Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Gaming > Doom III for Mac - early 2005 (needs Panther with G5 1.5)

Doom III for Mac - early 2005 (needs Panther with G5 1.5)
Thread Tools
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/d3/

Preliminary System Requirements (these may change before the game's release):

- Mac OS X 10.3.6 or later
- PowerPC G5 1.5 GHz or faster
- 384MB RAM (512MB recommended)
- 2.2 GB free disk space
- ATI Radeon 8500/nVidia GeForce 3 or better
- 32MB of Video Ram (VRAM)
- DVD drive required to install and play


Amazon claims Dec. 20, 2004, but Aspyr says Feb. 2005. I assume it runs on a G4, but it doesn't actually say that.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Nov 3, 2004 at 01:21 PM. )
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:34 PM
 
g5. ouch. i guess i'll be waiting for the xbox version before i get to play this.
     
gbafan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:45 PM
 
Oh haha! Requires a G5? Ouch. Glad I bought a PC; this is the beginning of the end. A lot of new games are going to be using this engine. Wonder how this will sell with such heavy requirements.

Too bad.
MacBook Pro
     
the_glassman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:57 PM
 
Maybe they just should have stated required $600 video card and dual processor 2.5 GHz Powermac. Apple seems pretty confident that the new iMac will play it with ease. Can't wait to see how it works on various systems. I guess my little 1.5 GHz G4 won't work.
     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:59 PM
 
Originally posted by gbafan:
Oh haha! Requires a G5? Ouch. Glad I bought a PC; this is the beginning of the end. A lot of new games are going to be using this engine. Wonder how this will sell with such heavy requirements.

Too bad.
Well, could have seen it coming. Good job they've got the iMac G5 out the door, at least there may be [i]some[i] market for the game! Plus I doubt it'll be out for a while - maybe by the time it's released G5 adoption will have picked up somewhat.

btw there has never been a 1.5GHz G5 has there? Maybe it's what they're going to put in the powerbook G5? [/conspiracy theory]. Also I don't keep up with these things, but I thought the G-Force 3 was a relatively old card??
     
gbafan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:04 PM
 
Originally posted by willed:
Well, could have seen it coming. Good job they've got the iMac G5 out the door, at least there may be [i]some[i] market for the game! Plus I doubt it'll be out for a while - maybe by the time it's released G5 adoption will have picked up somewhat.
As we both know, playing a game with min spec isn't as enjoyable as say having a dual 2.5 G5 with a 6800 Ultra. The little iMac that could isn't going to run D3 that well when it's using a 5200fx card.
MacBook Pro
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:04 PM
 
Originally posted by gbafan:
Oh haha! Requires a G5? Ouch. Glad I bought a PC; this is the beginning of the end. A lot of new games are going to be using this engine. Wonder how this will sell with such heavy requirements.

Too bad.
You can see it two ways...it could fuel G5 computer sales. Or it could not sell because people aren't willing to buy a new computer for Doom 3 (possible but I know I'll buy a G5 for this game and many games derived from the Doom 3 engine and others will too)...it will be up to Aspyr/iD to weigh the factors that determine Doom 3's sales correctly.

Doom 3 might not sell because not many people have G5 computers right now...but if Aspyr says "**** it, no more Doom 3-derived games for you" because of poor sales when people are just recently starting to buy iMac G5s and PowerBook G5s are right around the corner, it would really suck to be us and Aspyr.

Aspyr would have made a poor decision and we'd be suffering through Aspyr's poor decision.

Then again, Doom 3 in February isn't so bad. Most people on PCs barely have the specs to play it acceptably. Most aren't even close to getting the full experience.

The cards that actually run Doom 3 fairly well have just started to show up. By February, I think Apple will have updated it's PowerMac lineup with better videocards on the low end that will run Doom 3 at a decent framerate with all details on high.

