Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Last I heard it was going to be optional in AMD processors.Vertigo1 wrote:AMD is in it too dude...though last I heard that Palladium crap got thrown out.HemlockGrey wrote:If that ever comes to pass, AMD will be there for us.
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+.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
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.I plain an gigantic upgrade comes this Augest...
The Dark ages when the Mac was first concieved?Mr Bean wrote:Out of curisoty.. WHEN was it a good time to be a Mac User?Unless you're a Mac user
No, they're partnering to share manufacturing process stuff. They'll be working together to perfect a 0.06 micron process, I think.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
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.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...
Yep. Motorola appears to have screwed up there - HiP7 is still having issues, IIRC.Durandal wrote:No, they're partnering to share manufacturing process stuff. They'll be working together to perfect a 0.06 micron process, I think.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
AFAIK, D3 will be released on XBox so that's one indication of hardware specifications (of course, it'll run at a low resolution).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.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...
ROFL!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
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.BabelHunter wrote:ROFL!
Do you know what 30fps means? Sometimes you will have 50FPS, and sometimes 10. Nothing for me.
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.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!
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.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.
Bullshit. It ran acceptably on my voodoo banshee which had to have one of the worst OpenGL implementations ever created.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!
Force you to upgrade is the only thing that comes to mindWhy in Hell would anyone release a game that can't run acceptably on current hardware?
AFAIK Carmack said '30fps', not constant 30fps. Either way, 30FPS is far too less. Nothing to have fun with.Carmack promised a consistent 30 fps with a GeForce 3
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.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.
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.Why in Hell would anyone release a game that can't run acceptably on current hardware?
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.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.
BabelHunter wrote:AFAIK Carmack said '30fps', not constant 30fps. Either way, 30FPS is far too less. Nothing to have fun with.
The Rage 128 was an utter piece of shit that the Voodoo 2 and 3 stomped all over the 3D arena in OpenGL.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.
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 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.
No, 1024x768 was perfectly playable.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.
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?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.
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.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.
You'll be fine with a Radeon 9700 and a 2.53GHz Pentium 4. Jesus Christ, you're fucking demanding.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.
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 experance30 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 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 screenYou'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.
Hmm....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.
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!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 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:Furthermore, I ran Quake 3 on a Rage 128 at 640x480 with medium/high detail and got a good 40 fps on the timedemo.
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!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.
You must become cannon fodder if you play against skilled players with such weird settings.No, 1024x768 was perfectly playable.
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.You're a dumbass. No one needs anything more than a consistent 30 fps.
Of course! Lots of folks will rush for this game because it will be the best you can buy!They still make a profit on the game, genius.
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!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.
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.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.
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.I don't see this obsession with monstrous framerates. I can see maybe 60 fps