PDA

View Full Version : Doom 3 with Athlon64


-kreep
07-22-04, 09:33 AM
hi all!
Does anyone know if Doom 3 will be optimised for Athlon64 processors like, say, Unreal 2004 is? It's just the benchmarks shown all seem to use P4s'....
If not, it seems like a bit of an oversight on behalf of ID software.... hmmm

saturnotaku
07-22-04, 09:40 AM
Carmack's engines run fantastically regardless of what CPU you have. There's no need to "optimize" for a specific brand of processor.

-kreep
07-22-04, 10:34 AM
Edited by MUYA: Less of the flaming..especially to a Staff Member. Thanks

I just thought that with P4s beinng 32bit and athlon64s being 64bit (obviously) that it would be advantageous to use the extra power!!!! :nanahump: tool!

Tanith
07-22-04, 10:35 AM
wow, way to get ban, good job :lol2:

jAkUp
07-22-04, 10:39 AM
Carmack stated that doom3 has no 64bit instructions.

hmmmm... a room with Carmack..... :condom:

Lali
07-22-04, 10:49 AM
-Kreep

Don't quote me on this, but in the Quake3 days, Intel cpu's were really the best to use compared to the Athlon's. This information may or may not be relevant to you.

Just an example from 2001:
Anandtech CPU article (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1441&p=8)

Here is an excerpt:

The 1.33GHz Athlon is able to approach the Pentium 4’s performance under Quake III Arena, however it is still unable to dethrone it as the Pentium 4 has dominated in Quake III ever since its introduction.

It is still unclear as to exactly why Q3A does so well with the Pentium 4; when asked, John Carmack the creator of the Q3A engine, has even said he is unsure as to why it performs so well on the Pentium 4.

FYI !

François

Templar
07-22-04, 10:52 AM
Athlon64 rulz the roost.. I'm sure we'll see some 64 bit stuff from ID.

Simon

Lali
07-22-04, 11:13 AM
Athlon64 rulz the roost.. I'm sure we'll see some 64 bit stuff from ID.

Simon

Templar,

Sure don't want to contradict you and I would also like to see 64-bit from Id, but in PCGamer's September edition, page 79, Robert Duffy, lead programmer at ID, says:

We don't do anything specifically for a 64-bit OS.

François

jAkUp
07-22-04, 11:15 AM
Yup... FarCry is gonna have 64bit instructions also.. but.. who knows when thats coming out..lol

UDawg
07-22-04, 11:19 AM
*Moved*

I didn't know the Athlon64 was a video card. :D

jAkUp
07-22-04, 11:29 AM
Its bitboys new upcoming card :D :D

Templar
07-22-04, 11:50 AM
Lali.. that's catch there.. I hope they'll reconsider once XP64 is out.

Simon

r2d2d3d4d5
07-22-04, 01:24 PM
Carmack's engines run fantastically regardless of what CPU you have. There's no need to "optimize" for a specific brand of processor.
There was a guy that once did some Quake III optimizations for Athlons.

link (http://web.archive.org/web/20030418011606/http://speedycpu.dyndns.org/opt/)

I was hopping that he would get around to making one for RTCW but it doesn't look it ever happened.

saturnotaku
07-22-04, 03:32 PM
I was hopping that he would get around to making one for RTCW but it doesn't look it ever happened.

I used those .dll files. They came in handy when I had a less powerful AXP 1800+, but as I got a faster CPU and better video cards, there was definite diminishing marginal return. To the point where the game performed so well that the different between having the .dlls and not was something like 150 vs. 147 fps.

</shrug>

UDawg
07-22-04, 03:41 PM
Its bitboys new upcoming card :D :D

BAHAHA! that is low... Bitboys be a great compatitor in the video card industry. Your just a fan boi. :D LOL bitboys...

Nutty
07-22-04, 04:18 PM
It is still unclear as to exactly why Q3A does so well with the Pentium 4; when asked, John Carmack the creator of the Q3A engine, has even said he is unsure as to why it performs so well on the Pentium 4.


