Doom 3 "High" quality only available on 256mb cards?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: high
you guys realize that it still holds true that your 9800 and 5900 w/256 are STILL useless...it hasn't changed. They are fast enough to load textures into >128mb.

just cause you got a "useless" np, don't worry about those of us with the 9800XTs/5950Us . . . they WILL effectively use their 256MB . . . just not the lower end cards.

:roll:

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: high
you guys realize that it still holds true that your 9800 and 5900 w/256 are STILL useless...it hasn't changed. They are fast enough to load textures into >128mb.

just cause you got a "useless" np, don't worry about those of us with the 9800XTs/5950Us . . . they WILL effectively use their 256MB . . . just not the lower end cards.

:roll:

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram.

Yeah, it is. Now if vendors would only slap on 256MB of GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800. That would be a worthy investment.

 

[g3pro]

Yeah, that's really sad, actually. I'm going to upgrade my video card when the 512mb cards get down to $200-$250.

 

[CVSiN]

DOOM 3 was developed mostly on Dell

this line here is enough to make me not want to play..
LOL
anything that will run on a POS Dell cant be all good =P

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: high
you guys realize that it still holds true that your 9800 and 5900 w/256 are STILL useless...it hasn't changed. They are fast enough to load textures into >128mb.

just cause you got a "useless" np, don't worry about those of us with the 9800XTs/5950Us . . . they WILL effectively use their 256MB . . . just not the lower end cards.

:roll:

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram.

Yeah, it is. Now if vendors would only slap on 256MB of GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800. That would be a worthy investment.

they did . . . the UPgrade is called the 6800-GT - 4 just a few bucks more and it'd be really useful.
(plus you get 4 "extra" pipes)

No doubt we'll soon see the 6800Sandard w/512MB DDR1 (and an even slower core)

:roll:

 

[rbV5]

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram

Not so sad, but I might be a little worried about an DFP with a native resolution of 1600x1200...that might be a little sad.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rbV5

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram

Not so sad, but I might be a little worried about an DFP with a native resolution of 1600x1200...that might be a little sad.

i meant 'kinda sad' in having to play Diii at a LowerQ setting than the top cards of last year . . . i'd be a little annoyed IF i spent $300 on a 'premium' card that is forced to play at MedQ setting - nevermind the rez.

 

[zodder]

I'd feel the exact same way.

 

[cw42]

now i can laugh at all the people that said it was pointless to get a 256mb Radeon 9800pro/xt over a 128mb Tee hee hee!

 

[Dman877]

Good thing my friend bought a FX5200 256MB instead of the 9600Pro 128 I suggested then .

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Good thing my friend bought a FX5200 256MB instead of the 9600Pro 128 I suggested then .

Good one

 

[*kjm]

Sounds like once we see 512meg cards ATI or Nvidia we well all be much better off. Wonder what the numbers will look like then?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: g3pro
Yeah, that's really sad, actually. I'm going to upgrade my video card when the 512mb cards get down to $200-$250.

Don't hold your breath... This will be while. The cheapest 9800Pro (256-bit) on Newegg currently with 256MB of RAM is still $264.00, the 9800XT is $360.00, and the cheapest FX5950 Ultra is $377.00. These are all still out the target price range, and they have 1/2 the RAM you want.

From reading the article, it appears that playing the game at high and medium quality will still be really nice. It seems to me that Ultra is designed for future generations of video cards. Not much of a surprise really... When Quake3 came out, id's last engine, I couldn't run it with everything maxed out on my AMD K6-II 450/TNT2 rig either. On the flipside, this is what allows the engines to be used for a couple of years. Apparently, it takes 4 years to make one, so it needs to last us a bit.

Originally posted by: CVSiN
DOOM 3 was developed mostly on Dell

this line here is enough to make me not want to play..
LOL
anything that will run on a POS Dell cant be all good =P

if you take a closer look into many IT companies, you will see that a lot of them run Dell. I personally am a DIY kinda guy when it comes to PC's, but I use Dells at work. They run quite well, and I have no complaints. While they do use cheaper components for stuff like the CPU HSF than I use on my rig, they are certainly not bad computers overall.

