Think the 9800 pro 128mb is enough for Doom 3 on highest detail level?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
I dont know why this threads gets so heated.. Well maybe I do but I wont say it :)

But, there is no way of knowing.. We can only assume and by what was stated by the developer...

I have to admit I didnt keep up with Doom3 as much as I would like, So I dont know if it is OpenGL or DX..

If it IS OpenGL, then ATI has a problem since OpenGL doesnt run that well on ATI :( Even there 9800Pro is slower then FX5800 when it comes to OpenGL...

If it is DX8 or DX9 then ATI sure has a lead on it :) But if there new version of nVidia Geforce series is released prior to Doom3.. Then who knows?

---

The game will be running on OpenGL. Hopefully ATI get's their act together before then. Besides, if your worried about it, the Nvidia cards run AA and AF really badly so I guess it evens the playing field in a way.

Thanks for the info :)

I know the GF doesnt sparkle with AA or AF.. But even if it disabled the card should do rather well... Better then the ATI card without AA/AF :)

So there wont be a DX option? Interesting...

As far as I know it's being made with only OpenGL though I don't know if it's possible to get DX and OGL to work together.

so no reason to get a radeon9700 non pro for doom3, seeing Nvidia wins in openGL and I dont use fsaa, seeing I can run high res instead

The only sad thing is I dont recall any benchies with OpenGL with AA/AF...

Most were just stock settings with OpenGL, so I am not sure how bad or good ATI will be against nVidia :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
1600x1200x32 max details with 4x fsaa and 8x aa should be no trouble at all :D should get you about 50fps too. If you dont want fsaa, youll exceed 100fps :D I should get about 60fps in 1600x1200x32 medium details, no fsaa

---

*sigh*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alientank
I don't know if it's possible to get DX and OGL to work together.

---

this was a possibility back in 1998;

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...dn_torborg.asp

but i think this has been canned once SGI sold its opengl IP to microsoft. so microsoft can solely concentrate on directx.

edit: for those too lazy to go to the link or scroll down;

MSDN: Is Fahrenheit the code name for DirectX 7?

TORBORG: No, it's not. Fahrenheit will not necessarily end up as either DirectX 7 or DirectX 8.

I think there's some confusion about Fahrenheit, that it means we may not keep our DirectX technologies moving forward. That's not true.

With Fahrenheit, we're trying to take the next major step with our DirectX technologies to encompass all of the capabilities now used by CAD applications and other mission-critical 3D applications, such as scientific visualization and visual-simulation applications. We're looking at all the features in OpenGL, the primary API used today in many of these mission-critical 3D applications. We're also examining where we see 3D technology in general going in the next few years for both consumer applications and other types of applications.

We want to look at everything we've done and learn from both our mistakes and the things we've done well. We want to come up with a new set of low-level APIs to address the broad needs of 2D and 3D graphics and imaging, and release them in this future version of DirectX (Fahrenheit).

These new low-level APIs in Fahrenheit will be completely backward-compatible—both at the API level and driver level—with the current versions of DirectDraw and Direct3D. Every release we've done so far has been backward compatible with the previous version. But the new capabilities, features, and interfaces in Fahrenheit probably will be more revolutionary than the traditional DirectX updates we've released so far. We are investing more effort over a longer period of time to create this new Fahrenheit low-level API than we have for previous DirectX releases.

With Fahrenheit, we want to make it as easy as possible for developers to migrate their existing OpenGL applications to the DirectX architecture. We have to be as compatible as we can with OpenGL concepts and features. One way of looking at this is that we are integrating the functionality of OpenGL into the DirectX architecture. We're not simply merging the code bases or the API set; we're taking a fresh look at how to present OpenGL capabilities in a future version of DirectX.

MSDN: Are there are any specific new technologies in Fahrenheit you'd like to highlight?

Torborg: Yes, Fahrenheit will include a new API for scene-graph technology. This is a way of representing graphical and other data in a hierarchical fashion that allows you to optimize the way the data is presented to the hardware. The traditional use of scene-graph technology is to represent a large 3D model or 3D scene and have the software rearrange that data to maximize rendering performance. This technology is commonly used in CAD applications today, and most 3D games implement a proprietary scene graph as part of their game engine.

With our Fahrenheit scene-graph technology, we hope to make it much easier for developers to leverage this technology. Through the extension mechanisms we're developing, we also want to help developers build applications that get the best performance out of a broad range of different hardware, without making them fine tune their applications for each different hardware platform.

This scene-graph technology is probably the furthest along of the projects we're working on for Fahrenheit. We hope to have this technology available for the next major upgrade of our DirectX technologies. Another major part of the Fahrenheit project is an update of the low-level APIs in DirectX, which we now refer to as DirectDraw and Direct3D.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus

If it IS OpenGL, then ATI has a problem since OpenGL doesnt run that well on ATI :( Even there 9800Pro is slower then FX5800 when it comes to OpenGL...

