w00t! (Computer-related)

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-10 06:10pm

Just remebered this IRC

IBM and AMD are working togther on a new-chip, its not even annoced what its for, but That sure is intresting news

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-10 06:21pm

Vertigo1 wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:If that ever comes to pass, AMD will be there for us.
AMD is in it too dude...though last I heard that Palladium crap got thrown out.

Last I heard it was going to be optional in AMD processors.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-01-10 06:35pm

Mr Bean wrote:Just remebered this IRC

IBM and AMD are working togther on a new-chip, its not even annoced what its for, but That sure is intresting news

Interesting indeed, but not suprising. They've been sharing tech for years now. Thats how AMD got MMX and SSE, and how Intel got 3dnow and 3dnow+.

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2003-01-10 07:07pm

I plain an gigantic upgrade comes this Augest...

I´ll upgrade when DOOM3 comes out. Has anybody seen the E3-Demo that leaked into the net? I saw it on a P4 1.6@2.13GHz with oc´d GF3ti200, and sometimes it was a slideshow with 2 fps despite low resolution.

NVidia claims that the GF FX will have ~40fps, the R9700PRO has ~30fps and the GF4ti4600 has 17fps or so. Seems to me that I´ll need the successor to the NV30/ R300 with Hammer/ high-clocked P4 to play D3...

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-01-11 06:57am

Mr Bean wrote:
Unless you're a Mac user
Out of curisoty.. WHEN was it a good time to be a Mac User?

The Dark ages when the Mac was first concieved?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-11 12:37pm

Mr Bean wrote:Just remebered this IRC

IBM and AMD are working togther on a new-chip, its not even annoced what its for, but That sure is intresting news

No, they're partnering to share manufacturing process stuff. They'll be working together to perfect a 0.06 micron process, I think.

BabelHunter wrote:I´ll upgrade when DOOM3 comes out. Has anybody seen the E3-Demo that leaked into the net? I saw it on a P4 1.6@2.13GHz with oc´d GF3ti200, and sometimes it was a slideshow with 2 fps despite low resolution.

NVidia claims that the GF FX will have ~40fps, the R9700PRO has ~30fps and the GF4ti4600 has 17fps or so. Seems to me that I´ll need the successor to the NV30/ R300 with Hammer/ high-clocked P4 to play D3...

A leaked alpha is hardly a good way to judge future requirements for a game. The code is completely unoptimized. I played it on a 2 GHz P4 with a GeForce 4 Ti4200, and it ran pretty decently, but it would get choppy whenever you fired your weapon. The final version should run well on an ATi Radeon 8500 with some visual settings toned down. Originally, Carmack promised 30 fps on a GeForce 3. Hell, when he first debuted DOOM 3 at MacWorld, it was running on a G4 with a GeForce 3, and it was running smoothly.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-11 09:28pm

Durandal wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Just remebered this IRC

IBM and AMD are working togther on a new-chip, its not even annoced what its for, but That sure is intresting news
No, they're partnering to share manufacturing process stuff. They'll be working together to perfect a 0.06 micron process, I think.

Yep. Motorola appears to have screwed up there - HiP7 is still having issues, IIRC.

It's 0.065 micron, I think

BabelHunter wrote:I´ll upgrade when DOOM3 comes out. Has anybody seen the E3-Demo that leaked into the net? I saw it on a P4 1.6@2.13GHz with oc´d GF3ti200, and sometimes it was a slideshow with 2 fps despite low resolution.

NVidia claims that the GF FX will have ~40fps, the R9700PRO has ~30fps and the GF4ti4600 has 17fps or so. Seems to me that I´ll need the successor to the NV30/ R300 with Hammer/ high-clocked P4 to play D3...
A leaked alpha is hardly a good way to judge future requirements for a game. The code is completely unoptimized. I played it on a 2 GHz P4 with a GeForce 4 Ti4200, and it ran pretty decently, but it would get choppy whenever you fired your weapon. The final version should run well on an ATi Radeon 8500 with some visual settings toned down. Originally, Carmack promised 30 fps on a GeForce 3. Hell, when he first debuted DOOM 3 at MacWorld, it was running on a G4 with a GeForce 3, and it was running smoothly.

