did, but it was only added late in the game's lifespan. I hear more people complain about PB than anything else.
 
People complain about it due to a major slowdown in the first few minutes after connecting, but everyone loves it when it catches someone. I think its safe to assume doom3 has pb.
 
jesteadt said:
Kyle already said that the last minute of the chart is part of a cutscene and isn't a good indicator of actual gameplay... which is where EVERY card has a low spike. And that 7fps is for two seconds, tops. I'm not even talking about the FPS ratings. All I want to know is why the Athlon XP and the 9800 got high quality, and the Intel P4 with the 9800 got medium... sorry if I'm being belligerent, but inquisitive minds want to know...
Click to expand...


As I have said a lot of times I think that nobody wants to be belligerent...Its just it is really strange and the only thing in the guide that is somehow " illogical "..I agree with you, I always seek some explanation only for an inquisitive mind...of course maybe the only solution and answer will be playing the game next week and see by ourselves..But I dont forget that this may be an error...
 
Smith said:
I honestly think the x800 have just as long to go with driver updates as nVidia.

It's like saying "Oh, that game uses the same engine as "blah" so it doesn't need to be patched."
Click to expand...


Better be careful, me might come back saying the X800 is the same core as the 9700pro <which its not lol>

DASHlT
 
Sou| Colossus said:
Heh, my friend, who's somewhat new to PC gaming, insists that Doom3 is going to be complete ass on his system. He has a P4 2.4B, GF4MX 128mb, 512mb DDR. He even read the hardware guide, and he insists that the game won't even be worth playing on his computer.

I keep telling him that it'll be fine, it'll have all or almost all of the special effects; most notably the universal lighting. But nooooooooooooooooo he dosen't want to "get into it" until he get's a new card. Since he's being so stubborn, I'm not going to let him even see it on my PC (3.0c, 9700np) until he gives it a shot on his PC. He'll break, oh yes, he'll break. I don't think he could handle that I have Doom3 and I'm playing it and he could very well be doing the same if he weren't such a stubborn shithead who scarcely know what he's talking about concerning of PC gaming and hardware performance.
Click to expand...

Well unless Doom 3 did normal maps without pixel shaders well then the mx is fine then. Since there is no way doing normal maps without pixel shaders hmm I think thats one feature the game won't have running on the gf 4 mx's.
 
DASHlT said:
Better be careful, me might come back saying the X800 is the same core as the 9700pro <which its not lol>

DASHlT
Click to expand...
Actually there isn't much different between the 9700 core and the X800 core, really now haven't you read anything on the X800? :rolleyes:
 
CrimandEvil said:
Actually there isn't much different between the 9700 core and the X800 core, really now haven't you read anything on the X800? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ditto its almost identical.
 
rancor said:
Ditto its almost identical.
Click to expand...
Well almost, it's like the difference between a 9700 and a 9800 but the X800 is like an advance 9800 (which is like a 9700)....damn now I have a headache...damn you ATI. :D
 
Well thats why they havn't been really any major speed boosts from driver updates for ATi. There is no more to optimize
 
Sou| Colossus said:
Heh, my friend, who's somewhat new to PC gaming, insists that Doom3 is going to be complete ass on his system. He has a P4 2.4B, GF4MX 128mb, 512mb DDR. He even read the hardware guide, and he insists that the game won't even be worth playing on his computer.

I keep telling him that it'll be fine, it'll have all or almost all of the special effects; most notably the universal lighting. But nooooooooooooooooo he dosen't want to "get into it" until he get's a new card. Since he's being so stubborn, I'm not going to let him even see it on my PC (3.0c, 9700np) until he gives it a shot on his PC. He'll break, oh yes, he'll break. I don't think he could handle that I have Doom3 and I'm playing it and he could very well be doing the same if he weren't such a stubborn shithead who scarcely know what he's talking about concerning of PC gaming and hardware performance.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the biggest thing that he is going to miss is the heat haze since he doesnt have a DX9 card.
 
Only way this review could have been more thorough would be if Kyle and Brent came to my house with a van full of hardware.

I don't suppose there's any chance of that :) ?

Great job guys
 
DASHlT said:
WOW lets see 9700pro is .15 and X800 series is .13

And I am wondering what proof you have that it is the same core?....links <not nvnews>?...dont need to put down ATI every chance ya get...gets old

DASHlT
P.S. I am buy a 6800GT soon <not an FANBOY of either ATI or Nvidia>
Click to expand...


See the following:

Digital-Daily said:
For ATI chips, such an urgent transition was not so critical. Their R300 core (which served as the basis for further R360 and current R420) had fewer transistors (115 mln) owing to the optimum chip architecture.
Click to expand...
Digital-Daily
---
A1-Electronics said:
The X800 core is based on the earlier R300 core as used in the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro graphics card which is different to Nvidia who have had to completely redesign their graphics processor cores.
Click to expand...
A1-electroncis
---
Firing Squad said:
Rather than starting with a blank piece of paper however, ATI’s X800 engineering team decided to take the best aspects of R300, improve on them, and spice up the formula a bit by adding a few new features.
Click to expand...
Firing Squad
---
ExtremeTech said:
Until this point, we had assumed that the "X" (as in X800) was the naming convention for their new architecture based on the R420 core. However, these GPUs are based on the older R300 architecture.
Click to expand...
ExtremeTech
---
(Autotranslated)
3D Center said:
The R420, first also admits Loki "as project", should not thereby not the large technological project like the R400 become, but the proven technology of the preceding chips R300 (Radeon 9700/pro) , R350 (Radeon 9800/pro) and R360 (Radeon 9800XT) in substantially improved way to resume, without beginning thereby however a generally new Design as with the R400.
Click to expand...
3D Center
---
Hardware Analysis said:
In essence the R420 architecture is a further development of the R360 architecture which debuted with the Radeon 9600 XT and 9800 XT graphics cards.
Click to expand...
(The R360 was a revised R300)
Hardware Analysis
---
Just because this chip sized shrunk doesn't mean it's an entirely new core.
 