---

Huh. Most games I get better results and picture quality in OpenGL. The new Unreal games are an exception. They run just as fast but they do not look as good.

Eric

Its a well known fact that nVidia soars when it comes to OpenGL and when compared to ATI top dog, it doesnt score as well...

For argument sake, lets say that ATI 9800Pro scores around 100fps with OpenGL, Then the GF4 4800 would score around 120fps... It does that well with OpenGL...

ATI's lead is purely DirectX based :)

EDIT: but as the resolution increases... The gap decreases :) @ 1600x1200 the 4800 is below the 9800Pro and the only card that is faster then the 9800Pro is the GFFX 5800U

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus

EDIT: but as the resolution increases... The gap decreases :) @ 1600x1200 the 4800 is below the 9800Pro and the only card that is faster then the 9800Pro is the GFFX 5800U

---

Maybe that is why :) I only run at 1600x1200 now. Usually OpenGL is FASTER than DirectX for me.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
1600x1200x32 max details with 4x fsaa and 8x aa should be no trouble at all :D should get you about 50fps too. If you dont want fsaa, youll exceed 100fps :D I should get about 60fps in 1600x1200x32 medium details, no fsaa

---

Why do you keep posting nothing but lies? I can't break 50fps with my P4 3.06/533 r9800pro at work, running 1024x768 low detail. I know for a fact you wont be getting close to 20fps with your rig so stfu.

its not lies, but speculation. also I like ati, but maybe I should hold off till ati improves their open GL performance, cause I dont run fsaa, why get a radeon9700 at all? :confused:

Why not run FSAA if your card has the horsepower to do so?

FSAA doesnt look very good to me, I like it without fsaa

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
FSAA doesnt look very good to me, I like it without fsaa

---

Then you haven't seen GOOD FSAA.;)

hows the 4x fsaa on a ti500? It didnt seem to make a difference in any res and in low res I could see the blurred edges, kinda annoying actually

Trying AA or AF on any card lower than a Radeon 9500 pro is kinda pointless IMO - you get huge drops in FPS, even a Ti4600 will be way too slow for any game requiring any sort of immediate reaction to an event.

Actually, you can leave aniso on full blast for all radeon series cards. I've never turned it off since I got my 32DDR.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BL1NK


Doom3 Will be an OpenGL game :) Will it use openGL 2.0 thunderbird? hehe

---

I remember reading that doom was going to support OGL 2.0, but I ALSO remember reading (more recently) that Id was bought my M$.

We all remember what happened to HALO when Bungie was bought by the Evil Empire don't we?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Doom will support DX8, and 9, and that it MIGHT still go OGL 2.0.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alientank

7) Speculation is that HL2's engine is a heavily reworked Quake 3 engine. It makes sense, after all the immense success they had with the modified Quake 2 engine for Half life. I doubt it will have higher requirements then Doom 3 will.

---

just thought i would say that HL was the Quake 1 engine, with Quake 2 optimizations and sections of code.

i also like high resolutions as Thunderbird does - Aniso has never been off on any Radeon card i have used and FSAA has been fairly good on most cards since the 9xxx series and GF4 series of video cards. (performance losses aside)

i would usually take higher resolutions over FSAA unless either my monitor or the game does not support it. 2048x1536 on Q3 does look nice - unplayable (both in the framerate sense and the 'this is weird' sense) but nice nevertheless.

i always thought that Doom 3 would be OpenGL 2.0+ <-- ie "2.1"

as for Playability in Doom 3 - you actually think that iD are going to give up a huge percentage of their userbase if they do not make the Spec sheet fairly 'low grade'?

That's why ID has a wide variety of detail settings...so that settings and resolution can make it run on a variety of hardware...The highest settings are typically for VC's that don't exist yet when id comes out with a new engine showcase game.

Well, remembering *wayyyyyyyyy* back to when Quake 3 came out, IIRC it was definitely playable at lower resolutions, but it took another generation or two of cards before everyone started celebrating that it was playable at 1600x1200x32. So maybe Doom 3 will be that way, playable on GF3s but not able to show its full potential til a generation or two more down the road?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by masteraleph
playable on GF3s but not able to show its full potential til a generation or two more down the road?

---

Like a Radeon 9800 for example

runs very, very well. I was playing through it earlier (Fatal1ty gave it to me) and I was getting 60+ fps in the corridors, and then the inevitable slow down as I came up on zombies/monsters.

This was at 4x aa and 8x ansio, but I don't know what res, I didn't change that.

I played all 3 maps too :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vizer

as for Playability in Doom 3 - you actually think that iD are going to give up a huge percentage of their userbase if they do not make the Spec sheet fairly 'low grade'?

---

:cue sound of big can of worms being opened:

A few thoughts: The longer it takes Id to release Doom3, the faster the average cpu/video card becomes, the less outlandish the requirements will seem.

You may have heard people in the media say that the general reluctance of people to upgrade their machines is the lack of a demanding killer app. Doom 3 could be that app. Id is in the unique position of being able to push the envelope a little.