DOOM 3 will have better performance on ATI cards instead on Nvidia?????

daywalker

Member
Feb 1, 2002
189
0
0
I read this article in Gamespy today:

"Based on the feature set, the Radeon 8500 should be a faster card for Doom than the GF4, because it can do the seven texture accesses that I need in a single pass, while it takes two or three passes (depending on details) on the GF4. However, in practice, the GF4 consistently runs faster due to a highly efficient implementation. For programmers, the 8500 has a much nicer fragment path than the GF4, with more general features and increased precision, but the driver quality is still quite a ways from Nvidia's, so I would be a little hesitant to use it as a primary research platform. "

And also lets not forget that the Doom 3 demon on E3 was running on a new ATI card model that hasnt been announced yet...

...Is it possible that the game will run better on the upcoming (or the currently existing) ATI cards? What do you think folks?
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
This has been debated many times. John Carmack laid this idea to rest when he said this: "On paper the 8500 should be able to out perform the GeForce line in Doom 3, but time and time agian the GeForce line out performs the 8500 due to extremely mature driver implamentation". So with the current drivers out for the 8500, the answer would be no way. ATI is rumourd to be releasing a new driver set that will increase the 8500's performance 5 to 10 percent, but since we dont know how much better the GF4 dose in doom 3, there is no way of knowing which will perform better once the new drivers come out (if they ever do that is).
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
Even though you may sacrifice a few frames, the Radeon 8500's feature set is certainly more robust - especially since DirectX 8.1 is becoming a factor...

I personally believe that extra eye candy is worth more than a few fps...
 

Idoxash

Senior member
Apr 30, 2001
615
0
0
yeah i bet thats a slap in the face too ya nvidia ppl eh! I still on earth dont' see why-ya ppl fuss over what card rules the world....in all ways just play the game i my self likes better looking gfx thoe....some might like fps so buy whatya like and play games and shut up the fuss over the fastess card the thing is there never be the fastess nope so it's all just a big wasted of time!
 

Mingon

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2000
3,012
0
0
A feature set is largely irrelevant if its not supported by games or correctly working through drivers.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Well, DX8.1 wont matter in Doom III since Carmack uses OpenGL.
Anyways, there's no telling, but Carmack seems to believe the GF4 will be the faster card, buth due to hardware and software design.
 

scottrico

Senior member
Jun 23, 2001
473
0
0
Hey, Hold up!

Matrox: Parhelia

how about some video on three sides action? The card is not offical yet, so we do not know it doom 3 will or will not support it.

Who cares how much faster frame rate you can get, if you could look left and right with out changing directions in the game.

Maby one day.
soon:p
 

MistaTastyCakes

Golden Member
Oct 11, 2001
1,607
0
0
Hey, Hold up!

Matrox: Parhelia

how about some video on three sides action? The card is not offical yet, so we do not know it doom 3 will or will not support it.

Who cares how much faster frame rate you can get, if you could look left and right with out changing directions in the game.

Maby one day.

After buying a Parhelia and three monitors, I doubt I'd have enough money left over to buy Doom 3. ;) Oh well. I'm guessing Parhelia will be around GF4 speeds, but the features, although kinda gimmicky (unless you have a graphics design workstation or something) seem kinda neat if ya have the cash.

Anyways. As for ATI vs. nVidia.. who cares if the 8500 or GF$ is gonna be faster? Most of us will have new cards by the time Doom 3 comes out, anyways. It'll be more like R300 vs. NV30 vs. P10 vs. Parhelia by the time D3 is out. I could be wrong though.. but I'm hearing D3 is set for 2003.

/me shrugs
 

scottrico

Senior member
Jun 23, 2001
473
0
0

you can get a 15 in monitors for less then $50.00
only the froint screen would need to be big.
Your pc would be just like the three screen racing games they used to have at the arcade.
how much fun would madden 2004 ( or what ever they will call it) be in first person with this set up.

off da hook.
 

Necrolezbeast

Senior member
Apr 11, 2002
838
0
0
$450 for a vid card + minimum of $150 for moitors($50 a piece) = $350 more than I will spend for some dumb new feature that will fall through because noone is going to spend so much on shitty monitors rather than just playing on one good monitor, eh? Only the rich and the stupid will use this, and also the performance hit...how can you brag if you're getting 35fps?
 

scottrico

Senior member
Jun 23, 2001
473
0
0
This thread is not about price.

$450 for a vid card + minimum of $150 for moitors($50 a piece) = $350

What?

$450 no way, they are going to need market share (what?).
It is more like $300 and you should already have at least one monitor.
2 more is only $100 dollars.
High quality speakers cost more than $100 dollars.

Would you spend money for surround sound but not surround video?




Only the rich and the stupid will use this, and also the performance hit...how can you brag if you're getting 35fps?

Quake 3 at 100 fps or 300 fps looks strangely the same.
We need more invention, not more fps in games.

peace