 

[rbV5]

i meant 'kinda sad' in having to play Diii at a LowerQ setting than the top cards of last year

I know what you "meant" ....but buying a card specifically for a game not yet released only to be disappointed by its performance has always been a bad idea...sad, yes.

I'm not going to be sad however. I bought a 6800 standard, and I'm pleased with it, its an excellent performer at a decent price. Whether it gets stepped up to the GT, I'm still somewhat undecided, I still got a bit over a couple months to decide...by then, I'll have a better picture. I also won't be sad when I plop my new X800XT PE into my primary rig to replace my present AIW 9700pro, hopefully, it will ship in August, but I'll be gone most of the month on vacation so....The AIW 9700pro will then reside in another PC. My lowend rig will get the Gainward ti4200 that the 6800 standard replaced.

Nothing sad in the rbV5 household..

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: high
you guys realize that it still holds true that your 9800 and 5900 w/256 are STILL useless...it hasn't changed. They are fast enough to load textures into >128mb.

just cause you got a "useless" np, don't worry about those of us with the 9800XTs/5950Us . . . they WILL effectively use their 256MB . . . just not the lower end cards.

:roll:

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram.

Yeah, it is. Now if vendors would only slap on 256MB of GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800. That would be a worthy investment.

they did . . . the UPgrade is called the 6800-GT - 4 just a few bucks more and it'd be really useful.
(plus you get 4 "extra" pipes)

No doubt we'll soon see the 6800Sandard w/512MB DDR1 (and an even slower core)

:roll:

Let me rephrase this statement. Slap 256GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800 and shift all pricing accordingly.
Like this:

6800/128DDR = 200 to 225
6800/256GDDR3 = @300
6800GT 256GDDR3 = @350 to 375
6800U 256GDDR3 = 400 to 425

Something to this effect would be nice.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: high
you guys realize that it still holds true that your 9800 and 5900 w/256 are STILL useless...it hasn't changed. They are fast enough to load textures into >128mb.

just cause you got a "useless" np, don't worry about those of us with the 9800XTs/5950Us . . . they WILL effectively use their 256MB . . . just not the lower end cards.

:roll:

kinda sad about the newer $300 cards w/128MB ram.

Yeah, it is. Now if vendors would only slap on 256MB of GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800. That would be a worthy investment.

they did . . . the UPgrade is called the 6800-GT - 4 just a few bucks more and it'd be really useful.
(plus you get 4 "extra" pipes)

No doubt we'll soon see the 6800Sandard w/512MB DDR1 (and an even slower core)

:roll:

Let me rephrase this statement. Slap 256GDDR3 on a 12 pipe 6800 and shift all pricing accordingly.
Like this:

6800/128DDR = 200 to 225
6800/256GDDR3 = @300
6800GT 256GDDR3 = @350 to 375
6800U 256GDDR3 = 400 to 425

Something to this effect would be nice.

i can almost guarantee this will happen
(they are already making lower-clocked 6800s)

(IMO)

and with that i'm off to work . . . yee haw

 

[LTC8K6]

LTC8K the 9800;s and 5900's are all plenty fast enough to use the 256 meg of cache and not suffer due to latency.

Not for me.

 

[T9D]

Why are they saying that we need 512 mb's to run at highest details when hard ocp already did benches with everything on high and the games ran perfect and at good frames? Would seem 256 mb cards are just fine. Maybe you could get some extra performance out of 512 mb's but it doesn't sound like it's absolutely needed since the frames were high enough to enjoy the game.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: tk109
Why are they saying that we need 512 mb's to run at highest details when hard ocp already did benches with everything on high and the games ran perfect and at good frames? Would seem 256 mb cards are just fine. Maybe you could get some extra performance out of 512 mb's but it doesn't sound like it's absolutely needed since the frames were high enough to enjoy the game.

HardOCP didn't bench anything, and the ultra settings weren't used on any of the benchmarks I saw.

 

[T9D]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: tk109
.

