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 3 is UB!

Doom 3 is UB!
Thread Tools
tkmd
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 07:55 PM
 
Get it here: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/27399


I wonder how much faster the mac intels are going to be....
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 08:30 AM
 
Benchmarks, Benchmarks, Benchmarks!!!



Regards
PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 08:14 PM
 
Well,forgot to do one without the patch,but the game feels a bit faster.
Time demo 1st run:26.7
Time demo 2nd run:28.4
Looking pretty as always,running in 1920X1200,everything on but AA and VSync.Machine specs on my sig.
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 04:48 PM
 
I hope people realize that medium quality is for GPU's with 256mb and high is for GPU's with 512mb and not complain when they can't run high well on a GPU with 128mb. =p
     
GeniusInABottle
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu
I hope people realize that medium quality is for GPU's with 256mb and high is for GPU's with 512mb and not complain when they can't run high well on a GPU with 128mb. =p
Actually, 'Medium' is for videocards with memory as low as 64MB, 'High' is for cards with 128-256MB, and 'Ultra' is designed for cards with >256MB. That said, how about those benchmarks..? My MacBook Pro is due in this week and I'd like to know how decent of a machine she'll be for gaming.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2006, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by GeniusInABottle
Actually, 'Medium' is for videocards with memory as low as 64MB, 'High' is for cards with 128-256MB, and 'Ultra' is designed for cards with >256MB. That said, how about those benchmarks..? My MacBook Pro is due in this week and I'd like to know how decent of a machine she'll be for gaming.
Actually I looked it up and it's more like low is for 64mb, medium for 128, high for 256 and ultra for 512. My mistake but what I said still stands. These pages back up what I said: http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_5.html and http://www.gen-x-pc.com/doom3_FAQ.htm and http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html...hlbnRodXNpYXN0 Although in my opinion we also got to take into account the fact that OS X is more heavier on the video card than Windows XP is. But rule of thumb I think 64-low, 128-medium, 256-high and 512mb-ultra is the best way to go to get the best performance especially when you want to test your computer and not blame the wrong thing.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Feb 23, 2006 at 12:37 AM. )
     
fleaplus
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2006, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu
Actually I looked it up and it's more like low is for 64mb, medium for 128, high for 256 and ultra for 512. My mistake but what I said still stands. These pages back up what I said: http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_5.html and http://www.gen-x-pc.com/doom3_FAQ.htm and http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html...hlbnRodXNpYXN0 Although in my opinion we also got to take into account the fact that OS X is more heavier on the video card than Windows XP is. But rule of thumb I think 64-low, 128-medium, 256-high and 512mb-ultra is the best way to go to get the best performance especially when you want to test your computer and not blame the wrong thing.
I dare you to run Doom 3 at high settings on that new dual platform Radeon 9600 w/256mb! That being said, I think that the MBP/iMac should have no problems hitting medium settings @ native resolution with some good framerates. Maybe even a bit of FSAA/AF too.
MacBook Pro (Mid 2007), 2.4Ghz, 2GB DDR2-667Mhz, 160GB, Superdrive, Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT w/256MB, 15.4" WXGA+ LCD
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2006, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by fleaplus
I dare you to run Doom 3 at high settings on that new dual platform Radeon 9600 w/256mb! That being said, I think that the MBP/iMac should have no problems hitting medium settings @ native resolution with some good framerates. Maybe even a bit of FSAA/AF too.
Well I originally said medium for such a configuration but obviously that's not generous enough for some people so hey no need to "dare" me. According to several sites high (not ultra but high) is for 256mb vram but like I said we probably should take OS X's overhead into account. Although when you come down to it I probably would still take that dare anyway as I'd be curious as to how well it'd run. At any rate you do have to take vram and model of card into account when choosing quality level especially when you want to do benchmarks but the intel mac doesn't have a 9600 it has a X1600 with 128 or 256mb. So it should be able to do medium or high respectively.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Feb 23, 2006 at 02:26 AM. )
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2006, 09:52 AM
 
