What ATI card is DOOM III using ?

[NicColt]

>It stated unequivocally that the Doom 3 demo was running on the Radeon 8500

that's what were asking... where can we verify this.

 

[bluemax]

Maybe it was taking advantage of ATI's Truform technology to smooth out those lines......
What you guys thought was super-high polygon count could be just bump-mapping and truform together making a very nice picture.
THAT's what I like to see.... smarter techology rather than brute force.

 

[Acanthus]

Come on guys we all know that the geforce 2 mxs and geforce 4 mxs can push the polys enough to play the game comfortably, you will probably have to disable all the goodies though and itll look like the original doom, but hey, you can still play

 

[Dean]

It was on a R300...here is a snippet!

Doom III is very much hardware driven, and one of the controversies of this year?s E3 was that the game was demonstrated on the latest ATI graphics card rather than a card from NVidia.
?NVidia has been stellar in terms of driver quality and support and doing all of the things right,? says Carmack, who has been an outspoken evangelist for NVidia?s GeForce technology. ?For the past few years, they have been able to consistently outplay ATI on every front. The problem is that they are about one-half step out of synch with the hardware generation because they did Xbox instead of focusing everything on their next board. So they are a little bit behind ATI.?
?I told everyone that I was going to demonstrate Doom III on the best hardware, and there has been no collusion or kickbacks or anything like that going on. Our objective is the technical merit.?
?The new ATI card was clearly superior. I don?t want to ding NVidia for anything because NVidia has done everything they possibly could; but in every test we ran, ATI was faster.?

and here is the link...MSNBC

 

[adrian12]

John Carmack Responds - 5/29/02 2:29 am - By: Chalnoth - Source: John Carmack
I fired off an e-mail to John Carmack about the discussion that's been going on about his recent statements, and here was his reply:


It [The ATI card used] was compared against a very high speed GF4. It shouldn't be surprising that a next-generation card is faster than a current generation card. What will be very interesting is comparing the next gen cards (and the supporting drivers) from both vendors head to head when they are both in production.

Everyone working on DOOM still uses GF4-Ti cards at the moment, and if someone needs to buy a new video card today, that is what I tell them to get.

John Carmack

the above is taken from www.NVnews.net frontpage

to summerise, fastest Nv card would be GF4ti4600, JC used a next-gen (R300) ATI card.

Personally i'm not worried with the DM3 speculations, lets just wait for Nv's response before ppl start jumping to conclusions.

 

[PCdomeHubert]

Originally posted by: PING
doom III requires Pixel and Vertex shaders...hence < gf3 are handicapped.

Why would they be handicapped ?
They have them both.
Carmack also mentioned somewhere (tip: gamespot), that Doom 3 is designed to run with an average 30 fps on Geforce 3.
It may seem a little low, but it is enugh for some decent gaming.
And for those who are complaining about prices: when Doom 3 will finally ship, you will able to get a G3 card for 50-60 bucks.(Radeon 8500 cards are available for a hundred as we speak) Allright, you may have to pay a little more in Europe, but I think you got the picture.
G3 cards soon will become the mainstream in PC gaming.
Also I think the days when you could run any game on any computer are gone.
Computer gaming became a serious business - visitors on E3 were mostly adults - games has become an important part of home entertainment, thus as there are plasma TV-s you can't afford, there will be games wich will run on hardware you can't afford, too.
Anyway, VGA development being so fast paced, sooner or later evrybody will have their chances, as new cards make the older cheaper and more affordable.

 

[NicColt]

"NVidia has been stellar in terms of driver quality and support and doing all of the things right",says Carmack, who has been an outspoken evangelist for NVidia?s GeForce technology. The problem is that they are about one-half step out of synch with the hardware generation. So they are a little bit behind ATI. I told everyone that I was going to demonstrate Doom III on the best hardware, and there has been no collusion or kickbacks or anything like that going on. The new ATI card was clearly superior. but in every test we ran, ATI was faster."
Carmack on DOOM III


Damm

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: zsouthboy
Anyone read Carmack's interview? I thought he said that cards lower than GF2 and Radeon were not going to have acceptable frame rates, except at an insanely low resolution.

zs

in really early interviews 10-11 months or so ago carmack was using gf2 gts as his dev platform for doom3. and he was saying that a savage 4 could run it and not just optimally.


recent statements are now that it'll run on any non SDR card, so basically geforce2 gts / radeon original and up at a fairly decent resolution most likely 640x480 since he was saying it would have to run at 320x240 if you tried it on a tnt2 or something .


geforce3 ti200s are already going for $80 shipped in fs/ft forum TODAY!. and newegg sells radeon 8500 LE's for $100. he said 30fps with all the features and detail on, so if you turn some off you'd be fine. hence the being able to run it on a gf2. he did say that the radeon 8500 had the ability to do a scene in one pass where it would take a gf4 2-3 passes to do it. but he said the backend on the gf4 was better (i.e. the memory subsystems).

 

[richleader]

John Carmack clarifies that he's comparing the R300 to the Geforce 4:

from nvnews.net:

It [The ATI card used] was compared against a very high speed GF4. It shouldn't be surprising that a next-generation card is faster than a current generation card. What will be very interesting is comparing the next gen cards (and the supporting drivers) from both vendors head to head when they are both in production.

 

[NicColt]

>to summerise, fastest Nv card would be GF4ti4600, JC used a next-gen (R300) ATI card.

I've been reading that massive post over at rage3d but even with these type of statements the question then remains, even if they had to compare it with the GF4 where in the world is the next gen Nv product ? Are you telling me that Nv does not have a working NV30 product out now ???

>>>The problem is that they are about one-half step out of synch with the hardware generation

if this is so, then Nv has indeed fallen behind and ATI may stay on top of it.

I would be very surprised if Carmack does not already have a working NV30 product but just can't run D3 on it.

 

[merlocka]

if this is so, then Nv has indeed fallen behind and ATI may stay on top of it.

This has been so before... R200 had advantages over GF3, R100 over GF2. The two just leapfrog each other. It's like that in any semiconductor with close competition. The only difference here is that an awesome game developer has said that ATI's next gen part more than some Geforce4 Ultra.

even if they had to compare it with the GF4 where in the world is the next gen Nv product ? Are you telling me that Nv does not have a working NV30 product out now ???

I pity the poor bastards that work in nVidia's bringup lab...

FYI... those fancy chips like R300 and NV30 don't just come out of the "Fast @SS GPU" vending machine. It takes a TON of bringup and testing on each pass of silicon, and each driver revision has to be tested and fixed for each pass. R300 is sooner than NV30, just like 8500 was sooner than GF4. Savage2000 is what you get when you release a part on early silicon.