Hopefully the iMac G5 will get a small bump with better videocards before February.
     
the_glassman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:11 PM
 
I wonder if this had anything to do with Apple releasing a low-end tower? Seems like it makes sense now gamers can get something that's slightly better then the iMac and upgrade it, if needed. I wonder how it would handle Doom 3 with the lower system bus, but a nice video card?
     
the_glassman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Hopefully the iMac G5 will get a small bump with better videocards before February.
Ha! Like that will happen, if Apple is anything like the Apple of old, we might not see an updated iMac for 8-12 months. In it's current form it's a wonderful little computer, but despite what the apologist would have you believe the current video card is super weak sauce.
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:37 PM
 
I sincerely doubt it will require a G5. Somebody probably got the suggested minimum requirements mixed up with the actual minimum requirements.

The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
the_glassman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Lateralus:
I sincerely doubt it will require a G5. Somebody probably got the suggested minimum requirements mixed up with the actual minimum requirements.

The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
If you go to the Aspyr page and check out the system requirements it states plain as day

Preliminary System Requirements (these may change before the game's release):

Mac OS X 10.3.6 or later

PowerPC G5 1.5 GHz or faster

384MB RAM (512MB recommended)

2.2 GB free disk space

ATI Radeon 8500/nVidia GeForce 3 or better

32MB of Video Ram (VRAM)

DVD drive required to install and play
     
CincyGamer
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:57 PM
 
I just picked up Jedi Outcast II for $20 at Micro Center and picked up Myst DVD set for $20 thus week. Hours of good game play. I have a 1 GHZ G4 TiBook.. The point I am making is that there is a wealth of good games now for Mac. This is not a show stopper.

We have WoW coming out very,very soon (can play for free next week -beta or $8 subscription to Filepalnet to play tonight). I am very proud of the quality of games out now and on the way. When I bought my laptop last summer, it was top of the line powerbook. There was no games it could not run.

Now, we are to the point where the games have passed the hardware. We have caught up to the PC and getting the top PC games ported very soon. The disadvantage we have is Apple does not allow us to upgrade our own CPUS unlike the PCs.

Have you gone into a Comp USA or Best Buy and looked at PC games? There are a lot of crappy games not worth the money. Thats why the value of old PC games is so cheap. NwN with all expansions for $30, vs > $100 on Mac side. The games we are getting for the mac are all the very best titles. The proven games. Sure we may get some laggy ports (KoTOR and EQ and Halo) comes to mind, but there should be no reason to not have any games to play.

Personally, I do not have a G5 (yet) and in the meantime am playing thru Warcraft 3/Frozen Throne, Myst 1-IV and getting games finished to dive into WoW. Now, if WoW runs like dogshit then I'll retire the G4 unit to be my developers laptop and move on. But I still have at least another good year of gaming bliss on my TiBook.. THe situation is not that bleak.

Way to go Aspyr!! Thank you. Please work on a performance patch for Kotor would be awesome.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:26 PM
 
Originally posted by the_glassman:
Ha! Like that will happen, if Apple is anything like the Apple of old, we might not see an updated iMac for 8-12 months. In it's current form it's a wonderful little computer, but despite what the apologist would have you believe the current video card is super weak sauce.
If Apple pulls that same stunt, it deserves to have the 1.8%worldwide marketshare it has now and even lose some more.
     
gbafan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:32 PM
 
Originally posted by CincyGamer:
[B]I just picked up Jedi Outcast II for $20 at Micro Center and picked up Myst DVD set for $20 thus week. Hours of good game play. I have a 1 GHZ G4 TiBook.. The point I am making is that there is a wealth of good games now for Mac. This is not a show stopper.
True. However, future games will not play well on a 1ghz G4; I'm in that same boat.

We have WoW coming out very,very soon (can play for free next week -beta or $8 subscription to Filepalnet to play tonight). I am very proud of the quality of games out now and on the way. When I bought my laptop last summer, it was top of the line powerbook. There was no games it could not run.

Now, we are to the point where the games have passed the hardware. We have caught up to the PC and getting the top PC games ported very soon. The disadvantage we have is Apple does not allow us to upgrade our own CPUS unlike the PCs.
There are several other disadvantages besides just CPU upgrades. For example, the "prime" Apple consumer model, iMac G5, allows for RAM upgrades only. No option for a faster video card, no choice for a newer CPU in the future.

