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

[g3pro]

Doesn't the compression of the normal mapping make the details of the "bumps" in the surface better and not the colorized texture?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: g3pro
Doesn't the compression of the normal mapping make the details of the "bumps" in the surface better and not the colorized texture?

I thought normal mapping takes a model with a lot of polygons and reduces the number of polygons in the model while still providing a detailed model that can't be distinguished from the original model with all the polygons.

 

[ViRGE]

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?

DXTC overall is a pretty nice compression algorithm as long as you don't use it on lightmaps and normal maps, so you truthfully shouldn't see much of a difference, like how a JPG looks "almost perfect" even though it's compressed. Some people will want Ultra just because they can have gloating rights, but the step up from High to Ultra will probably be the smallest step in terms of quality.

PS g3pro, DXTC compression of a normal map significantly hurts the quality of the map, since the pixels in normal maps are closer to one another color wise than on a texture/color map. It ultimately makes it worse by reducing the level of detail/refinement of the normal map

PPS Jeff7181, that's technically correct, although normal mapping is an eye-trick, it's not exactly indistinguishable from a true high poly model

 

[SickBeast]

If you have 2 256MB 6800U's in SLI would that mean that you effectively have 512MB of video memory? Not that I would buy such a setup.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
If you have 2 256MB 6800U's in SLI would that mean that you effectively have 512MB of video memory? Not that I would buy such a setup.

No, memory wouldn't be shared; each card would need a copy of the texture set.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: SickBeast
If you have 2 256MB 6800U's in SLI would that mean that you effectively have 512MB of video memory? Not that I would buy such a setup.

No, memory wouldn't be shared; each card would need a copy of the texture set.

Ouch . . . that means you'd need 2 GF 6850Ultra512mb in SLI . . . could get a little expensive to play DOOM III the way it was meant to be played.

:roll:

 

[Marsumane]

From my understanding, when u need a texture, the system pulls the data from system ram and assigns it in a new spot on the graphics card's ram. If you up your memory bandwidth, it shoiuld increase the transaction and negate (idk how good) some of the effects of having, say, 128mb on a 9800pro. This would mean, that with a high enough memory bandwidth, that your card "could" perform on "high" settings while only having 128mb of vram. Am i thinking right? And if i am, i wonder if the higher clocked 6800/x800 cards can play on "ultra" settings or if the tradeoff will always be a HUGE impact on frames dispite how much u negate it with more memory bandwidth.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: SickBeast
If you have 2 256MB 6800U's in SLI would that mean that you effectively have 512MB of video memory? Not that I would buy such a setup.

No, memory wouldn't be shared; each card would need a copy of the texture set.

Ouch . . . that means you'd need 2 GF 6850Ultra512mb in SLI . . . could get a little expensive to play DOOM III the way it was meant to be played.

:roll:

No one said SLI would be cheap, only that it could be done.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Marsumane
From my understanding, when u need a texture, the system pulls the data from system ram and assigns it in a new spot on the graphics card's ram. If you up your memory bandwidth, it shoiuld increase the transaction and negate (idk how good) some of the effects of having, say, 128mb on a 9800pro. This would mean, that with a high enough memory bandwidth, that your card "could" perform on "high" settings while only having 128mb of vram. Am i thinking right? And if i am, i wonder if the higher clocked 6800/x800 cards can play on "ultra" settings or if the tradeoff will always be a HUGE impact on frames dispite how much u negate it with more memory bandwidth.

It's a factor of latency and memory bandwidth. It is certainly theoretically possible to use system memory as texture memory(we attempted this with AGP), but AGP proved to be too slow and take too long to be useful. Besides, the price difference on the memory for the system, and the memory on the card is so similar that you'd probably be better off getting the faster card.

 

[hokahknow]

Good thing I have a 6800GT on order. Just wish it was here.

Good article!

 

[bcoupland]

My guess: D3 settings on Ultra: perfect. High: 95% perfect. Med. 85% perfect. Low: 55-70%

*Yeah, I know there's nothing called "95% perfect", but i couldn't think of a better way.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: bcoupland
My guess: D3 settings on Ultra: perfect. High: 95% perfect. Med. 85% perfect. Low: 55-70%

*Yeah, I know there's nothing called "95% perfect", but i couldn't think of a better way.