AFAIK, D3 will be released on XBox so that's one indication of hardware specifications (of course, it'll run at a low resolution).

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2003-01-12 11:53am

The final version should run well on an ATi Radeon 8500 with some visual settings toned down. Originally, Carmack promised 30 fps on a GeForce 3

ROFL!

Do you know what 30fps means? Sometimes you will have 50FPS, and sometimes 10. Nothing for me.

I don´t believe D3 will run decent on any Hardware that´s available. I remember when Quake 3 came out, it was only playable on a GeForce256. A friend of mine who had bought a TNT2Ultra some months before had to upgrade again. You could turn on all the eye candy, but it wasn´t playable. You could turn it off and the game looked like an enhanced Quake 2. Terrible!

The most value for Id Software is not the game itself but the engine behind it. The Q3A-engine brought RTCW, ST:EF, MOHAa etcetc to us. That´s where they earn their money.

And it will take some years for the successor of the D3-engine to come to market. Therefore, the D3 Engine has to stay competitive during this time frame.

That´s why top priority for id software is to create a future-proof engine, and not to make sure Doom3 runs on older Hardware.

But this is all speculation, of course. But I would bet a barrel of good German beer that I´m right.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-12 12:51pm

BabelHunter wrote:ROFL!

Do you know what 30fps means? Sometimes you will have 50FPS, and sometimes 10. Nothing for me.

Carmack promised a consistent 30 fps with a GeForce 3 and all settings maxed out. Although that was in reference to the single-player aspect. Multiplayer tends to take much more bandwidth.

I don´t believe D3 will run decent on any Hardware that´s available. I remember when Quake 3 came out, it was only playable on a GeForce256. A friend of mine who had bought a TNT2Ultra some months before had to upgrade again. You could turn on all the eye candy, but it wasn´t playable. You could turn it off and the game looked like an enhanced Quake 2. Terrible!

Don't be ridiculous. I was playing the Quake 3 test perfectly acceptably on a PowerMac 8500/200 with a Voodoo2 12MB, and Voodoo3's were pulling 40 fps at 1024x768 and medium/high detail, and neither of those cards had the first-generation hardware transform and lighting stuff that Quake 3 used. DOOM 3 will run fine on a 2GHz + processor with a Radeon 9700 or GeForce4 Ti4x00 with all the eye candy, and perfectly acceptably on a Radeon 8500 or GeForce3 with some eye candy.

That´s why top priority for id software is to create a future-proof engine, and not to make sure Doom3 runs on older Hardware.

Why in Hell would anyone release a game that can't run acceptably on current hardware? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Did you even read what I wrote before? You played a leaked alpha, which is completely unoptimized code! And that alpha runs well on a 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 with a Radeon 9700, which is ... current hardware! Such a machine will run the final product perfectly.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-12 04:23pm

BabelHuber wrote:
I don´t believe D3 will run decent on any Hardware that´s available. I remember when Quake 3 came out, it was only playable on a GeForce256. A friend of mine who had bought a TNT2Ultra some months before had to upgrade again. You could turn on all the eye candy, but it wasn´t playable. You could turn it off and the game looked like an enhanced Quake 2. Terrible!

Bullshit. It ran acceptably on my voodoo banshee which had to have one of the worst OpenGL implementations ever created.

That leaked alpha of Doom 3 had the fucking debug symbols in it for christs sake. Anyone who takes the frame rates from it to be representative of the final released product is a computer illiterate moron.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-12 04:31pm

Why in Hell would anyone release a game that can't run acceptably on current hardware?

Force you to upgrade is the only thing that comes to mind

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2003-01-12 05:48pm

Carmack promised a consistent 30 fps with a GeForce 3

AFAIK Carmack said '30fps', not constant 30fps. Either way, 30FPS is far too less. Nothing to have fun with.