Have you gone into a Comp USA or Best Buy and looked at PC games? There are a lot of crappy games not worth the money. Thats why the value of old PC games is so cheap. NwN with all expansions for $30, vs > $100 on Mac side. The games we are getting for the mac are all the very best titles. The proven games. Sure we may get some laggy ports (KoTOR and EQ and Halo) comes to mind, but there should be no reason to not have any games to play.
Have you? I certainly have, just last weekend in fact. There are so many games to choose from that are actually good it's a freaking nightmare. I wound up getting Battlefield:Vietnam. But I could have gotten Joint Operation, Star Wars Battlefront, Rome:Total War, Rise of Nations Gold (yeah it's coming...), Men of Valor (coming too...), and just a ton of other "AAA" titles that may or may not be ported to Mac.

Personally, I do not have a G5 (yet) and in the meantime am playing thru Warcraft 3/Frozen Throne, Myst 1-IV and getting games finished to dive into WoW. Now, if WoW runs like dogshit then I'll retire the G4 unit to be my developers laptop and move on. But I still have at least another good year of gaming bliss on my TiBook.. THe situation is not that bleak.
I don't own a G5 either. And damned if I'll spend $3000 for the top flight G5 just so I can play WoW or Doom 3 at good speeds. I mention WoW because you're curious how it runs on say a 1ghz PB G4.

Let me tell you that it's playable sure. It's not playable for raid PvP play or anything remotely close to that as it drops the FPS to the low single digits. Sure, I get about 25FPS when fighting in open areas, slaying mobs with a small party. But once I enter a city like Ironforge or join up for some PvP warfare, forget about it.

It became so depressing I opted for the PC. I paid a good price, $850 w/ upgrades to get a fairly speedy machine with a sweet graphics card. This machine allows WoW to fly, PvP is no longer an issue and I'm mostly capped at 60FPS (vysnc enabled on LCD) through out the game.

/shrug
MacBook Pro
     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:33 PM
 
Originally posted by CincyGamer:
I just picked up Jedi Outcast II for $20 at Micro Center and picked up Myst DVD set for $20 thus week. Hours of good game play. I have a 1 GHZ G4 TiBook.. The point I am making is that there is a wealth of good games now for Mac. This is not a show stopper.

We have WoW coming out very,very soon (can play for free next week -beta or $8 subscription to Filepalnet to play tonight). I am very proud of the quality of games out now and on the way. When I bought my laptop last summer, it was top of the line powerbook. There was no games it could not run.

Now, we are to the point where the games have passed the hardware. We have caught up to the PC and getting the top PC games ported very soon. The disadvantage we have is Apple does not allow us to upgrade our own CPUS unlike the PCs.

Have you gone into a Comp USA or Best Buy and looked at PC games? There are a lot of crappy games not worth the money. Thats why the value of old PC games is so cheap. NwN with all expansions for $30, vs > $100 on Mac side. The games we are getting for the mac are all the very best titles. The proven games. Sure we may get some laggy ports (KoTOR and EQ and Halo) comes to mind, but there should be no reason to not have any games to play.

Personally, I do not have a G5 (yet) and in the meantime am playing thru Warcraft 3/Frozen Throne, Myst 1-IV and getting games finished to dive into WoW. Now, if WoW runs like dogshit then I'll retire the G4 unit to be my developers laptop and move on. But I still have at least another good year of gaming bliss on my TiBook.. THe situation is not that bleak.

Way to go Aspyr!! Thank you. Please work on a performance patch for Kotor would be awesome.
I don't think anyone was saying that gaming on the Mac is particularly bleak - you're right, there are many good games out for the Mac at the moment, especially compared to a few years ago! The general consensus is that it's a shame that a G5 will be required to run Doom3.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Lateralus:
I sincerely doubt it will require a G5. Somebody probably got the suggested minimum requirements mixed up with the actual minimum requirements.