I'm using high but no AA,1920x1200.Having no problems,i can live with less than 60 fps,but not below 30.
( Last edited by gudrummer; Feb 24, 2006 at 05:48 PM. )
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
joe
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: northeast PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by gudrummer
Well,forgot to do one without the patch,but the game feels a bit faster.
Time demo 1st run:26.7
Time demo 2nd run:28.4
Looking pretty as always,running in 1920X1200,everything on but AA and VSync.Machine specs on my sig.
Are you sure you're not running in ultra mode instead of high? Those benchmarks seem very low for your hardwware. For comparison, my system at 1920x1200 high quality (AA and VSync default to off):
Time demo 1st run 38.7fps
Time demo 2nd run 41.5fps
I'm still at v1.3 since the new v1.3a version doesn't seem to help NVidia cards. My system is a dual 2.5GHz G5 with 6800 ultra and 2gigs RAM. I'm not using any performance tweaks. Shadows are on and all other settings are untouched. I always reboot before playing tho to give Doom3 every last bit of available RAM (Safari seems to hold back 200megs even after quitting).
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 01:18 AM
 
Well,could be because i usually have 12 other softwares open....but i'm pretty sure it's high,not ultra.
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2006, 06:34 PM
 
fwiw, ppc people should perhaps stick with v1.3 rather than blindly updating to v1.3A.
There's been some reported troubles with this latest release for mp-play with some mods. Like Last Man Standing..

Now nothings 100%, certain - but i'm gonna downgrade back to v1.3 tomorrow anyhow.
Not that there was any major reason for me to update anyhow (doh!) as my mac has nvidia anyhow. Next time i'll wait!

HTH someone! :}

cheers,
Strider
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 02:13 PM
 
Decided to run again after a reboot to check any improvements...same frame rates as before.Maybe it's just like the pc's,Nvidia is the king of Doom 3 after all.
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
joe
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: northeast PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2006, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by gudrummer
Decided to run again after a reboot to check any improvements...same frame rates as before.Maybe it's just like the pc's,Nvidia is the king of Doom 3 after all.
According to the Mac Doom3 results below, you're right. At least at the 23" monitor's native 1920x1200 res. If you read through the rest of those game results tho, neither card is faster at everything:
http://www.barefeats.com/rad9650.html
     
gudrummer
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2006, 06:51 PM
 
I'm happy with the performance.Playing the game it's been a joy and it's never slow enough to irritate me.Halo really runs great,loving it too,although i played it to death on the Xbox a long time ago....
MacBook Pro 2.4 17 HD
ACD 23
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2006, 03:21 PM
 
you should now play Doom3 with the mod Annihilation enabled. faaaantaaaaastic!

Strider
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
RussS
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Alhambra, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2006, 10:10 PM
 
Here's a graph showing the improvement the latest Doom 3 update made on a dual 2GHz G5 with an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro (64MB):



That's a 22% to 31% speed increase depending on resolution just by updating Doom 3!

On another note, here's a graph showing the difference between the 9600 Pro (64MB) and an X800XT (256MB) in the same G5:



I didn't test the 9600 past 1024x768. I figured once it dropped below 20 FPS why bother.
( Last edited by RussS; Mar 11, 2006 at 10:59 PM. )
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2006, 11:22 PM
 
Those Mac numbers in general are pretty weak. An Athlon 64 @ 2.7 GHz and a GeForce 6800 GT AGP score 70 FPS at 1600x1200 with all options maxed out, no AA/AF. :-|
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2006, 06:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu
Those Mac numbers in general are pretty weak. An Athlon 64 @ 2.7 GHz and a GeForce 6800 GT AGP score 70 FPS at 1600x1200 with all options maxed out, no AA/AF. :-|
that's about normal for the ppc version of doom3, though extra tweaking can enable even higher framerates. Also removing the 60fps max limit will also produce extra end results for the timedemos. Once i remove that capp my dual 2ghz G5 gets around 55fps - so often the pc results are misleading. Have u ever played d3 with com_fixedtic? It just doesn't feel right at all, but it does make timedemo results go passed 60fps and look good

