PDA

View Full Version : Doom 3: PC vs. Mac vs. Xbox


Pages : [1] 2

Kain
02-19-04, 04:12 PM
Which platform do you think Doom 3 will perform (run) best on?

S.I.N
02-19-04, 04:32 PM
Mac of course.

Nutty
02-19-04, 05:11 PM
PC of course, as everyone knows MAC's are not the #1 desktop performance king.

vampireuk
02-19-04, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by OWA
What's a Mac? Is that the latest and greatest console?

:cry:

GlowStick
02-19-04, 05:14 PM
PC, becuase the xbox is an old console with even older hardware,

and the MAC just dosent have the optzimations and video cards that PC's get.

jedah
02-19-04, 05:18 PM
I personally have a PC and nothing else but I think that only the stabillity and raw power of a Mac can handle a smooth and coherent framerate.Using the latest Power Mac G5(Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5) probably will make drop your jaw from graphics quality....

-=DVS=-
02-19-04, 05:25 PM
Game must be designed to make use of Dual CPU's to begin with...... if they were alot of us would prolly have dual CPU PCs :rolleyes: and future games depend on strong Graphics card more then on CPU.

And all this comparision is apple to oranges , they will make it run good on Xbox or any other platfrom , by optimizeing reduceing quality if needed and so on.........

But offcourse with all details on PC will be first one to run it good with next gen video cards. :D

CaptNKILL
02-19-04, 05:32 PM
Anyone who says anything other than PC is just lying to themselves :p

Edge
02-19-04, 06:31 PM
Well, it's obvious that a 2.5 year-old console isn't going to be able to pump out graphics as good as a high-end PC. I think the Xbox COULD run the game very well though, probably at least a consistant 30 FPS throughout the whole game, and they might even be able to add a 720p (1280x720) mode and still have it run smoothly, however I doubt that will happen because it's being ported by a company that is far from being skilled at porting games (Vicarious Visions, who also did the Jedi Outcast port). If ID spent a decent amount of time on the console, I think they could get some very nice graphics out of it, but it seems they have no intrest in doing that right now, so unfortunatly the Xbox version may turn out like Soldier of Fortune 2. Oh well, at least they aren't trying to port the game to PS2!

I guess MACs would be more efficient, but they will simply get trampled on by PCs due to raw speed. There's nothing availible for the MAC that can match up to a 4 ghz P4 with a 9800pro card, even though the CPU is much more efficient. Also with Doom 3 being locked at 60 ticks per second, there's going to be a certain point in CPU speed where a faster processor simply won't help. Though I forgot all about the MAC version of the game, since at this point MAC gaming is kinda dead...

Moled
02-19-04, 06:56 PM
probably freebsd as with most other id games

Raptorman
02-19-04, 07:35 PM
No PowerMac is going to top my PC, lol.

Anyway, it will run best on PC by far.

Nephilim
02-19-04, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by -=DVS=-
Game must be designed to make use of Dual CPU's to begin with...... if they were alot of us would prolly have dual CPU PCs :rolleyes: and future games depend on strong Graphics card more then on CPU.

And all this comparision is apple to oranges , they will make it run good on Xbox or any other platfrom , by optimizeing reduceing quality if needed and so on.........

But offcourse with all details on PC will be first one to run it good with next gen video cards. :D

Uhhh....Quake 3 makes use of dual procs if you have them. Why wouldn't Doom 3?

Originally posted by Edge
I guess MACs would be more efficient, but they will simply get trampled on by PCs due to raw speed. There's nothing availible for the MAC that can match up to a 4 ghz P4 with a 9800pro card, even though the CPU is much more efficient. Also with Doom 3 being locked at 60 ticks per second, there's going to be a certain point in CPU speed where a faster processor simply won't help. Though I forgot all about the MAC version of the game, since at this point MAC gaming is kinda dead...

Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
2x250 GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

I'd have a tough time believing that Doom 3 would be faster on a single 4Ghz P4 than on a dual 2Ghz G5. If Doom 3 has support for SMP like Quake 3 does (and there isn't any reason to believe it won't), then there I see no reason why a dual proc. Mac couldn't outperform a single proc. PC in game.

jAkUp
02-19-04, 11:28 PM
well im nearly positive id is gonna spend more time optimizing for the pc than the mac. and not to mention driver updates and performance increases will come from the video card on the windows platform.

-=DVS=-
02-20-04, 03:04 AM
Last time i remember website benched Quake 3 on dual setup and got lower score then on single pentium 3 :rolleyes: , anyone got some recent reviews ?

On another hand Play Station 3 would run Doom 3 pretty good me thinks with all the rumored super computer cell uber gpu :eek:

Nephilim
02-20-04, 03:49 AM
Well, it's not quake, but here's the closest I could find

from TechTV
Test bed

* Intel D850EMV2 motherboard
* Intel P4 3.06-GHz CPU
* 512MB of 1066 Rambus memory
* 80GB Western Digital WD800BB hard drive
* Windows XP Pro with Service Pack 1 and all the latest updates
* DirectX 9.0


GeForce FX 5800 Ultra

UT 2003 Demo Flyby

131.3 - 1024 x 768 No AA
95.9 - 1024 x 768 4X AA
90.8 - 1280 x 1024 No AA
65.6 - 1280 x 1024 4x AA
63.0 - 1600 x 1200 No AA
35.9 - 1600 x 1200 4x AA


From XLR8yourmac.com
PowerPC G4
Dual 1.42Ghz
512MB Ram
OS X

UT 2003 Demo Flyby

All settings default, reolution 1920x1200

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
Avg. 94.7
Min. 37.8
Max. 297.3


You tell me, which is better, 1600x1200 with no AA at 63 FPS, or 1920x1200 with no AA at 94 FPS?