The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
I agree it will likely run on a G4, despite the posted "minimum" system requirements. However, I suspect it will suck on anything less than a G5 1.8 with Radeon 9600 Pro. Preferred would be a G5 2.5 with Radeon 9800XT or higher.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:46 PM
 
Ahh, so at least there's SOME good news today

But the requirements are steep! Maybe this will force Apple to come to their senses and start shipping a real graphics card in the iMac.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:49 PM
 
Originally posted by itai195:
Maybe this will force Apple to come to their senses and start shipping a real graphics card in the iMac.
Yeah, the main reason I didn't get an iMac G5 was not the CPU, but because the GPU sucks royally. I'm not a hardcore gamer, but CoreImage/CoreVideo will tax the GPU (eventually, at least in some apps), and I do like a game or two now and then. At least a Radeon 9600 Pro would give me tolerable light gaming with the Doom III engine. A GeForceFX 5200 is just too slow for 2005-era games. A 9600 Pro would also make me more comfortable with regards to CI/CV future proofing, even though in this case a 5200 is probably OK for most stuff.

I'd be happy with just an option to upgrade the GPU in the rev. B as a BTO, and would be happy to pay an extra $100 for the upgrade.
     
DeeKat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montréal, Qc
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
I sincerely doubt it will require a G5. Somebody probably got the suggested minimum requirements mixed up with the actual minimum requirements.

The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
I totaly agree

it makes no sense that Aspyr whould ignore the millions of G4 out there. It would not a very business wise decision. After all their suppose to make money with a game! I dont know what's the proportion of G4/G5 out there, but theirs much more G4s. At the very least it should run at minmun settings. Why a company would invest a lot of money into a D3 port and then corner themselfs into a very narrow niche, and have anemic sales? It just makes no sense. my 2 cents.

So it think it will run on a G4 even if it at 2-3fps!!!
     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 05:02 PM
 
Originally posted by DeeKat:
I totaly agree

it makes no sense that Aspyr whould ignore the millions of G4 out there. It would not a very business wise decision. After all their suppose to make money with a game! I dont know what's the proportion of G4/G5 out there, but theirs much more G4s. At the very least it should run at minmun settings. Why a company would invest a lot of money into a D3 port and then corner themselfs into a very narrow niche, and have anemic sales? It just makes no sense. my 2 cents.

So it think it will run on a G4 even if it at 2-3fps!!!
Err, they're not ruling out the G4 just to piss you off. They're likely doing it because it would be unplayable on a G4. Obviously Aspyr haven't consciously decided not to support the G4; their hand has been forced by the fact that the G4 can't handle Doom 3.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 06:02 PM
 
Originally posted by DeeKat:
I totaly agree

it makes no sense that Aspyr whould ignore the millions of G4 out there. It would not a very business wise decision. After all their suppose to make money with a game! I dont know what's the proportion of G4/G5 out there, but theirs much more G4s. At the very least it should run at minmun settings. Why a company would invest a lot of money into a D3 port and then corner themselfs into a very narrow niche, and have anemic sales? It just makes no sense. my 2 cents.

So it think it will run on a G4 even if it at 2-3fps!!!
DeeKat, you're going against many of my and other people's complaints about certain publishers. I would hate for Aspyr to tell me Doom 3 works on, say, an 800MHz G4 if I can only play the game as a slide show.

Aspyr is playing it safe announcing the minimum being a 1.5GHz G5. This is done so people that buy Doom 3 for their 800MHz G4 aren't completely surprised if it doesn't work very well. If you're buying and your computer is under-spec'ed for the game, you're taking responsibility for the risk that the game won't run as you want it to run.

I've said this over and over again a year before Doom 3 was released for PC...the game simply won't run well on anything but a high end G4 or a G5. I wasn't too far from the truth. It shouldn't come as a surprise that you need something around 1.5GHz to get anything decent.
     
BurpetheadX
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 06:09 PM
 
To sum this up:
[list=1][*]High System Requirements.[*]For some reason requires half the VRAM of PC version.[*]They haven't said anything about dual processor machines.[*]Good game. $50.[*]Pre-ordered.[/list=1]
www.marcushesse.com

UNC-Charlotte Apple Campus Rep.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 06:27 PM
 
32 MB of VRAM required is a joke. Besides, there is no graphics card that is equal to or better than the GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 that has 32 MB of VRAM. They all have 64 MB or more.

