PDA

View Full Version : 512mb RAM cards...


fantomas
08-09-04, 07:45 PM
when are nvidia releasing a card with 512mb RAM? this is necessary to run doom 3 at ultra settings, so when can we get one?

CaptNKILL
08-09-04, 08:02 PM
when are nvidia releasing a card with 512mb RAM? this is necessary to run doom 3 at ultra settings, so when can we get one?
Well it isnt necessary, a lot of people run at Ultra settings with 256Mb cards. Besides, Ultra mode has almost NO impact on the image quality at all, its just there to stress newer parts (in other words, a pointless option). Just go look around the games forum in the Doom 3 section. Thers no point to using Ultra mode.

But as to your question, Id say 512Mb cards will probably be available when they start moving over to PCI-E. Which sort of doesnt make sense, since putting 512Mbs on the card sort of eliminates the need for a faster BUS. :|

MUYA
08-09-04, 08:04 PM
U can get a Quadro FX 4400 :D That has 512 MB on board but will probably cost you your kidneys and testicles.

Razor1
08-09-04, 08:16 PM
U can get a Quadro FX 4400 :D That has 512 MB on board but will probably cost you your kidneys and testicles.

LOL those are some cheap kidney's and testicles

Cyberius
08-09-04, 10:50 PM
when are nvidia releasing a card with 512mb RAM? this is necessary to run doom 3 at ultra settings, so when can we get one?

Ultra runs perfectly fine my system. It only costs me a frame or two going from High to Ultra at 1600x1200

eVGA 6800 GT, OC to 399/1.09
P4 2.8 Northwood.
1 Gig Ram. Dual DDR 400Mhz

autoexec.cfg settings... (a subset)
set image_useCache "1"
set image_cacheMegs "512"
set image_cacheMinK "32768"

I find setting the cacheMegs to the amount of video-ram recommend for the setting (512 for Ultra), even though you dont' have it, prevents stuttering in the game (but not on the first run of timedemo).

This is totally conjecture, but the way I'm guessing it works is if there's 512M of textures, and you give it 512M of system memory for cache, then any texture thrashing would be between the VidBoard and System Ram, and not from the hard disk since all the textures fit in memory. I'm at 8x AGP and I only loose about 1-2 FPS in timedemo going from high to ultra, so I guess AGP 8x is fast enough to keep up with any texture thrashing.

Thats at 4x Anisotropic (8x is a waste of compute cycles at 1600x1200), 0xAA, all the image_*downsize set to 0, image_roundDown set to 0, shadows etc. all on, including player shadow.

I'm at 57.3 FPS on timedemo on ultra.

DarkOneX
08-09-04, 11:56 PM
Ultra runs perfectly fine my system. It only costs me a frame or two going from High to Ultra at 1600x1200

eVGA 6800 GT, OC to 399/1.09
P4 2.8 Northwood.
1 Gig Ram. Dual DDR 400Mhz

autoexec.cfg settings... (a subset)
set image_useCache "1"
set image_cacheMegs "512"
set image_cacheMinK "32768"

I find setting the cacheMegs to the amount of video-ram recommend for the setting (512 for Ultra), even though you dont' have it, prevents stuttering in the game (but not on the first run of timedemo).

This is totally conjecture, but the way I'm guessing it works is if there's 512M of textures, and you give it 512M of system memory for cache, then any texture thrashing would be between the VidBoard and System Ram, and not from the hard disk since all the textures fit in memory. I'm at 8x AGP and I only loose about 1-2 FPS in timedemo going from high to ultra, so I guess AGP 8x is fast enough to keep up with any texture thrashing.

Thats at 4x Anisotropic (8x is a waste of compute cycles at 1600x1200), 0xAA, all the image_*downsize set to 0, image_roundDown set to 0, shadows etc. all on, including player shadow.

I'm at 57.3 FPS on timedemo on ultra.

That's gotta be complete bs right there. I'm on a 3.2Ghz Northwood, 1GB Corsair PC3200 DDR, eVGA 6800 GT @ 400/1100.

Just ran a timedemo with the same exact settings you just posted and got 33fps first time through, 39fps second time through. Only way you'd get that high of score is if you had the nVidia control panel settings set to Fast Performance.

:nanahump:

CaptNKILL
08-10-04, 01:18 AM
Thats at 4x Anisotropic (8x is a waste of compute cycles at 1600x1200), 0xAA, all the image_*downsize set to 0, image_roundDown set to 0, shadows etc. all on, including player shadow.

I'm at 57.3 FPS on timedemo on ultra.

8x AF is a waste of cycles yet Ultra mode is worth the 1-2fps loss? The higher the resolution, the more anisotropic filtering can sharpen textures. I dont see why its a waste.

And Ultra mode has 0 effect on quality, take some screen shots and compair them, I guarantee no noticeable difference besides lower framerate.

I think id should be kicked for having an ultra mode that does nothing and then having the fans find commands that make textures sharper... thats what Ultra mode should have done :retard:

mustrum
08-10-04, 03:00 AM
I am using one of those XT PEs people call inferior over here! ( :lol2: )
Playing Doom3 at ultra high quality without any problems.
The need of 512mb onboard RAM was a myth.
JC himself stated there will be 512mb cards needed though. I have no clue what he changed right before release but he must've done something since people can play at ultra high with no problems.

fantomas
08-10-04, 07:17 AM
id Software programmer Robert Duffy updated his .plan file with information about Doom 3's "Ultra" quality option, which is being recommended for graphics cards with 512MB of memory. He also covers the software development tools they found useful during the development of Doom 3.