Don't be ridiculous. I was playing the Quake 3 test perfectly acceptably on a PowerMac 8500/200 with a Voodoo2 12MB, and Voodoo3's were pulling 40 fps at 1024x768 and medium/high detail, and neither of those cards had the first-generation hardware transform and lighting stuff that Quake 3 used.

Don´t make me laugh. Q3 on my PIII500 with ATI RAGE128 was not playable. I had ~35 FPS average with 14fps on some corners. Online-playing with 5 players in a room was impossible.

I upgraded to a GF256DDR and overclocked the PIII to 600MHz. I got ~70fps and the game was enjoyable, with FPS over 40 all the time.

I remember a LAN back then where a guy with a Vodoo Banshee lost the whole weekend long because of his poor frames. With a Vodoo3 the game was playable in 800X600X16 medium detail, but never with 1024x768.

Perhaps you like slideshows, perhaps you are satisfied with 30fps and perhaps you also like getting rocktes straight in your face at LAN parties, but this is definetely nothing for my taste.

Why in Hell would anyone release a game that can't run acceptably on current hardware?

Would you please start reading what I wrote? The big money is not made with the Game itself, it is made with the DOOM3-engine which id Software sells afterwards to other game developers.

The Quake3-engine was quite popular and widely used - As I pointed out: Star Trek Elite Force, Return Tu Castle Wolfenstein, Medal Of Honour, to name just a few.

And the DOOM3-engine is the product which is sold by id Software until its successor arrives.

DOOM3 will force me - and others - to upgrade, if you want all the eye candy turned on and high FPS.

That leaked alpha of Doom 3 had the fucking debug symbols in it for christs sake. Anyone who takes the frame rates from it to be representative of the final released product is a computer illiterate moron.

Did I state that the final version would perform the same way? But it can give you an indication. Of course it will get better in the final version, but with the beforementioned Hardware it will be a slideshow anyway.

I want at least 70fps average with all the bells and whistles. The then-to-build-computer should do it for some time without bigger upgrades.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-12 07:18pm

BabelHunter wrote:AFAIK Carmack said '30fps', not constant 30fps. Either way, 30FPS is far too less. Nothing to have fun with.

30 fps is all that is required for a smooth gaming experience. If you can consistently pull 30 fps, you've got nothing to worry about.

Don´t make me laugh. Q3 on my PIII500 with ATI RAGE128 was not playable. I had ~35 FPS average with 14fps on some corners. Online-playing with 5 players in a room was impossible.

The Rage 128 was an utter piece of shit that the Voodoo 2 and 3 stomped all over the 3D arena in OpenGL.

I upgraded to a GF256DDR and overclocked the PIII to 600MHz. I got ~70fps and the game was enjoyable, with FPS over 40 all the time.

Your comparison isn't valid at all. You overclocked your processor and changed the video card. Furthermore, I ran Quake 3 on a Rage 128 at 640x480 with medium/high detail and got a good 40 fps on the timedemo.

I remember a LAN back then where a guy with a Vodoo Banshee lost the whole weekend long because of his poor frames. With a Vodoo3 the game was playable in 800X600X16 medium detail, but never with 1024x768.

No, 1024x768 was perfectly playable.

Perhaps you like slideshows, perhaps you are satisfied with 30fps and perhaps you also like getting rocktes straight in your face at LAN parties, but this is definetely nothing for my taste.

You're a dumbass. No one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps. Anything more is just "1337 h@x0r$" trying to have dick-measuring contests. Considering that Carmack first debuted DOOM 3 on what today would be considered modest hardware, I don't think that today's top-end machines will have problems.

Would you please start reading what I wrote? The big money is not made with the Game itself, it is made with the DOOM3-engine which id Software sells afterwards to other game developers.

They still make a profit on the game, genius. Carmack's not an idiot. Didn't you see him play the demo on a machine that does, in fact, exist at E3? I didn't observe any drops in framerate ... did you?