Also, the iMac G5 does not meet the minimum requirements. The GeForce FX5200 is slower than the GeForce 3.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 06:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
32 MB of VRAM required is a joke. Besides, there is no graphics card that is equal to or better than the GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 that has 32 MB of VRAM. They all have 64 MB or more.

Also, the iMac G5 does not meet the minimum requirements. The GeForce FX5200 is slower than the GeForce 3.
Good thing the iMac G5 doesn't have a Geforce 5200 then. It has a 5200 Ultra. The difference is approx 50% higher clockspeed, 50% higher memory speed and twice the width of the memory bus (reference design 5200 is 64 bit memory bus. There are boards that use 128 bits, but that's non-standard). That translates into 3 times the memory bandwidth of the standard 5200. And that is most definately faster than a Geforce 3.

The 5200U is in most cases (though not all) slower than a 4200, but there is some distance between the Geforce3 and the 4200. Besides, Doom3 will use those new vertex shaders that the Geforce 3 doesn't have, further increasing the lead. The 5200U is the same GPU as the 5700U and clocked similarly. The difference is the lack of compression of the z-buffer and textures, which eats memory bandwidth, but the Geforce3 didn't have a lot of those features either.
     
CincyGamer
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cincinnati
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 07:02 PM
 
The issue is the codebase is probably compiled using GCC since it came from Linux where gcc is the norm. Xcode (Apple-recommended development environent for OS X) uses GCC.

In gcc, there are various code optimizations performed by the gcc complier. The option to specify CPU dependent optimizations such as -mcpu=G5 -mtype= ... and -fast (forgot the specifics). The bottom line is a G5-optimized compile can happen, and can break when running on a G4. The solution is to have a G4 optimized build and a G5 optimized build. But this isnt being done.

They build for G4 unless they require a G5.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 07:27 PM
 
The answer I got back from Aspyr is that it's not finished yet, but it probably won't be playable on a G4 1.5. They didn't actually say it won't load on a G4 1.5, but they weren't specific about this.
     
3.1416
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 08:03 PM
 
Originally posted by Lateralus:
The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
The problem might be the G4's lousy memory bandwidth.
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:08 AM
 
So where can I buy a 1.5GHz G5 anyway?
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So where can I buy a 1.5GHz G5 anyway?
Just take 3/4 of one 2 GHz G5. Easy enough. Sheesh.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So where can I buy a 1.5GHz G5 anyway?
Close enough...


Too bad the GPU sucks.

Or maybe a G5 1.5 PowerBook is coming???
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 02:44 AM
 
Originally posted by 3.1416:
The problem might be the G4's lousy memory bandwidth.
And an Athlon T-bird's bandwidth is much better?
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 04:34 AM
 
Prediction: DOOM III will sht all over the iMac G5. People will whine and complain. I will play my "told ya so" card and accept apologies for all my bitching about the graphics card.

Potential prediction additions:

Apple gets its sht together with the next upgrade on all systems.
Apple doesn't get its sht together.
I still won't have a dual G5 by the time this comes out.
I still won't have a dual G5 by the time this comes out.

Seriously, I hope Apple gets into gear.
     
gbafan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 04:48 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:


Apple gets its sht together with the next upgrade on all systems.
Apple doesn't get its sht together.
I still won't have a dual G5 by the time this comes out.
I still won't have a dual G5 by the time this comes out.

Seriously, I hope Apple gets into gear.
Right there with ya.
MacBook Pro
     
MilkmanDan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: My Powerbook, in Japan!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 04:57 AM
 
My poor 12in Powerbook with the 1.33 ghz G4 processor will cry itself to sleep at night. Oh well. Back to playing Wingnuts.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 07:05 AM
 
Apple: Please don't be so difficult in dealing with and ship the iMac with a good graphics card.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
Prediction: DOOM III will sht all over the iMac G5. People will whine and complain. I will play my "told ya so" card and accept apologies for all my bitching about the graphics card.
     
jeffB
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 11:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Lateralus:
I sincerely doubt it will require a G5. Somebody probably got the suggested minimum requirements mixed up with the actual minimum requirements.

The game runs fine on a 1.2GHz Athlon and a GeForce 4 Ti.
I don't mean to be rude calling BS on you
but your definition of "fine" has to be pretty bad.
i have an absolute monster pc and it plays acceptable
amd 64bit 3400
5600 256mb
and it's playable after some fairly serious cfg'ing.
i can't imagine you get more than 10 fps @ min. resolution with everything shut off.

i might wait for a G7. I KID I KID.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 11:51 AM
 
From here:

A few tidbits about Doom 3 system requirements...

- The preliminary Mac requirements (which is what these are) are basically the same as the PC system requirements. They may change, or they may stay the same. There is no magic that will make the Mac version run twice as fast as the PC version that wants a 1.5 GHz processor minimum.

- Doom 3 is not optimized for dual processors or SMP. This is a major architecture issue, not 'lazy programmers'. The SMP code from Quake 3 never made it into Doom 3 in any real way, so it's very unlikely the entire game engine will be rewritten on the Mac to take advantage of SMP.

- Right now there isn't anything preventing you from running Doom 3 on a G4. But until we are sure it will be playable on a G4 1.5 (or whatever speed), we aren't going to say it will. Can you imagine the uproar if we released prelim specs as 1Ghz G4 and then a month later moved them to G5 1.5? Of course we are working with id, Apple, ATI and nVidia to optimize the game as fully as possible so it will run on as many machines as we can. Then we'll set the final system requirements accordingly.

- Something everyone needs to understand on Mac game performance is that high end games like this generally start out at a 30-40% slower frame rate right off the top from running on the Mac. There are a variety of reasons for this, from compiler code generation to OpenGL differences between PC and Mac. So for most games it is a HUGE optimization effort to even get the Mac version to run close to as fast as the PC. It's not a fun fact, but it's there. And it's something Aspyr spends an incredible amount of time worrying about and working on for each game.

Hopefully this gives at least a little more information...

Glenda
_________________
Glenda Adams
Director of PC/Mac Development, Aspyr Media
     
CobraMantis
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New York, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 12:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
- Doom 3 is not optimized for dual processors or SMP.
Hmmph. I didn't realize this. That's disappointing.
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 12:34 PM
 
Originally posted by jeffB:
I don't mean to be rude calling BS on you
but your definition of "fine" has to be pretty bad.
i have an absolute monster pc and it plays acceptable
amd 64bit 3400
5600 256mb
and it's playable after some fairly serious cfg'ing.
i can't imagine you get more than 10 fps @ min. resolution with everything shut off.

i might wait for a G7. I KID I KID.
Then something is wrong with your system or your expectation level. Every system I have seen with an Athlon in the GHz range, a gob of RAM and a GeForce 4 Ti or higher video card runs the game fine at 1024x768 with the stock graphics settings.

I can't say the same for systems with ATIs. Doom III seems to favor GeForce GPUs rather heavily.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
E's Lil Theorem
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Theory - everything works in theory
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:02 PM
 
I hope that 3.0(+)GHz G5 machine is out by the time DIII comes out, though my recently upgraded PC plays it okay.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 02:57 PM
 
Just a question, MindFad: What GPU do you expect the next iMac to have?
Please keep in mind the following:

A 6200? No PCIe, and I doubt that there is a new chipset on the first
facelift. Possible if nVidia backports it.

A 9600? Hardly. The interface is not AGP standard, it's a proprietary
connection based on AGP (like all iMacs have had) to save space and cost.
The G3s were ATi only, and the G4 was nVidia only. No ATi for you - unless
there is a new chipset.

A 5700? Why should nVidia port last generation's chip now?

Whining about how Apple should have used a 9600 or something is fine, that's your opinion. I still say that Apple never meant the iMac to be a gamer machine, but let's not go there again. But don't kid yourself that the next iMac is going to have a much more powerful GPU, because it won't. Your best bet is a 6200 (no Ultra), if nVidia backports it, and that's not very much better. It might just be a 5200U again, only with 128MB VRAM. If you are in the market for a gaming Mac, get the single-CPU Powermac and beef up the graphics board. Don't wait for the next iMac to get here 6-9 months from now, because it still won't be the machine you're looking for.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:08 PM
 
Yes, let's not go there again.