I'd like Apple to get out the pro intel "Power Macs"? and then lets compare systems, cos atm, there is no fair intel machines to compare imho. (mac vs pc)

cheers, Strider
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2006, 05:07 PM
 
Since I do hardware reviews for a decently big hardware review site, I think I know how to benchmark Doom 3. :-P

There is no 60 FPS cap for the timedemo command, so that will make absolutely no difference. Cheating with other console commands is also stupid. You set high quality in the menu, enable all the extra effects in Advanced, turn off AA and AF with r_multisamples 0, image_anisotropy 0, and then vid_restart. You do two runs of "timedemo demo1 1" (remember the extra 1), and take the second number. The PC results are not misleading -- they're simply much higher, and I'm curious to know why.
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2006, 05:20 PM
 
sry i had no idea you where so famous! ;p
Ok, if i run a timedemo with the capp in place, i'll get late 40s (last time i checked). Without the 'com_fixedtic' enabled i get 55fps. That's because there are certain parts within the timedemo that the framerate goes real high (if that capp was off). So, the end result (the average) is increased. iyswim? I also don't cheat with any tweaks. They're just tweaks, ie better settings for your hardware.. sry i gave all these wrong impressions.

btw, the minimum value for anisotropy is a 1. Even if it's set to zero it'll default back to 1 as this is the minimum, unless u use the actual driver control panel to over-ride this. (guess that's just the ati users then?)

Agree with you on your time demo command though, always use the second "1" or "cache". weird one that, but the second result is always better even though you're forcing the caching! Odd.. Anyhow, the PC results arent misleading i'd just like a "real" Intel PowerMac released! PPC-MacDoom3 will never catch up to the PC, unless Apple release a stonking ppc Power Mac real soon! Anyhow, a conversation will never run as well as the native release...

I'm just glad we have Doom3 on the Mac, fantastic game!

...Back to playing "In Hell". The most awesome Doom3 game atm!

Strider
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2006, 07:24 PM
 
Yeah, you're probably right about the anisotropy, but as far as performance goes, the game treats 0 like 1 -- basically no real anisotropic filtering.

As for com_fixedtic ... like I said, it has no impact on timedemos. I don't know why you're getting a higher score with it off during a timedemo, and I'd have to see for myself to believe it. Carmack's word on it has always been that the cap is removed for benchmarks, and that's what I see in the lab as well. Most of our newest video cards score in the 130's/140's at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with no AA/AF, so that's a testament to that fact.
     
joe
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: northeast PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2006, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu
Those Mac numbers in general are pretty weak. An Athlon 64 @ 2.7 GHz and a GeForce 6800 GT AGP score 70 FPS at 1600x1200 with all options maxed out, no AA/AF. :-|
Doom 3 on Mac has been slower than PC since it was released. The various reasons have been discussed at barefeats.com and macologist.org if you're interested. However, as with the PC version, Doom3 seems to run better on Macs with NVidia cards. My dual 2.5GHz G5 / 6800 Ultra manages 41.5fps at the native res of my 23" Cinema HD (1920 x 1200). That's with the default High Quality - all options on including shadows (no AA/AF).

FWIW, I recently re-installed my G5 from the original Panther discs. As an experiement I benchmarked Doom 3 at OSX 10.3.9, 10.4, and 10.4.5. And it appears the drivers for my 6800 were continously updated as the performance increased from 30.1 to 36.7, to 41.5fps (all 1920x1200 HQ). That's not all that surprising I suppose. But you don't often read about Nvidia driver updates on Mac.
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2006, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu
Yeah, you're probably right about the anisotropy, but as far as performance goes, the game treats 0 like 1 -- basically no real anisotropic filtering.

As for com_fixedtic ... like I said, it has no impact on timedemos. I don't know why you're getting a higher score with it off during a timedemo, and I'd have to see for myself to believe it. Carmack's word on it has always been that the cap is removed for benchmarks, and that's what I see in the lab as well. Most of our newest video cards score in the 130's/140's at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with no AA/AF, so that's a testament to that fact.
Well, it's nothing more than mathematics.. Afterall, if the timedemo runs through and there are low points where it drops to around (say) 10fps and then high points where it hits the 60fps cap - then your average is going to be around 40fps (for example).
But run the same test without that 60fps capp. Then those 'high points' of the timedemo could reach (say) 100fps.. therefore the average result at the end will be higher. Of course it doesn't really mean anything, but you'll see PC ppl doing this to get the most "impressive" score..
This is all I meant.

