Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: I think Doom 3 will perform best on...
PC 35 92.11%
Mac 2 5.26%
Xbox 1 2.63%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-20-04, 09:23 AM   #25
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

That look on Carmack's face is like, "My God, Macs suck more than I ever could have imagined!"
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 09:39 AM   #26
GlowStick
CoD4!
 
GlowStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,786
Send a message via AIM to GlowStick
Default

Heh btw as a SMPer, Quake 3 runs slower in smp mode than in non smp mode just a fyi.....
__________________
Intel i7-2600K, Corsair 8Gig, Corsair H100, Corsair 650D, Corsair HX750, ATi 6970, WD Caviar Black 2TB
Sony Vaio SB: i7, 8Gig, Intel 320 300gig
GlowStick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 11:51 AM   #27
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by OWA
So, they felt pretty good about the competition even though they lost the majority of the tests.
At the same time though, in many of the tests the G5 wasn't even close to the A64 or P4. Unless Apple was able to pull of some magic with the Radeon 9800 drivers and/or system tweaks, I highly doubt the current hardware will be able to offer decent enough competition - especially when you consider the price difference.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 12:18 PM   #28
stncttr908
Registered User
 
stncttr908's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 4,496
Send a message via AIM to stncttr908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Unless Apple was able to pull of some magic with the Radeon 9800 drivers and/or system tweaks, I highly doubt the current hardware will be able to offer decent enough competition - especially when you consider the price difference.
That sounds about as likely as XGI fixing their bungled hardware with drivers.
__________________
PC - | Core i7-2600K @ stock | Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3 | 4GB Patriot Sector 5 DDR3 | Galaxy GTX 460 1GB @ stock | Corsair Force 120GB SSD | Seagate 1TB 7200RPM | 320GB Seagate 7200.10 | 2x Seagate 500GB USB 2.0 | Lite-On 20x SATA DVD+RW | Silverstone TJ-09 | Corsair 620W PSU | Logitech Z-5500s | Sennheiser HD-570 headphones | Samsung 2494LW |

Laptop - | Dell Inspiron 1420 | C2D T7300 (2.0GHz, 4MB cache) | 2GB DDR2-667 | 160GB 7200RPM HDD | DVD +/- RW | 14.1" WXGA+ (1440x900) | Broadcom 802.11g | NVIDIA 8400M GS 128MB |
stncttr908 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 01:17 PM   #29
|JuiceZ|
Registered User
 
|JuiceZ|'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Louisville
Posts: 3,286
Send a message via Skype™ to |JuiceZ|
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by OWA
While I agree that PCs are faster, if you read the sidebar by their sister Mac publication, their point was that Maximum PC was using PCs that weren't yet readily available to compare against Macs that had been out a while. So, they felt pretty good about the competition even though they lost the majority of the tests.
Thats true. I also argued the fact that they didn't use a "build" of WinXP 64bit when comparing the benefits of a 64bit processing in the AMD proc vs 64bit PowerMAC G5.

I have an appreciate for both sides, the each have their benefits.
__________________
primary MBP Core i5 2010 | HR | OCZ 120GB SSD
gaming Core i5-2500K @ 4.1GHz w/ CM Hyper212+ | MSI N560GTX-Ti TF II/OC | MSI P67A-GD55 | Silverstone FT02 | X360 250GB + Kinect
htpc IONITX-A-U | 2GB | M350 | XBMC Linux | SABnzbd, sickbeard, couchpotato | NAS Synology DS411J | 4TB
hometheater KURO PDP-5020 | Marantz SR6005 | Definitive BP7001s, CLR3000, BPVXPs
|JuiceZ| is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 01:46 PM   #30
thenerdguy
 
thenerdguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 216
Default

A linux equiped pc of course.
__________________
[IMG]http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/1210/whitecathavingfunnd7.gif[/IMG]
thenerdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 01:48 PM   #31
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

One thing that's always bothered me is the use of the PC acronym to talk about Windows/IBM-based machines in comparison to Macs. By definition, machines running Mac OS and Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. are all "personal computers." Of course, it's all right to call IBM machines PCs and Macs as separate because we all know Macs are a lesser form of computing.

That being said, one thing I would buy in a heartbeat is a handheld that has an OS X base. I'm not too enamored with Pocket PC and I really dislike Palm OS. But an Apple handheld would be a pretty cool way to get even more familiar with OS X without having to shell out $1200 on a G4 iBook.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-04, 03:34 PM   #32
Nitz Walsh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 622
Default

As someone who's job is primarily administering to the needs of 100+ Mac users, most with G4's and G5, and having a Dual 1.4 G4 and now 1.8 G5 in my office, I can state without reservation that it is very likely the PC version of Doom3 will be the fastest.

In every cross-platform gaming comparison I've benchmarked myself, the Mac usually gets its ass handed to it in games. Yes, a $3000 Dual 2GHZ G5 is looking better these days, but every game benchmark I've seen still has a 3/3.2 P4 with the equivalent graphics card handing the Mac its ass, while costing just over a third as much with equivalent hardware. From a gaming perspective, even the 1.6G5 has a truly awful price/performance ratio compared to its PC brethren.