i personally do not care if its based off the R300... it isnt like that is a bad thing. it seems to be doing quite well barring their ogl support in drivers. which will be fixed in time.

reguarding the article however, im glad to see the 6800GT running quite well with the athlon xp system.
 
paraiso36 u are crazy!! an amd 64 3000 is faster than any p4 3.2 in games.. and if u are talking about new games even a 3.4 extreme edition will fall behind the 3000 lol!
u can compare a p4 with an axp but not with an a64 when u talk about gaming performance.


ps: ant newcastle amd 64 3000 can be clocked to 2,3 ghz with stock cooling easily, wich is = to +- 3500+ :D just look at the overclock they did with the 3000 :p
 
Jason711 said:
I personally do not care if its based off the R300... it isnt like that is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Too bad DASHlT doesn't believe that. Yes is does perform nicely but I'd be worried about the next year or so games putting too much stress on such an old core (by the looks or it it's optimizations seem to be the limit of the chip...almost I'd say).

Regarding Doom 3 and our OpenGL drivers, I think it's fair to say that performance improvements are coming, but it's not likely that we're going to one day just release a completely new and redesigned driver. Over the last couple of years our policy has been to release frequent, incremental driver updates, and we expect this to continue since it has worked very well so far. It lets us roll out changes gradually, and respond quickly if we discover any problems. It also ensures that we can maintain our high standards of stability.
Click to expand...
 
I'm running 3.6ghz on a ic7-max3 with a x800pro oc'd to 500/500....it's not much of a oc but it does help a little, I was kind of sorry to see that the tests didn't use the ic7-max3 on one of it's test machines. There also wasn't a x800pro @3.6ghz tested :( But, I guess I have sometihng to do when I get the game.... ;) I'm sure I won't have a problem at all but it'll be fun to benchmark it and see what my machine does..... Thanks for the [H]ard work Kyle.... I thought id's nvidia results were a little one sided but yours really gives a clear picture on just how the game will perform across the board. :)
 
superpata said:
paraiso36 u are crazy!! an amd 64 3000 is faster than any p4 3.2 in games.. and if u are talking about new games even a 3.4 extreme edition will fall behind the 3000 lol!
u can compare a p4 with an axp but not with an a64 when u talk about gaming performance.


ps: ant newcastle amd 64 3000 can be clocked to 2,3 ghz with stock cooling easily, wich is = to +- 3500+ :D just look at the overclock they did with the 3000 :p
Click to expand...

an athlon xp 3200+ is right at the p4 3.2's heals and the a64 is about 25% faster per clock cycle.
 
Hi there!
First post for me. I own a Geforce Ti 4200 (64mb) at Ti 4400 speed. You played Doom 3 with a Ti 4600 (128mb). I have two questions:

1.) Will i be limited to low quality settings as my card only provides 64 mb memory or is it possible that the game will run on medium quality as well?

2.) If i could only run it on low settings, do you think i will be able to play it at 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 resolutions?
 
geforce 3 is better than the ge force 4mx?


is it possible to find cheap gf3's nowadays?
 
Geta said:
Hello Ladies...question for the guys that ran the test. Heres me system

Athlon XP @ 2.5Ghz , 476Mhz FSB
1 GB DDR 1:1 FSB
nf7-s
xfx 6800 GT @ Ultra

you believe I'll be able to play @ 1280x1024 4xaa and 8xaf HQ? I dont care if its dips to like 25FPS once in a while.
Click to expand...


did you even read the article?
 
I was talking to someone at my local EBgames about the release date for doom3 {like you WILL have this on the 3rd right}, I mentioned it was going to be a HUGE title you know and he said,,,

I dont think so, most of the customers here cant meet the minimum requirements. avg pc is 1.2 of my customers...

I was kinda shocked to hear that...food for thought...

the people in these forums may not realize how elite our systems really are compared to joe schmo at home....who doesnt belong to say Hardocp, overclockers.com..etc.......
 
superpata said:
paraiso36 u are crazy!! an amd 64 3000 is faster than any p4 3.2 in games.. and if u are talking about new games even a 3.4 extreme edition will fall behind the 3000 lol!
u can compare a p4 with an axp but not with an a64 when u talk about gaming performance.


ps: ant newcastle amd 64 3000 can be clocked to 2,3 ghz with stock cooling easily, wich is = to +- 3500+ :D just look at the overclock they did with the 3000 :p
Click to expand...

and a 3.0 can be overclocked to near 4 ghz grasshopper...
 
theelviscerator said:
did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

The hardware guide was made so people could come here, post their rig, then ask how it'll perform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top