Is The Xbox Really Capable Of Playing Doom 3....

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
i dont really see how, an xbox only has like a 700mhz cpu!
I guess if the lowered the detail settings & stuff it could be achievable, but I'm still counting on pcs to deliver better graphics than any console can muster!
hehe im biased but its ok. :smile:

<font color=blue> If it ain't broke, don't fix it...tweak it.</font color=blue>
 
Hehe, the XBOX has nearly 0 OS overhead and the NV2A is faster than a Ti4200. The NV2A will handle all the graphics and the CPU will only handle the AI with virtually no OS background tasks to slow it down. Unlike a computer, the XBOX will be processing nothing but the game. Carmack has said that the XBOX version will contain the same graphics fidelity as the PC version at max quality.

In the realworld, the XBOX maybe faster than any PC to date save one with the Radeon 9700. Again, this is mainly due to the fact that nothing is happening in the background.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 
i dunno dude...IMO, pcs have enough memory and clock speed to negate background apps.
I think a p4 2.56 w/ 1gig 1066rdram and a gf4 ti4600 would give the p3 700 and 4200 level graphics a severe spanking in a showdown. However, the point you bring up is a good one, so perhaps the xbox could run it on a level standing. I'd say they will both run good at high detail, but the pc will have higher (yet unnoticable) fps.

<font color=blue> If it ain't broke, don't fix it...tweak it.</font color=blue>
 
I am going to take Carmack's word on it since he is making the game. The requirements for the game are static and so is the capability of the XBOX console. Remember they are designing the game based on the GF3, that is why the XBOX will have no problem keeping up.

HULK SMASH!!!
 
As its been mentioned before, Carmack says it will have the same detail, and I won't argue with that. As always, we've seen consoles with substantially less computing power totally outshine PCs when it came to games.

Reasons - You develop a game for a PC:
- You have to make sure it works with Graphics cards X, Y and Z.
- You have to make it work with Sound cards X, Y and Z.
- You have to make sure it works with different combinations of those hardware.
- You have to ensure it does all of that under OS's X, Y and Z (mainly different flavours of Windows, but Microsoft made them so they're rubbish at handling resources).
- Don't forget about yesterdays hardware. Most of your consumers run that.
- And you have to do all of that and make it run at an acceptable level.

Yes, DirectX, OpenGL and OpenAL unify a lot of things and remove a lot of hardware problems, but a lot still remains to bother the developers.


With a Console:
- You get the developers kit. You make the game. You optimise it for one, and only one platform. thats it. sweet, simple and sleek.


If a developer were to take one set of current PC Hardware and develop a game optimised for that platform only, then XBox will have to settle for the dust left behind, even with all the shortcomings and I mean MAJOR shortcomings of windows. But, if a developer wants to be realistic, and lets face it, who doesn't, they have to develop for most of whats out there. We'll just about match the console games.

Finally, consoles run their games at crappy resolutions on a bright vivid screen. PCs run games at high resolution on monitors designed to display crisp fine text and not destroy your eyes. So, that gives the consoles an edge, unless you use your TV-out feature or have one of those monitors with vivid/sharp modes.

<b><font color=red>I'm a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up.</font color=red></b>
 
i recently found out that john carmack locked the frames to 60fps. The difference between xbox and pc will be unnoticable wether you use R8500/Gf3/4
 
When they say that the XBox version isnt toned down from the PC version, they mean that it will run at default texture and detail settings(for the pc), at 800x600 or 1024x768 (whatever the new xbox crap is going to be). So you could say that it isnt toned down, but it also dosnt meet up with top of the line systems that are able to jack up those detail settings, because it uses the standard detail settings, which im sure wont look bad, but i dont think that it is fully comparable to a top of the line pc.

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
 
AMD Man, i am sorry, but your statement that the NV2A is better than a ti4200 is completely false (not far off, but not true either), and the statement about virtually no OS overhead, while valid, does not make a HUGE difference, its significant, but it wont double your performance or something. The Windows OS on modern systems is efficient enough, and with enough memory and a good processor, youre still way over XBox specs. Also i would like to see your source of where John Carmack said it will have the same fidelity as the pc version at completely max settings. And youre not taking into account quality enhancements that good pc's can utilize, such as AA, and most of all anisotropic filtering, which makes for, in my opinion, a much more realistic environment, and pleasing experience. Im sorry AMD Man, but you just cant beat 1600x1200 at max settings with aniso, and maybe some AA. The XBox has a very simple background "OS" that is basically nothing more than a BIOS, it is very simple, and yes that takes up less resources, but the point is that pc's have SO much more of these resources, that they are able to coop with the loss, while still coming out ahead. Ill wait till we have some real-world benchmarks to make a final statement, but i think you are off on this one.