HardOCP didn't bench anything, and the ultra settings weren't used on any of the benchmarks I saw.

Well you know what I mean, the benches they posted. And I just went back to look at them. And you are right I guess I figured their settings were the highest they could go but they go higher. That's very cool that it's more than the current cards can handle. Good memories of when quake 3 came out.

 

[rbV5]

From what I'm hearing, even 800x600 low details will be suprisingly good, so it should run well on a vast range of video cards while at the same time the highest settings will be out of reach for even todays highend cards.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: cw42
now i can laugh at all the people that said it was pointless to get a 256mb Radeon 9800pro/xt over a 128mb Tee hee hee!

Well I'm glad I saved my money buying a 128Mb version 9800pro, because then I can afford a 512Mb GF6800 Ultra this fall

 

[g3pro]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: cw42
now i can laugh at all the people that said it was pointless to get a 256mb Radeon 9800pro/xt over a 128mb Tee hee hee!

Well I'm glad I saved my money buying a 128Mb version 9800pro, because then I can afford a 512Mb GF6800 Ultra this fall

hahaha. Yeah.

They can fit a ton more GDDR3 memory on card now, right? 512 would be no problem, or so I heard. I'm just worried about price. In 2 years I'll upgrade my video card.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: tk109
Why are they saying that we need 512 mb's to run at highest details when hard ocp already did benches with everything on high and the games ran perfect and at good frames? Would seem 256 mb cards are just fine. Maybe you could get some extra performance out of 512 mb's but it doesn't sound like it's absolutely needed since the frames were high enough to enjoy the game.

Well, those benches were apparently performed on "High" detail settings, not "Ultra". I have a question though - if the normal map is uncompressed at "High", and you are playing the game with full-blown AA/AF enabled (assuming that you card can handle it), then would there even really be a noticable difference whatsoever between "High" and "Ultra"? Wouldn't the tiny amount of detail lost by the compression, be made un-noticable by the "smoothing" of the AA/AF anyways? (Except possibly, for some textures that were really, really "in your face" - close to the viewport so that all of the minute details could be apparent.)

Really, I don't think that anyone playing it on a high-end card with 256MB is losing out on anything. Possibly this is a way that the mfg's will use to sell 512MB cards though. I really hope that no-one releases a low-end FX5200 or 9200 with 512MB though, that would be ludicrous in the extreme. (Like putting "Bigfoot" tires on a VW Bug, I suppose.) I wonder if a Radeon 9800 XT with 512MB is possible?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: tk109
Why are they saying that we need 512 mb's to run at highest details when hard ocp already did benches with everything on high and the games ran perfect and at good frames? Would seem 256 mb cards are just fine. Maybe you could get some extra performance out of 512 mb's but it doesn't sound like it's absolutely needed since the frames were high enough to enjoy the game.

Well, those benches were apparently performed on "High" detail settings, not "Ultra". I have a question though - if the normal map is uncompressed at "High", and you are playing the game with full-blown AA/AF enabled (assuming that you card can handle it), then would there even really be a noticable difference whatsoever between "High" and "Ultra"? Wouldn't the tiny amount of detail lost by the compression, be made un-noticable by the "smoothing" of the AA/AF anyways? (Except possibly, for some textures that were really, really "in your face" - close to the viewport so that all of the minute details could be apparent.)

Really, I don't think that anyone playing it on a high-end card with 256MB is losing out on anything. Possibly this is a way that the mfg's will use to sell 512MB cards though. I really hope that no-one releases a low-end FX5200 or 9200 with 512MB though, that would be ludicrous in the extreme. (Like putting "Bigfoot" tires on a VW Bug, I suppose.) I wonder if a Radeon 9800 XT with 512MB is possible?

AFAIK AF 'sharpens' textures on distances and AA softens the jaggies, so it shouldn't be a problem.
But, I also doubt that the gaming experience will be much better with Ultra compared to high. It might be nice to see the Ultra details to show off, or radifying a buy of a 512Mb card . If I find myself studying the difference between High and Ultra much, then it unfortunately means that DoomIII in it self is a boring game