Those xlr8 UT 2004 benchmarks are extremely suspect. For one, flyby is completely fill-rate limited, so we're testing graphics cards here, not the overall system. Botmatch is a far better indicator of "true" UT 2003 performance, any in my benchmarks some time ago when I had a Dual 1.4, in some maps at 640*480 (in order to eliminate the graphics card, the Mac had a 9000Pro, I had a 4200), it was running at half the framerate of my home Athlon XP1800 system (other maps were closer, none were faster).

Edit: Accurate UT2003 PC flyby benchmarks here. One has to wonder how the heck TechTV got their numbers, or rather from what bodily orifice.

Note the above benchmarks are done on a 3.0ghz P4 - not 3.4, or an A64 or FX which provides even better performance (although it shouldn't affect flyby that much).

Things have improved since the demo, and there is a patch that provides additional performance for the G5 which I haven't tested as I don't have the full Mac retail version, but I have seen other benchmarks and they certainly don't correlate with xl8's findings. Bear in mind one of the apps that was helped most with Catalyst drive revisions was UT2003- for a few releases there, it was improving in the double digits (percentage wise) with each release, so the driver version is of paramount importance. It's the first benchmark I've seen in gaming where the Mac is actually faster (but as I said, flyby is largely useless to judge UT2003 performance) - and certainly in the G4 era, where in gaming benchmarks it was absolutely humiliated (a 3ghz P4 benchmarked at 2.5-3X the average framerate of a Dual 1.25 G4 in Jedi Knight:Outcast, for example).

I recently tried out the UT2004 Mac demo. On the Assault map at 512*384 (Assault 2004 - at least according to the demo - is massively CPU limited, plus this 1.8G5 has only a 5200 so I wanted to eliminate the graphics card bottleneck), it was definitely slower than the same map on my Xp2400/GF4 4200 machine at home, and that was running at 1024*768.

The G5 is a new chip, and compilers and skills needed to eke the most out of it are constantly evolving, so things can change. However, bear in mind a few things:

1) These games are designed with X86 code and Direct3D in mind from the outset (Doom is obviously OpenGL).
2) The drivers on the PC are far more optimized for game situations simply due to market economics.
3) Most game code does not scale that well with dual processors, heck most code in general doesn't. You can't simply state "Look at that! 2 64 bit 2 ghz processors! That will surely defeat a single 3.4ghz P4!"...uh, no.

All of those caveats aside that help explain poor Mac performance in gaming, the fact of the matter is, even with professional apps that can take good advantage of dual CPU's and Altivec, a 2GHZ G5 is roughly "on par" with a 3.2 ghz P4 system. Some benchmarks it will be faster, others slower. The G5 will continue to improve as compilers mature no doubt, but of course Prescott will be helped by maturing compilers and SSE3 support as well.

Apple equips its high-end PowerMacs with dual CPU's for a reason: it has to. Talk about which is more "efficient" is irrelevant, it's all about bang for the buck – who cares about Mhz (if I did, I wouldn’t own an Athlon). If Apple's highest end G5 at launch was a single 2.0ghz, it would look like a joke if benchmarked against 3.2ghz P4 systems. Of course, considering such a system these days retails for less than a single 1.6G5, that harsh criticism may still apply if you're not hooked on OSX (which I can understand, it has its faults but I'd pick it over XP if given the choice anytime).

Macworld's G5 vs. Athlon/P4 benchmarks

This isn't the definitive Mac vs. PC benchmark study, some of the apps are indeed poorly optimized for the Mac (Premiere has been dropped for the Mac, FinalCut Pro performance is significantly better), but since it's from MacWorld it's at least some guard against accusations of bias (which there shouldn't be - if Apple goes, I'm probably out of a job - or at least one I enjoy!). As mentioned, it also gives some indication on how much the crippled memory subsystem of the G4 machines hurt it – the single 1.8 G5 is faster in Quake3 than the Dual 1.42 model, for example.

Yes, the Dual G5 is the "Worlds faster computer" - according to Apple. According to independent third party benchmarks - no. For certain tasks it can be, and for certain tasks a PC will be - such as games.

As for the Xbox version – please. The Doom3 textures alone take up more than 64 megs in their highest setting from what I’ve read. Sure, it will probably run OK on the Xbox (640*480*30fps), but with significantly reduced texture quality, aliasing, shorter levels, joypad instead of mouse/keyboard (ack!) and who knows what else turned down. To even suggest it could run at 1280*720p is absolutely inane, there’s a reason less than a handful of games run beyond 640*480 on the Xbox – horsepower. Programmer ability has zero to do with it, you’re advocating that a game based on a graphics engine which pushes fill-rate like there’s no tomorrow should run at a res far less graphically demanding games can’t muster? Er….ok.

Last edited by Nitz Walsh; 02-20-04 at 03:53 PM.
Nitz Walsh is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting 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
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leaked Microsoft document details $299 Xbox 720 in 2013, Kinect glasses, OnLive acqui News Archived News Items 0 06-17-12 05:30 AM
30 million-track Xbox Music service coming from Microsoft News Archived News Items 0 06-04-12 04:20 PM
Remastered Doom 3 BFG Edition Game Coming with Stereo 3D Support News Archived News Items 0 06-01-12 05:30 AM
Doom 3 BFG Edition will feature entire Doom series, seven new Doom 3 levels News Archived News Items 0 05-31-12 05:40 AM
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is Now Available on Mac! News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 05:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.