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
 
AMD Man, i am sorry, but your statement that the NV2A is better than a ti4200 is completely false (not far off, but not true either),
Click to expand...
The GF4Ti4200 is capable of 113 Million Triangles/Sec. The NV2A is capable of 116.5 M/sec. While the NV2A only has 6.4GB/s bandwidth and the Ti4200 has 8GB/s, the lower resolution the XBOX uses on TV doesn't require as much bandwidth. The actual NV2A is ever so slightly superior to the Ti4200 chip.

The Windows OS on modern systems is efficient enough, and with enough memory and a good processor, youre still way over XBox specs.
Click to expand...
Then why is it that we see gaming performance slightly decrease and more processing power needed with every new release of Windows. Windows 95 could run ok on a 386 or 486, but Windows XP needs at least a Pentium 2 to run with no desktop effects on.

Also i would like to see your source of where John Carmack said it will have the same fidelity as the pc version at completely max settings.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I didn't but one would assume he implied that.

youre not taking into account quality enhancements that good pc's can utilize, such as AA, and most of all anisotropic filtering, which makes for, in my opinion, a much more realistic environment, and pleasing experience.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the XBOX always has Aniso and AA on. At least that's how it looks in Max Payne.

Im sorry AMD Man, but you just cant beat 1600x1200 at max settings with aniso, and maybe some AA.
Click to expand...
Which costs $400US for a Radeon 9700 compared to $200 for an XBOX.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
 
ok, so the nv2a is slightly better when it comes to high poly count stuff, but the memory bandwidth, even at 800x600 is much more important. it isnt so much the resolution that affects the memory bandwidth's importance, as the size, and resolution of the textures, which you know for doom 3 are very big. fill rate is directly affected by memory bandwidth, and fill rate is very important, in all games including doom 3, even at 800x600. also the xbox does utilize aa, which i remember reading about some time ago, but had forgotten, and guess what aa is most dependant on (besides architecture)? memory bandwidth. also, if you look at benchmarks comparing framerates or other benchmarking scores, the scores for xp are virtually identical to those of 98(se) and 2k, and probably better than Me, so xp isnt adding alot of overhead.

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
 
Ok guys, IMO, I think the Xbox can run Doom 3 because console systems are designed differently from PC's. They are more effective at processing games because thats their only goal, so hardware is optimized for gaming only! Even though the xbox doesnt have the newest hardware, the hardware that it has has been modified. This article can explain a lot of what im saying, and it makes sense. even though it talks about ps2 instead of xbox, the idea behind it is the same: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html

tell me what do u think.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 
hehe for a while there i thought i was gonna be the only one to stand for pcs saying they could outpeform an xbox!(although, i agree amd_man, at a much higher price.)

<font color=blue> If it ain't broke, don't fix it...tweak it.</font color=blue>
 
thats a pretty good article... but unfortunately it dosnt work the same for the xbox. the ps2 processor was specially designed for the ps2, while the xbox is just a p3 processor, no special architecture.

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
 
williamete: I did my research. It does have a P3 733mhz procesor in it, although we dont know wether it was modified or not. As for the graphics card, it has a GeForce 3 derivative, which means it was heavily modified running at 250mhz. also the memory is unified, which provides more performance. it also has the nvidia media communication processor which i *think* its like a modified southbridge chip of the motherboard and delivers more performance. the "motherboard" in the xbox is heavily modified with increased bandwith on the bus.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 
If you look in the Quakecon article I did on THG, Day 2 I beleive, Carmack says that the X-Box will play Doom III and they will release it for the X-Box. He said the "graphics fidelity" would be very close to the PC. Take my word for it, after talking to the guys at id for four days, they do seem to beleive that the X-Box can not only handle it, but beleive it will be a good version. Much of the reason has to do with the programability of the graphics card. If you notice in Tim's interview, I asked the question if processor or graphics card was more important and he said the graphics card by far. That leads me to beleive that it will run fine on the X-Box or they would not have committed to doing it. I don't think that Carmack would have allow himself to get roped into doing a X-Box version if he didn't think that the system would handle it, he is smarter than that, beleive me. (Someone also told me that he was on the X-Box developer board or something like that, so he does know what the system can or can not do, for sure.)

After all, just like Halo, Microsoft had to get an exclusive for Doom III on the X-Box. This continues to be one of the main reasons that I say you will see a lot more X-Box ports coming to the PC.
 
w00t! I know Tom's Hardware is generally a hardware site, but can you guys try to work on a review of Doom3 (the actual game) and it's performance on an average PC when it comes out? Considering Doom3 will supposedly be the most popular game of 2003, people will want to know a bit about the game before they purchase it.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom