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

When Quake3 was released it was ahead of the hardware, and I expect D3 to be the same. I happily played Q3 on a Celeron 400 with a Voodoo3. This was when 640x480 16bit color gaming was good stuff. I think anyone who believes their 2GHz machines are going to be running Doom3 at the highest rez/settings hasn't actually tried the alpha version. This is far more complex than anything released so far. My prediciton is what's considered a decent rig these days (2GHz, GF3) will be limited to 640x480 at the lowest settings for everything in order to achieve 30fps - this is more or less what Carmack said he's aiming for. As it is my system (1.4GHz, GF4) can get about 17fps until a bad guy appears and I slow to 2fps. If think people are expecting them to speed up the game far more than what's possible given how advanced the engine is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wavephorm
When Quake3 was released it was ahead of the hardware, and I expect D3 to be the same. I happily played Q3 on a Celeron 400 with a Voodoo3. This was when 640x480 16bit color gaming was good stuff. I think anyone who believes their 2GHz machines are going to be running Doom3 at the highest rez/settings hasn't actually tried the alpha version. This is far more complex than anything released so far. My prediciton is what's considered a decent rig these days (2GHz, GF3) will be limited to 640x480 at the lowest settings for everything in order to achieve 30fps - this is more or less what Carmack said he's aiming for. As it is my system (1.4GHz, GF4) can get about 17fps until a bad guy appears and I slow to 2fps. If think people are expecting them to speed up the game far more than what's possible given how advanced the engine is.

---

Booom...shake...boom...shake...boom...shake...boom...shake (here comes alientank)

The rig at last years E3 was a 2.5 GHZ machine with a 9700. Don't forget about back in the day when it was first shown at that mac convention on a GF3.

um.........I had a rig, 366@550 celeron that ran quake3 at 1024x768 at 35fps and it wasnt high end, I think high end was 800eb pentium3 with a geforce ddr getting like 50fps in 1600x1200, high color or 75fps 32 bit color in 1024x768...........thats what radeon9700s will get in doom3, ill be running 1600x1200 but in 16 bit color :(

High End gaming machine when Quake3 FIRST came out was a PIII 600 (slot 1, not the coppermine) and either a TNT2 Ultra or a Voodoo3. People were arguing over which was better.;)

This was the hardware we had when it first came out and we were ALL struggling at 1024x768.

AND later, even when the Geforce DDR did come out. It didn't come close to 1600x1200x32 at 50fps.

Not until the Geforce 2 ULTRA did we see 50-60 fps at 1600x1200x32.

The GeforceDDR gave about 70fps at 1024x768x32 with a PIII coppermine at 840mhz.

A step up to a Radeon 32DDR back then gave 45fps at 1280x1024x32.

Tbird....please post FACTS only. Not assumptions.

can I have a PWND Pat?

thankies thankies :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vertices
High End gaming machine when Quake3 FIRST came out was a PIII 600 (slot 1, not the coppermine) and either a TNT2 Ultra or a Voodoo3. People were arguing over which was better.;)

This was the hardware we had when it first came out and we were ALL struggling at 1024x768.

AND later, even when the Geforce DDR did come out. It didn't come close to 1600x1200x32 at 50fps.

Not until the Geforce 2 ULTRA did we see 50-60 fps at 1600x1200x32.

The GeforceDDR gave about 70fps at 1024x768x32 with a PIII coppermine at 840mhz.

A step up to a Radeon 32DDR back then gave 45fps at 1280x1024x32.

Tbird....please post FACTS only. Not assumptions.

---

weird. when I got quake3, it was a little after it came out and I already had a 366@550 and a tnt. I dont know why a tnt2 would struggle with 1024x768, I was running 1600x1200x16 on a tnt, yes I am serious back on a 233MHz with a 15" monitor because I got 10fps in that res or 12fps in 640x480. on a 550 celeron I got about 13fps in 1600x1200 with the tnt but for some reason in many of the maps the fps remained a constant 15-20 and it was quite smooth actually. I got like 35fps in 1024x768x16 and 55fps in 800x600x16 so I played 800x600x16 and my fps hovered from 30 to 90 :D I tried overclocking the tnt but it wouldnt really oc so I ran her stock. a tnt2u should be like 75% faster than a tnt, meaning 1024x768x16 would get like 55-60fps, right? You only struggled cause you tried 32 bit color which the tnt series hated. I got lousy fps in 32 bit color even in 640x480! and the geforce ddr should get 50fps in 1600x1200 with 16 bit color, my geforce2mx was getting 43fps in that res stock or like 53 overclocked to 175/210 a geforce ddr was a fair bit faster too. 16 bit was wayyyyyyyy faster than 32 bit, especially on tnts and geforce2 mx cards due to low memory bandwith

https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2003/05/5.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vertices
https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2003/05/5.gif

---

ROFL!!!! I like that smiley

Vertices, I feel for you *pats his back*

it'll be ok big guy, it'll be fine ::eek:

:(
T-Bird has magic hardware. Let's leave it at that.