Will the ATI 8500 Radeon and GF4 ti series beable to play doom3 at like 1024x768 with all details on , etc?

[Rectalfier]

For first person shooters, I need at least 100 frames per second. 30fps is quite crappy. A movie runs at around 25fps, but movie camera's also capture motion blur, which makes up for the low frames. A computer does not display motion blur, so a game running at 30fps is a slide show for me. A FPS must be smooth as butter, so when I do a whip shot, I am looking in the direction I expect, rather some totally off frame choppy confusion zone.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
but your comments were bullshit

Q: Will the ATI 8500 Radeon and GF4 ti series beable to play doom3 at like 1024x768 with all details on , etc?
Created On 07/17/2002 5:45 AM by imtim83

your answer: hell no

That answer is bullshit. So far 2 other people have posted direct quotes of Carmack that agreed with me...Both gf4 and 8500 will be enough and as the previous post said, they're trying to be more reasonable than they were with quake (so maybe 1600x1200 won't be out of the question)

Maybe the term 'bullshit" isn't polite and should be replaced with "misinformed." Either way, the answer you gave imtim83 isn't correct...

I corrected myself earlier and said I misread his post and stated a GF4 would do the job but not a R8500

not at GF3 or R8500 the previous post does not agree with u because he said R8500 @ 800x600 not 1024x768 which was previously mentioned

anyway it all comes down to what playable means to you
to me mean it means "worth playing"

if i can not get 60 FPS minimum i would lower resolutions, lower details or play another game or do something else because I would rather do something else than play it at 30 FPS

and a R8500 or GF3 will not get 60 FPS w/ max details doom3 @ 1024x768x32 you have to agree with me there

 

[gf4200isdabest]

i guess you're very picky about your games. most people don't have a 60fps rule like that. For most people its more of a 20fps rule...and for gta3 i've seen more of a 10fps rule....hehehe...that game is great

 

[Boogak]

Basically that's what it all boils down to, individual preferences. Personally I'm with mchammer187, I shoot for 60fps in first person type games. I can get away with 40fps in other types of games like War3, where the jerkiness isn't as apparent. But that's just me, at LAN parties I've seen people playing Tribes2 like a slideshow but it doesn't bother them. Different strokes for different folks...

 

[Maverick]

yeah I know a guy that plays CS with 25 fps in software mode...definitely different strokes for different folks.

 

[wfbberzerker]

I corrected myself earlier and said I misread his post and stated a GF4 would do the job but not a R8500

i thought that carmack said a r8500 would perform better than a gf4 (driver problems aside) since it was able to do more textures per pass than a geforce was. also, the gf4 is not a huge leap in technology over a r8500, as in many benchmarks (including next-gen benchmarks, like ut2k3), the only difference between the r8500 and gf4 is 10-15 fps, if that. so, most likely the r8500 and gf4 shouldn't have any problems at 1024 with all details. but well just have to wait and see.

EDIT:

Multiple passes. You mentioned that in theory the Radeon8500 should be faster with the number of textures you need (doing it in a single pass) but that the GF4Ti is consistently faster in practice even though it has to perform 2 or 3 passes. Could this be due to latency? While there is savings in bandwidth, there must be a cost in latency, especially performing 7 textures reads in a single shader unit.

taken from here.

 

[Wolfsraider]

not intending to argue

the truth be told most people i know upgrade for "a new game" that just won't play acceptable on their computer.the ones that refuse to upgrade will state that it plays fine,untill they are mesmerized by the same game on a better system.

in no way am i flaming but unless you know what the game looks like on a faster machine/better video card,then you tend to see the game as playable even though it isn't up to par with most gamers.this = your perspective.

but most of us that upgrade see more differences than the casual gamer,hence 60+ frames are barely acceptable in most games 1024x768 is bare minimum in resolutions,and anything under a 19 inch monitor just hurts.

who's right?we all are as personal preferences change among individual tastes

eg... when i upgraded from a p-4 1.5 to a p-4 2.4 i saw big differences but everyone is trying to justify money spent and most would say you will see subtle differences, most of my real world stuff is done twice as fast.

when i went from a 21 inch monitor to a 17 my eyes hurt even on a 19 i get headaches
this could be my perspective and yours might be different?

but i can't accept that we as a group can't accept that we are different and will always have a different view if that view can't be stated without an all out war disagreeing is fine but no more wars please

end rant

 

[wfbberzerker]

everyone is trying to justify money spent

thats what it all boils down to.

 

[YU22]

imtim83
Here's some info for you, by Carmac himself: We are aiming to have a GF3 run Doom with all features enabled at 30 fps. We expect the high end cards at the time of release to run it at 60+ fps with improved quality.


gf4200isdabest
You are either 14 or so stupid it isn't even funny. You came in here and shamelessly CRAPED on this thread. Your posts are weaker than pond water. Go back to your sandbox.

 

[PH0ENIX]

Kami;

Please post a link backing up your statement about the 'refresh-rate' of the human eye.
I was under the impression that it was ~30, not 50-60 as you said.

it makes NO LOGICAL sense that game developers would release games with frame limiters set BELOW that which the human eye sees.

Just because GTA3 experiences frame tearing at 30fps, that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is shocking at 30fps.

After all, Quake1 was smooth at anything over 16, was it not?

"Name one card that was on the market that could play Quake 1 at 1600x1200 when it was released (let alone 1024x768!!!)
Name one card that was on the market that could play Quake 2 at 1600x1200 when it was released
Name one card that was on the market that could play Quake 3 at 1600x1200 when it was released"

OK then

Name ONE GAME that was playable in 1600x1200 with ANY card when quake1 was released.
Quake1 was software to start with - and even if you incorporate the native-glide GlQuake addon - it was early days as far as 3D gaming went.
Name one card that even SUPPORTED 1600x1200 in 3d - from memory the Voodoo Rush was the newest card on the market then - and the 8mb version wasn't going anywhere above 8x6 in a hurry...

Quake2 - by then we were seeing h4rdc0re gamers with V2 SLI setups... with a max res of 1024x768...
TnTs were around too, but my point isn't that quake2 was beasty, i'm saying NO 3D games at that time were playable @ 1600x1200, no matter WHAT card you had.

Quake3 you'll have to tell me, what was the best card at the time - I wasn't paying too much attention because the game sucked azz.

Back to what I was saying - if ID say 'hey the cards most people have at the moment will run it at 30fps'
You would think they'd also say '...which means you HAVE TO UPGRADE if you want the game to come CLOSE to being playable'

This is the most stupid argument i've ever seen anyway.
We're making almost totally uneducated guesses about the performance of various hardware on a game that no-one here has ever seen benchmarks of before, let alone played.
Lets just see when it comes out - I dont think it'll lag overly for me personally and if it does i'm going to cry.

 

[littlegohan]

Originally posted by: YU22
imtim83
Here's some info for you, by Carmac himself: We are aiming to have a GF3 run Doom with all features enabled at 30 fps. We expect the high end cards at the time of release to run it at 60+ fps with improved quality.


thx for getting that quote

Now I am gonna wait for the r300 instead of getting the 9000 pro

 

[littlegohan]

wait a minute...

30 fps at what resolution ?

 

[wfbberzerker]

probably 1024. thats standard resolution for most games nowadays (least i think it is)

 

[ceZium]

In games such as QuakeIII and UT2003 of course you want 60fps or above to keep the motion smooth during heavy battle scenes. Do we need 150fps? that depends on who you ask and what they consider "playable".

 

[CubicZirconia]

I was under the impression that it was ~30, not 50-60 as you said.

An interesting article dealing with that issue

Yes, the article is obviously getting old. It mentions the voodoo 3 and 3dfx several times. Still, the anatomy of the eye hasn't changed over the last 5 years. In any case, the article is worth reading. Basically, it says that 72 fps is the optimal level. Anything more is essentially undetectable, anything less with result in noticable choppiness.

Another article that says the human eye can detect 200+ frames per second