It's probably closer to 99%. There is an absolute ton of stuff that uses DXTC, and I doubt most of you even notice it(most of the stuff in UT2K4 is compressed, for example). Done well, you're almost never going to notice a quality difference, let alone that it was compressed.

 

[thegimp03]

Hmm, time for a new system I guess.

 

[LeStEr]

Originally posted by: JBT
goo I think my GT should be fine on high atleast.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: LeStEr

Originally posted by: JBT
goo I think my GT should be fine on high atleast.

In Ultra quality, we load each texture; diffuse, specular, normal map at full resolution with no compression. In a typical DOOM 3 level, this can hover around a whopping 500MB of texture data. This will run on current hardware but obviously we cannot fit 500MB of texture data onto a 256MB card and the amount of texture data referenced in a give scene per frame ( 60 times a second ) can easily be 50MB+. This can cause some choppiness as a lot of memory bandwidth is being consumed. It does however look fantastic and it is certainly playable on high end systems but due to the hitching that can occur we chose to require a 512MB Video card before setting this automatically.

Tthe keyword here is to "perform" fantastic. It will certainly look absolutely the same with current hardware to my understanding.

 

[reallyscrued]

aaaahhh $H!T !!!!! im pissed now. i was bout to buy a 6800NU for 283 on newegg (mainly for farcry and doomIII) and now i see this post. u think its still worth it, playing on medium? it only has 128 meg ram...not even GDDR3, just regular DDR. for bout 30 bucks less newegg lists a 9800pro 256 meg edition (dont get saphire 256 meg card, its underclocked mem).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
aaaahhh $H!T !!!!! im pissed now. i was bout to buy a 6800NU for 283 on newegg (mainly for farcry and doomIII) and now i see this post. u think its still worth it, playing on medium? it only has 128 meg ram...not even GDDR3, just regular DDR. for bout 30 bucks less newegg lists a 9800pro 256 meg edition (dont get saphire 256 meg card, its underclocked mem).

Can you wait another week? If so, many benchies will prolly be done and take the guess-work out of what will be requird to play at "high"

 

[reallyscrued]

wait a week? hehe ur a mind reader, i was gonna do exactly that. have we reached AGP's 8x's bandwitdth cieling already? last time i checked, people were bitchin cuz 4x wasnt even reached when we moved to 8x. i dont understand why even with all this bandwidth, we just cant take that 500 megs of doom3 level texures directly from system memory. AGP aperature anyone? system ram slower than vid card ram rite? is that why? what kind of performance hit do u think i am gonna take if i ran high quality textures on a 128 meg card? if i can play 30+ fps with "high" quality texures on a 6800NU at 10*7 , maybe ill dip to 8*6, id be happy. (nah 8*6 much too low...maybe with AA though, id have to experiment.) again, this is only texure quality...all other sliders with be maxed out on the 6 series am i correct?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
wait a week? hehe ur a mind reader, i was gonna do exactly that. have we reached AGP's 8x's bandwitdth cieling already? last time i checked, people were bitchin cuz 4x wasnt even reached when we moved to 8x. i dont understand why even with all this bandwidth, we just cant take that 500 megs of doom3 level texures directly from system memory. AGP aperature anyone? system ram slower than vid card ram rite? is that why?

Yes. A LOT slower. The memory on these new cards is running at ~500Mhz, compared to (usually) ~200Mhz for your system RAM, plus going over the AGP bus adds considerably to the latency.

what kind of performance hit do u think i am gonna take if i ran high quality textures on a 128 meg card? if i can play 30+ fps with "high" quality texures on a 6800NU at 10*7 , maybe ill dip to 8*6, id be happy. (nah 8*6 much too low...maybe with AA though, id have to experiment.) again, this is only texure quality...all other sliders with be maxed out on the 6 series am i correct?

You'll have to wait for benches. Nobody knows what "other sliders" there will be to play with yet, or how a 128MB card would perform at "high quality" mode, or even how much worse "medium" looks than "high".