Eh, this thread is idiotic anyway. If Doom 3 is better on the Mac or the Xbox, is anyone (that doesn't already have one) really going to go out and buy one just for D3? I thought not.

....and if you are, you're a moron.

P.S. - to whoever started this thread:

http://nephilim.nashvillegothic.com/stupid.jpg

Kain
02-20-04, 03:54 AM
Here is what the people at Spymac think.

http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=63648

Nephilim
02-20-04, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by jAkUp
well im nearly positive id is gonna spend more time optimizing for the pc than the mac. and not to mention driver updates and performance increases will come from the video card on the windows platform.


Maybe, but I think Doom 3 will be optimized on the Mac just fine....id Software has done so in the past, and I see no reason for that to change.

de><ta
02-20-04, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Nephilim
Well, it's not quake, but here's the closest I could find




http://nephilim.nashvillegothic.com/stupid.jpg

Regarding the comparision you have what color mode (ie. millions of color for the apple case) was it tested under? The last review for a mac game i read was for SOF2 where the only reason the frame per sec was good was due to the fact that the color mode was reduced while playing the game.

Secondly UT2k3 does not use DX9 that heavily to justify appending that bit of info:angel:

Third what graphics cards where they using? I am thinking that the G4 had something in the order of nV GForce 4 level. How about the PC?

Fourth you do realize that the max frame per sec could have been recorded when there was not much pressure on the system... The average is a better indication.

All said and done it depends on how well the game is optimised to make use of the underlying hardware. I am sure ID would do as good a job as it did with Q3.

Right now all that is being done is but mere speculation about D3's performance... speculation, geesh lets just wait for D3 to be first released.

saturnotaku
02-20-04, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Nephilim
You tell me, which is better, 1600x1200 with no AA at 63 FPS, or 1920x1200 with no AA at 94 FPS?


You're comparing a 9700 Pro to an FX 5800 Ultra. Not quite the same there chief. Shoot, I'll have to dig through my archives where Maximum PC compared a G5, Athlon 64 and P4 EE. And to what I'm sure will be no one's surprise, the G5 got its rear end handed to it in pretty much everything except QuickTime encoding (oooooooh, scary :eek: ).

Edit: I found the mag, but unfortunately I have to go to work now. As soon as I can, I'll post Max PC's findings.

|JuiceZ|
02-20-04, 08:27 AM
Apple makes very efficient processors make now doubt about it but the point is a majority of dev's don't care. PC's reign in this this field and as long as the price of MAC's stay in the sky, I can't see them gaining any large percentage of market share in the foreseeable future.

D3 will most likely running excellent on the XBOX (30fps) but at the expense of image/texture quality. The focus on optimizing games for the MAC platform is quickly being replaced by the increased demand for Linux support.

Also based up on ID's developer relations, D3 will mostly run the best on an Nvidia/PC based platform.

btw, Sat I have that issue of Maximum PC and can confirm the G5 did get its butt spanked in most apps compared to its AMD & Intel counterparts.

Nephilim
02-20-04, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
You're comparing a 9700 Pro to an FX 5800 Ultra. Not quite the same there chief. Shoot, I'll have to dig through my archives where Maximum PC compared a G5, Athlon 64 and P4 EE. And to what I'm sure will be no one's surprise, the G5 got its rear end handed to it in pretty much everything except QuickTime encoding (oooooooh, scary :eek: ).

Edit: I found the mag, but unfortunately I have to go to work now. As soon as I can, I'll post Max PC's findings.

Fine, I'll post TechTVs Radeon 9700 Pro scores as well. They aren't that much better than the Geforce's.

ATI Radeon 9700 pro

UT 2003 Demo Flyby

116.7 - 1024 x 768 No AA
116.7 - 1024 x 768 4X AA
81.5 - 1280 x 1024 No AA
63.2 - 1280 x 1024 4x AA
56.2 - 1600 x 1200 No AA
39.6 - 1600 x 1200 4x AA


It's still a 30-40 FPS difference between the Mac (@ 1920 x 1200) and PC (@ 1600 x 1200).

Nephilim
02-20-04, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by de><ta
Regarding the comparision you have what color mode (ie. millions of color for the apple case) was it tested under? The last review for a mac game i read was for SOF2 where the only reason the frame per sec was good was due to the fact that the color mode was reduced while playing the game.

Default settings, like I said. Which means millions of colors.

Originally posted by de><ta
Secondly UT2k3 does not use DX9 that heavily to justify appending that bit of info:angel:

Neither does D3. id Software uses OpenGL, remember? UT 2k3 uses OpenGL in OSX because there is no DX on Mac systems.

Originally posted by de><ta
Third what graphics cards where they using? I am thinking that the G4 had something in the order of nV GForce 4 level. How about the PC?

It says in my post. ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on the Mac and GeforceFX 5800 Ultra and Radeon 9700 Pro on the PC (Ati scores are in the post above). Read.

Originally posted by de><ta
Fourth you do realize that the max frame per sec could have been recorded when there was not much pressure on the system... The average is a better indication.

It shows the averages silly. :D

Nephilim
02-20-04, 08:50 AM
Heh...

http://www.planetquake.com/quakecon2k/images/photo/carmackcube2-big.jpg

John Carmack at Quakecon...

on a MAC! Teh NOES!!11111

shim
02-20-04, 09:20 AM
i cannot post on this, due to PC specs being all different in every system pretty much.. with the xb0x and Mac least you have a better consistancy with performance, but with a PC, that is not the case..

saturnotaku
02-20-04, 09:23 AM
That look on Carmack's face is like, "My God, Macs suck more than I ever could have imagined!"