My argument was, yes, it should've had a 9600 Pro at least. For such a system today, I would've said a 128MB 9600 Pro, but seeing as it's Apple, 64MB even. *groan*

I have a feeling the next iMac will be just another 5200U with 128MB. I would like to seriously see something better in there. Maybe Apple will pull something out of its sleeve.

I don't think DOOM III is going to be horrible on the iMac G5I just think Apple had an opportunity to give it more potential. It will run decently on the iMac, but not like people with these spiffy, fast new machines will expect. I have faith they'll optimize it well enough, though. Think I can get away with it on my dual 800 with 9000? Maybe at the lowest res with the crappiest sound and no shaders at all.
     
gbafan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:

I have a feeling the next iMac will be just another 5200U with 128MB. I would like to seriously see something better in there. Maybe Apple will pull something out of its sleeve.
Like a new shiny 6200? Ack!

Where are our 6600s Apple? We need a good mid-range card.
MacBook Pro
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Rev-O:
Just take 3/4 of one 2 GHz G5. Easy enough. Sheesh.
Seriously, where the hell did they get this 1.5 number from?
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:40 PM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Seriously, where the hell did they get this 1.5 number from?
Come on...just drop it. The specs should simply say any G5 will do. Or are you trying to figure out if they might have a super-secret PowerBook G5 1.5GHz?
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 04:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Seriously, where the hell did they get this 1.5 number from?
It looks like they just used the same number as PC version. P4 1.5 or Athlon 1500+. However, they think it needs at G5 at that GHz. A G4 just doesn't cut it.

BTW, a G4 1 GHz is about the same speed as a PIII 1 GHz in integer benchmarks, but a G4 1 GHz is MUCH slower than a PIII 1 GHz in FP benchmarks. OTOH, a G5 is VERY fast at FP. Maybe that's why the G5 requirement? I dunno.

Originally posted by MindFad:
I have a feeling the next iMac will be just another 5200U with 128MB.
If so I'll probably just skip it. A 5200U in a 2005 20" AIO desktop? Not for me.

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Come on...just drop it. The specs should simply say any G5 will do. Or are you trying to figure out if they might have a super-secret PowerBook G5 1.5GHz?
Or eMac.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 05:59 PM
 
Originally posted by gbafan:
Like a new shiny 6200? Ack!

Where are our 6600s Apple? We need a good mid-range card.
6600s are also only available for PCIe. Until Macs get PCIe, the choices in boards is somewhat limited. Better than last generation though - there was no 5700 or 5900, at least now we have a 6800. With the 6800 ported and done, it would not be hard to make a 6600 - it's really just a 6800 with half the pixel pipelines - so it could happen. Not in an iMac though.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
Yes, let's not go there again.

My argument was, yes, it should've had a 9600 Pro at least. For such a system today, I would've said a 128MB 9600 Pro, but seeing as it's Apple, 64MB even. *groan*

I have a feeling the next iMac will be just another 5200U with 128MB. I would like to seriously see something better in there.
Unless the 6200 is made available for AGP, that's what we'll get. Or a 5500U, I never did find out what the big difference between those two was but I think it's just a die shrink. The 6200 is coming to the iMac, sooner or later, since it's significantly faster and in the same price/feature bracket as the 5200 was when it was new.

I would have been much more comfortable with the 5200U if it had had 128 MB of RAM today. I can only guess that lack of space and excessive heat generation caused problems for Apple - memory clocked that high gives off a lot of heat. Perhaps Apple also put a lot of faith in the AGP bus and the fast memory interface to help offset the lack, at least for Quartz Extreme and Core Image.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 06:30 PM
 
The 6600 should be coming to AGP relatively soon. There are no plans to AGPify the 6200 any time soon though, at least on the PC side.

Plus, for all we know, the next gen of iMacs will use ATI cards.

Whatever the case, I just want something better than the crapola 5200 Ultra in the current iMac or I'm not buying.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,