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: phlashphire
Good thing I picked up the 9800 Pro (xt) w/ the 256 instead of the 128.

me 2

"somebody" is prolly upset about their 6800standard's inability to get much past "medium".

my condolences

of course this is still "rumours"

Originally posted by: zodder
It wasn't long ago when we were snickering at the need for a 256MB card. The people who bought the 9800 Pro 256MB cards don't look so silly now, do they?
uh huh

:roll:

(i still feel pretty "silly" . . .. mustav been the weekend)

LOL- yeah, your 9800XT is da Doom 3 bomb Apoppin'. Enjoy that 10X7 no AA/AF power.

Of course, I just ordered a 6800GT, so I'll be covered either way for Doom3 next week.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: phlashphire
Good thing I picked up the 9800 Pro (xt) w/ the 256 instead of the 128.

me 2

"somebody" is prolly upset about their 6800standard's inability to get much past "medium".

my condolences

of course this is still "rumours"

Originally posted by: zodder
It wasn't long ago when we were snickering at the need for a 256MB card. The people who bought the 9800 Pro 256MB cards don't look so silly now, do they?
uh huh

:roll:

(i still feel pretty "silly" . . .. mustav been the weekend)

LOL- yeah, your 9800XT is da Doom 3 bomb Apoppin'. Enjoy that 10X7 no AA/AF power.

Of course, I just ordered a 6800GT, so I'll be covered either way for Doom3 next week.

Good for you . . . you finally "caught on"; the GT is a really nice card . . .

me, i am quite happy with 10x7 HiQ and 2xAA/4xAF - a little 'better' then i expected . . . i only needed to buy one card. :roll:

 

[nRollo]

Good for you . . . you finally "caught on"; the GT is a really nice card . . .

me, i am quite happy with 10x7 HiQ and 2xAA/4xAF - a little 'better' then i expected . . . i only needed to buy one card. :roll:

There was nothing to "catch on" about. I got a great deal on a great card (6800NU) from a buddy.

It appears to play Doom3 at high detail at good performance your only options are a 6800GT or Ultra, or a X800XT PE, so I bought one of the three. (of note, it's pretty tough to find any of these in stock)

You did indeed buy only one card, unfortunately it is woefully underpowered for many of the best games that will come out in the next 12 months. I may have bought two, but either was a far better choice than a 9800XT. What good is high detail in Doom3 if your card is slow?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Good for you . . . you finally "caught on"; the GT is a really nice card . . .

me, i am quite happy with 10x7 HiQ and 2xAA/4xAF - a little 'better' then i expected . . . i only needed to buy one card. :roll:

There was nothing to "catch on" about. I got a great deal on a great card (6800NU) from a buddy.

It appears to play Doom3 at high detail at good performance your only options are a 6800GT or Ultra, or a X800XT PE, so I bought one of the three. (of note, it's pretty tough to find any of these in stock)

You did indeed buy only one card, unfortunately it is woefully underpowered for many of the best games that will come out in the next 12 months. I may have bought two, but either was a far better choice than a 9800XT. What good is high detail in Doom3 if your card is slow?

letsee you got such a "great deal" you are "upgrading" is just over a month.

i guess your "far better" is just means "much (much) more expensive"? :roll:

i knew exactly what i was getting - for cheap.

and "slow" to you is "perfectly acceptable" to me . . . 10x7, HiQ, 2xaa/4xaf above 30FPS min is not "slow" by most gamer's standards . . .

 

[GeneralGrievous]

You're finished with the 6800 vanilla already? That must be a record, even for you. It lasted, what, a month? Should've bought a GT in the first place.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
It's a factor of latency and memory bandwidth. It is certainly theoretically possible to use system memory as texture memory(we attempted this with AGP), but AGP proved to be too slow and take too long to be useful. Besides, the price difference on the memory for the system, and the memory on the card is so similar that you'd probably be better off getting the faster card.

Yeah. The only time that system RAM was running at the same clock as the onboard video-card RAM was back in the day when I had a Slot-1 PII system with a 100Mhz FSB and a 100Mhz AGP (OC'ed) bus, and an ATI RagePro AGP 2x card with the RAM running at 100Mhz (OC'ed).

Doing texturing over AGP is slow. Not just "slow", I mean... SLOW!