Err, thats because it uses SSE on P4 and P3, but on AMD chips the 3dnow code is broken and uses just standard x86 instructions. Using special dll's to make it use SSE on Athlon XP's and it totally blows away Q3 on P4's.

Son Goku
07-22-04, 05:49 PM
Its bitboys new upcoming card :D :D

Nah, that would be the ET-2010 (or more commonly refered to as the Alf card) :D It's so advanced Bit Boys had to reverse engineer UFOs for their Advanced Alien Architecture :D That way, if their dates continue to slip...hey any race capable of intergalactic space travel, they're technology should remain viable wrt competition for even a long time :rofl

As to the CPUs, the companies have tended to one up another time and again. This is only good for consumers in the end, whichever platform they buy. When the Athlons first came out, and Intel had to contend with the PIII, they couldn't. The older P6 architecture (even on a clock rate comparison which Intel has tended to like) just couldn't be pushed to the clock rates the then newer Athlon had room to achieve.

Intel responded with the P4 Willemette (after they had to recall the > 1 GHz PIII) which arguably was never anywhere ready for release, and in benchmark after benchmark under-performed a 1 GHz PIII (aka Intel's own older generation) despite clock increases. Intel improved with the Northwood and latter...

Now AMD has the Athlon 64... Expect these companies to try to one up each other as time goes on.

Star_Hunter
07-22-04, 08:04 PM
Err, thats because it uses SSE on P4 and P3, but on AMD chips the 3dnow code is broken and uses just standard x86 instructions. Using special dll's to make it use SSE on Athlon XP's and it totally blows away Q3 on P4's.

Sad that review sites even now still act as this is unknown and talk about how they have no idea why amd loses.....*Cough* Tomshardware *Cough* not to mention why can't John figure this is out and fix it......

CaptNKILL
07-22-04, 10:02 PM
Nah, that would be the ET-2010 (or more commonly refered to as the Alf card) :D It's so advanced Bit Boys had to reverse engineer UFOs for their Advanced Alien Architecture :D That way, if their dates continue to slip...hey any race capable of intergalactic space travel, they're technology should remain viable wrt competition for even a long time :rofl

As to the CPUs, the companies have tended to one up another time and again. This is only good for consumers in the end, whichever platform they buy. When the Athlons first came out, and Intel had to contend with the PIII, they couldn't. The older P6 architecture (even on a clock rate comparison which Intel has tended to like) just couldn't be pushed to the clock rates the then newer Athlon had room to achieve.

Intel responded with the P4 Willemette (after they had to recall the > 1 GHz PIII) which arguably was never anywhere ready for release, and in benchmark after benchmark under-performed a 1 GHz PIII (aka Intel's own older generation) despite clock increases. Intel improved with the Northwood and latter...

Now AMD has the Athlon 64... Expect these companies to try to one up each other as time goes on.
Ive been around long enough to remember, but I just cant.. lol.... has bitboys ever had any benchmarks? even very early alpha beta whatever? I remember seeing a picture of what was supposedly a Bitboys card a few years ago, but thats the most I remember seeing from them.

BTW, do they even have a website???

EDIT: I found their site:
http://www.bitboys.com/company_info.php

I like this one "Founded in 1991, Bitboys has over 12 years of experience in graphics technology research and development." Research and developement, yup thats about it. Actually producing an end product on the other hand... :retard:

In all fairness, they do concentrate on the mobile graphics market. I dont know much about that market, but i assume they are doing fine there... well.. hopefully better than the desktop graphics market :nanahump:

fleshonbone
07-23-04, 12:56 PM
Carmack's engines run fantastically regardless of what CPU you have. There's no need to "optimize" for a specific brand of processor.

I would agree with you about Carmack's engines, but given the new extensions the A64's support, I don't no if I would go so far as to say that there is "no need" to optimize for a specific processor.

coldpower27
07-26-04, 10:29 AM
Meh, it wouldn't be all that great an idea to optimize for X86-64 just yet, as AMD doens't represent enough of the market, once Intel enables 64Bit support for Prescott though then there will be incentive to optimize for 64Bit Processing.