The Quake3-engine was quite popular and widely used - As I pointed out: Star Trek Elite Force, Return Tu Castle Wolfenstein, Medal Of Honour, to name just a few.

And the DOOM3-engine is the product which is sold by id Software until its successor arrives.

DOOM3 will force me - and others - to upgrade, if you want all the eye candy turned on and high FPS.

If you're running a GeForce 256 currently, yes you will have to upgrade. A GeForce 3 with an Athlon 1.4GHz will run the game perfectly well with medium detail settings.

Did I state that the final version would perform the same way? But it can give you an indication. Of course it will get better in the final version, but with the beforementioned Hardware it will be a slideshow anyway.

YES! That's what this whole argument is about! You actually expect us to believe that a leaked alpha is some sort of performance indication of the final product, even though it includes no optimized code at all.

I want at least 70fps average with all the bells and whistles. The then-to-build-computer should do it for some time without bigger upgrades.

You'll be fine with a Radeon 9700 and a 2.53GHz Pentium 4. Jesus Christ, you're fucking demanding.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-12 07:29pm

30 fps is all that is required for a smooth gaming experience. If you can consistently pull 30 fps, you've got nothing to worry about.

I Beg to differ, On my old system for example in HL I pulled 70 Consitantly, However add 5 or more people WAMO 10-20FPS and frankly anything under 30 is not accetable, furthermore I'll back up the other fellow 30 FPS Avarage means a very bad gaming experance

You're a dumbass. No one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps. Anything more is just "1337 h@x0r$" trying to have dick-measuring contests.

I beg to differ as above, I pull a "constant" 50 FPS in BF-1942 yet I often get into stutter sprees with more than 6 people on the screen

60 FPS is the mark at which the human eye can no longer register the extra FPS thusly anything over 60FPS
Its the diffrence in between say
A lagg filled stutter fest onto the beachs of Nomandy with sound cutting in and out

VS a addrellien filled rush across the beach as three MGs cut loose on the running figures, while a tank rolls down the embankment shooting one poor soul at point blank range as the rest dive for cover hoping the AT man can get behind it without noticing and hoping they can distractit long enough to kill it then get up the embankment

Its very Simple Durendal, The Extra FPS are a safty measure, They make sure no matter how much shit you throw on the screen gameplay contiues as normal and looks damn fine while doing it

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-12 09:07pm

Which is why I said no one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps. Next time you're playing Quake 3, set your max fps to 30 to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-12 11:03pm

Which is why I said no one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps. Next time you're playing Quake 3, set your max fps to 30 to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Hmm....

Ok....

*Ten mintues later

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGH THE LAGGING

What was this demostration supposed to provided me other then pain?

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-01-13 02:21am

Funny, I found Q3 quite playable on a Viper V550 (16MB TNT1) on a K6-2 350. Granted, I had to turn everything to minimum, but it was still relatively smooth. I upgraded to a Duron 700 (still running that same proc btw) and kept the same card for a while. I had everything set to medium and the game was still quite playable. (Note: Both machines had 256MB of PC133 at the time. I'm running 512MB now and own a 64MB GF3 Ti200)

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2003-01-13 10:55am

30 fps is all that is required for a smooth gaming experience. If you can consistently pull 30 fps, you've got nothing to worry about.

Perhaps you are to stupid to recognize that watching TV is completely different from playing games. 30fps are enough if I want to look at it, but if you actually play with 30fps you will lose against everybody except of other idiots who play like you!

Furthermore, I ran Quake 3 on a Rage 128 at 640x480 with medium/high detail and got a good 40 fps on the timedemo.

Perhaps you are not able to type 'cg_drawfps 1' in the console, otherwise you would have recognized the the timedemo gives you an AVERAGE! If you could read, you would have seen what I posted:

Q3 on my PIII500 with ATI RAGE128 was not playable. I had ~35 FPS average with 14fps on some corners. Online-playing with 5 players in a room was impossible.