In Ultra quality, we load each texture; diffuse, specular, normal map at full resolution with no compression. In a typical DOOM 3 level, this can hover around a whopping 500MB of texture data. This will run on current hardware but obviously we cannot fit 500MB of texture data onto a 256MB card and the amount of texture data referenced in a give scene per frame ( 60 times a second ) can easily be 50MB+. This can cause some choppiness as a lot of memory bandwidth is being consumed.
It does however look fantastic :-) and it is certainly playable on high end systems but due to the hitching that can occur we chose to require a 512MB Video card before setting this automatically.

GamerGuyX
08-10-04, 08:01 AM
Fantomas, they just answered your question. 512 MB is NOT absolutely necessary! It is playable WITHOUT a 512 MB card. You just gotta do a little tweaking.




And all of us here has already seen the Robert Duffy .plan file. It's old news.

Cyberius
08-10-04, 11:30 AM
That's gotta be complete bs right there. I'm on a 3.2Ghz Northwood, 1GB Corsair PC3200 DDR, eVGA 6800 GT @ 400/1100.

Just ran a timedemo with the same exact settings you just posted and got 33fps first time through, 39fps second time through. Only way you'd get that high of score is if you had the nVidia control panel settings set to Fast Performance.
:nanahump:

That's what I get. I didn't change the Quality setting in the drivers.

I'm running XP SP2 RC1. I just saw some people in another thread saying SP2 gave them a boost.

OCZ PC3200 Enhanced Latency 2-3-2-5 400MHZ x Dual Channel
AGP 8x. Gigabyte GA8-KNXP MoBo. Raptor 10k 72GB
No AntiAiliasing.
VSync is off.

Here's some other stuff I messed with
set com_videoRam "256"
set r_useDepthBoundsTest "1"
set image_roundDown "0"
set image_forceDownSize "0"
set image_downSizeBumpLimit "1024"
set image_downSizeBump "0"
set image_downSizeLimit "1024"
set image_downSize "0"
set image_downSizeSpecularLimit "128"
set image_downSizeSpecular "0"

Any other settings/mis-settings you can think of I might have made that might be making my results so high?


8x AF is a waste of cycles
I tried it out in the lobby at the beginning of the game. I stood at one end of the room, looked out across it to the tiles on the other end. Going from 4x to 8x made an almost inperceptible improvement in the sharpness. at 1600x1200. Maybe it does more in other areas of the game, or at other resolutions, but from that example I doubt it's worth it. I wouldn't settle for anything less than 4x though.

yet Ultra mode is worth the 1-2fps loss?
I didn't say I play in that mode. I said that when I run in that mode, that's the performance hit I take.

The higher the resolution, the more anisotropic filtering can sharpen textures. I dont see why its a waste.
Go do A/B comparisons at 1600x1200 in the lobby at the beginning of the game after the bio-scan. I'll stick some autoexec.cfg code to make this easy at the end of this post. Maybe it's worth it to you. I got quite a few extra frames by bumping down to 4.

And Ultra mode has 0 effect on quality, take some screen shots and compair them, I guarantee no noticeable difference besides lower framerate.
I agree with that.


set anisotweak0 "set image_anisotropy 0; set anisotweak vstr anisotweak2; echo Aniso 0 (fast, ugly)"
set anisotweak2 "set image_anisotropy 2; set anisotweak vstr anisotweak4; echo Aniso 2 (why bother)"
set anisotweak4 "set image_anisotropy 4; set anisotweak vstr anisotweak8; echo Aniso 4 (good enough)"
set anisotweak8 "set image_anisotropy 8; set anisotweak vstr anisotweak0; echo Aniso 8 (overkill)"
set anisotweak "vstr anisotweak0"
bind n "vstr anisotweak"

jAkUp
08-10-04, 12:55 PM
Yup ultra quality is completely useless. Im a graphics freak and cannot play a game on anything lower than full quality. But doom3 i play at high quality. it kinda pisses me off that they thew ultra quality in there, because its useless. compressed lighting with compressed textures, along with high resolution textures would of made the game look even more fantastic.

Ninjaman09
08-10-04, 01:02 PM
Higher resolution textures would require higher resolution speculars, diffuse, and normals as well, exponentially increasing the texture memory requirement. Most of the textures are already pretty high-res. Geez.

DarkOneX
08-10-04, 01:06 PM
That's what I get. I didn't change the Quality setting in the drivers.

I'm running XP SP2 RC1. I just saw some people in another thread saying SP2 gave them a boost.

OCZ PC3200 Enhanced Latency 2-3-2-5 400MHZ x Dual Channel
AGP 8x. Gigabyte GA8-KNXP MoBo. Raptor 10k 72GB
No AntiAiliasing.
VSync is off.


There was the kicker, you had vsync OFF, I had it ON. Sorry for misunderstanding :p

jAkUp
08-10-04, 01:12 PM
Higher resolution textures would require higher resolution speculars, diffuse, and normals as well, exponentially increasing the texture memory requirement. Most of the textures are already pretty high-res. Geez.

Compression. They dont use it. Maybe they should. As I have said many times... If they compressed the textures/ speculars/ diffuse/ normals, they could use much higher texture resolutions, and we would get much higher image quality. Thats the whole point of texture compression. But they didnt because they didnt want to go back and redo all of the textures. This game was targeted for a summer release a few years ago. Rather than redo all the textures in the game. They disabled all texture compression, which gives pratically 0 increase in quality.

as I said in another thread... this is probably how the conversation went at team id...

(Team id) Holy ****! Look at how fast the 5950 renders doom3! lets bump up the graphics a little for those guys.
(carmack) Sure, just allow High quality to force 8x AF so it looks better to the noobs who dont know what AF is.

1 year later....

(Team id) Holy ****!!! the 6800U runs the game and insane fps! What will we do for these guys?
(carmack) Screw it! Make an Ultra setting that disables all texture compression, and lighting compression!!!! We dont have time to redo our games biggest graphical flaw... textures.