Of course, i don't bother running the timedemos over and over - i just play the game! heh
Back to playing "In Hell"........ This is just soooo incredible!

cheers, Strider
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
mr faisal
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uae
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2006, 03:20 PM
 
The God is very playful Jamila very
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2006, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by striderdm1
Well, it's nothing more than mathematics.. Afterall, if the timedemo runs through and there are low points where it drops to around (say) 10fps and then high points where it hits the 60fps cap - then your average is going to be around 40fps (for example).
But run the same test without that 60fps capp. Then those 'high points' of the timedemo could reach (say) 100fps.. therefore the average result at the end will be higher. Of course it doesn't really mean anything, but you'll see PC ppl doing this to get the most "impressive" score..
This is all I meant.

Of course, i don't bother running the timedemos over and over - i just play the game! heh
Back to playing "In Hell"........ This is just soooo incredible!

cheers, Strider
You're not getting it. I just said (for like the 3rd time) that there *IS NO CAP* when running a timedemo. The cap is there only during gameplay. I'll say it again:

There is no framerate cap when a timedemo is run. Carmack himself has said this. Our lab results prove this (140+ FPS average). Geez.
     
RussS
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Alhambra, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2006, 06:37 AM
 
Tomchu is right on this one. I have show fps on and it shows jumps well over 100 fps on the time demo.
     
striderdm1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AppleCrypt Mods
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2006, 06:02 PM
 
I will double check this again...very odd. But keep your hair on! geez backatcha as we're just having a conversation here.. Anyhow i do apologize for my part in being wrong on that score. ok. Off to run that timedemo command.....
( Last edited by striderdm1; Mar 15, 2006 at 06:46 PM. )
AppleCrypt Mods
fps mods & single player maps for the Mac!
     
eddiecatflap
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 01:44 AM
 
what's it like on the intel mac after the patch ?

i'm running the demo ( ppc ) and am very impressed , i hope the intel patch speeds things up even more !?!?

at top res , medium settings , the graphics are amazing , best i've ever seen
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 02:37 AM
 
the intel update is only 12mb which means the game needs lots more optimization. On all the highest settings on my macbook pro i get minimum of 60fps
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 11:46 AM
 
on what settings ?
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
ksloan2
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 01:59 PM
 
Is there a universal binary demo availible?
     
a2daj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
the intel update is only 12mb which means the game needs lots more optimization. On all the highest settings on my macbook pro i get minimum of 60fps
What does the size of the Universal Binary version have to do with optimizations? It's 12 MB because it has the PPC and Intel compatible binaries in one file.
     
dr.george
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SCL.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
the intel update is only 12mb which means the game needs lots more optimization. On all the highest settings on my macbook pro i get minimum of 60fps
nice...

hi, can you post you macbook pro specs ?

thanks.
iMac 20 Core Duo 2.0 Ghz / 1 GB RAM / 250 GB / ATI X1600
     
eddiecatflap
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 07:31 AM
 
i just bought doom 3 and used the patch

amazing

this imac dc reaaaaaly moves - i'm impressed !!
     
fideli
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2006, 03:30 PM
 
the processors are not going to be much faster ...but stronger...and DOOM 3 RULES
     
ksloan2
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2006, 06:39 AM
 
Still no universal binary demo?
     
TrinaX
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 07:58 AM
 
I installed this patch and now my nocd image doesnt work.
does anyone know where i can find the crack for this version so i dont need my cd in everytime I play?
thanks
     
blizzard
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 05:05 PM
 
Just a friendly reminder from your local neighborhood moderator...no discussion of illegal cracks and/or piracy on this forum please!
Living, working, and freezing in the Canadian north.
     
   
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 11:24 AM.
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.,