For imbeciles like you it seems necessary to explain that more detailed: I had 35fps average, but there was a corner, IIRC it was in DM11, where I had constant 14fps with the RAGE128! If someone comes around the corner shooting with a Plasmagun at you the frame rate is decreasing even more! Try to play with 10fps in this situation and then tell me that 35fps is enough!

But my guess is that you are so dumb you won´t even have recognized it!

No, 1024x768 was perfectly playable.

You must become cannon fodder if you play against skilled players with such weird settings.

You're a dumbass. No one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps.

Well, because of the majority of hardcore gamers share my opinionabout FPS (and rip your ass if you play against them) it seems that you are the dumbass.

They still make a profit on the game, genius.

Of course! Lots of folks will rush for this game because it will be the best you can buy!
Nevertheless, more important for id software is to sell the engine! What´s so hard to understand about that?

YES! That's what this whole argument is about! You actually expect us to believe that a leaked alpha is some sort of performance indication of the final product, even though it includes no optimized code at all.

Now it´s enough! Listen, man: I saw this game crawling along on a P4@2.13GHz w/ GF3ti200, as I mentioned before. It had 20fps the whole time, and when a monster appeared and you started shooting, it dropped to 2fps!

Only a person with no brain cells at all could expect the final version to be playable with this hardware! Do you expect 20 times more frames from the final version? 20 times more?

And you say I am a dumbass! Unbelievable!

But I can invite you to my RA3-server -> 134.130.48.237:27960

Come along with your fixed-30fps-config and I will show you what happens to people who play with such idiotic settings!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-13 01:29pm

I can't believe that you're still deluded enough to think that a fucking leaked alpha of the game is somehow a major indicator of the final performance of the product. Carmack isn't even done writing the god damn engine yet. Jesus Christ, the build is saturated with debug code! I'll fucking put money on DOOM 3 being playable on a GeForce 3 at medium visual settings. Ask any fucking programmer if a leaked alpha is a good indicator of the final performance of the product. Jesus Christ, you're a fucking retard.

Furthermore, I've played CounterStrike at LAN houses where it was set to 30 fps max and there was no lag at all. I don't see this obsession with monstrous framerates. I can see maybe 60 fps, but your monitor just won't refresh any faster than 120 Hz, 60 Hz if you're using an LCD. But I've been playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein with framerates varying from 15 fps all the way up to 80 fps, and I still come out in the top two or three most of the time, though I haven't played in a while.

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2003-01-13 02:22pm

I can't believe that you're still deluded enough to think that a fucking leaked alpha of the game is somehow a major indicator of the final performance of the product.

Check the graph on the link below. Nvidia claims 46.5fps in D3 for the GeForceFX, while the GF4ti4600 has 18.9. P4 3.06GHz 1280x1024.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1749&p=7

We´ll see if Nvidia´s test method was valid when D3 appears.

I don't see this obsession with monstrous framerates. I can see maybe 60 fps

Of course noone needs more fps than the monitor can deliver, but an all-time-low of 40fps is necessary to play 'smooth' all the time.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-13 03:06pm

Doom 3 is using stencil shadows so upping the res to 1280x1024 is really gonna fuck over the frame rate. IIRC algorithms using the stencil buffer are very, very fill rate intensive. If you knock it down to a more reasonable resolution it'll probably run alright. Nvidia are trying to sell their GeforceFX by making it look like older cards simply won't be adequate so take their numbers with a pinch of salt.

Oh yeah and having a good sound card will probably speed up Doom 3 strange as that sounds. It makes extensive use of 3D sound which will suck up CPU time like something not right on a crappy onboard card like I have. I've heard a few tales of people disabling sound on games when they have onboard sound and getting large jumps in frame rate.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-13 03:39pm

Your not far off Vasey D3 has a TON of built in things designed pretty much around Creative Auigy Cards and they where tests back during on the Alpha and on Q3 itself you could get 10-17 FPS jumps if you disabed sound all-togther

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-13 03:41pm

As I recall, disabling sound in the Mac OS 9 version of Quake 3 would give you a 20 fps boost lots of the time.