Want to play Doom 3?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in news:41125C08.68D6C069@netscape.net:

> Doom 3 is great with the Athlon 64 3200+. The Athlon XP3200+
> is not so great for the Doom 3.
>

My XP3200+ is fine for now, not spending $50 on the game and then spending
another $500 on hardware to play it. I don't care that I'm only "mediocre"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:4111aa1d$0$32094$45beb828@newscene.com...
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> >
> > I already bought the game. I never expected that the game would destroy
my
> > system so badly (sub 30 FPS on "medium" quality). I don't have a dream
> > gaming rig, but Doom3 definitely makes me want to upgrade:
> > XP3200+
> > PC3200 512megs RAM
> > GeForce4 Ti4400
>
> Serious? That's not enough for 3?
>
>

Nope, the video card is killing you there.. Even in my A64 3000+ & ATI
Radeon 9600XT, I just have to run the game in 800x600 + medium quality in
order to enjoy smooth gameplay. The game is ridicules, you pretty much need
the latest greatest to enjoy it at higher res/quality.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:46:01 -0400, Alex Johnson
<compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:


> From the detailed review I saw, video card makes a HUGE difference.
>The Gefore4 Ti4400 is near the minimum spec (either lowest or second to
>lowest). The game works great at 3200+ and 512MB RAM. But without a
>better video card, that is the limiting factor. You need at least an FX
>or Radeon 9600 for acceptable performance, and don't expect great
>performance without the latest PC-Express video cards.

Minimum spec from ID is a Geforce 4 MX. A Radeon 9600 may not be
substantially better than the TI4400. Radeon 9700 might be a
more reasonable minimum spec for 1024x768 or higher res.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

kony wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:46:01 -0400, Alex Johnson
> <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>From the detailed review I saw, video card makes a HUGE difference.
>>The Gefore4 Ti4400 is near the minimum spec (either lowest or second to
>>lowest). The game works great at 3200+ and 512MB RAM. But without a
>>better video card, that is the limiting factor. You need at least an FX
>>or Radeon 9600 for acceptable performance, and don't expect great
>>performance without the latest PC-Express video cards.
>
>
> Minimum spec from ID is a Geforce 4 MX. A Radeon 9600 may not be
> substantially better than the TI4400. Radeon 9700 might be a
> more reasonable minimum spec for 1024x768 or higher res.

Well, yes. I said for "acceptable performance". The review I saw
showed GeForce4 based stuck at 640x480, Radeon 9600 doing 800x600, and
Radeon 9800 and GF-FX cards handling 1024x768. I think I'll be in the
640x480 group with my current video card (a 64MB GF4). If I get so fed
up with that, I'll probably move to a Radeon 9800 Pro 256 (currently
$235 at Xtreme Gear). Except for Doom 3, and Half-life 2 coming up, I'd
still be using my old Pentium III with integrated graphics without
complaint.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:32:16 -0400, Alex Johnson
<compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:


>> Minimum spec from ID is a Geforce 4 MX. A Radeon 9600 may not be
>> substantially better than the TI4400. Radeon 9700 might be a
>> more reasonable minimum spec for 1024x768 or higher res.
>
>Well, yes. I said for "acceptable performance". The review I saw
>showed GeForce4 based stuck at 640x480, Radeon 9600 doing 800x600, and
>Radeon 9800 and GF-FX cards handling 1024x768. I think I'll be in the
>640x480 group with my current video card (a 64MB GF4). If I get so fed
>up with that, I'll probably move to a Radeon 9800 Pro 256 (currently
>$235 at Xtreme Gear). Except for Doom 3, and Half-life 2 coming up, I'd
>still be using my old Pentium III with integrated graphics without
>complaint.

I threw a GF4 TI4200 128MB, into same system I'd tested with a
GF3... card was overclocked but it was a particularly poor
overclocker and harder to mod for voltage increase
(!@#$%Chaintech!@#$%). The GF4 running at 280 core & 570 memory
was fast enough to run at 800x600 with Display Properties/Driver
set to "fastest"... Somewhere around here I also have a different
GF4 with only 64MB mem but that overclocks better, will be
interesting to see which helps a GF4 more... though IIRC it was
mainly an issue of the quality level, that a 64MB card was
limited to low quality mode.

At least now that we have demanding games it should help lower
resale value of many older video cards... even those who can't or
won't spend hundreds of $$$ on gaming will have a better chance
of playing older games.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Moderately Confused wrote:
>
> I've found out that if I can keep the card under 40º C, I *can* turn on all
> detail and play at 1024X768 with no problem.

I dont know if pci fancards are still for sale but I used to use them
sometimes to cool hot running video cards. This was pretty much right
before they started putting fans on the video cards themselves. My guess
is that a case fan may do the same thing these days ie bring in cool air
for the video fans to use. Most of the trouble I see these days with
games and overheating is when folks buy these spanking new systems and
put them in their enclosed pc desk ie the kind that have just a hole in
the back and door on front. I bet you could toast a burger bun on top of
some of those setups :)
 
O

overlord

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2001
120
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:56:10 +0100, "Hamman" <none@example.com> wrote:

> I assume then Judd that you
>> goto work, come home, eat, sleep then goto work? Because if you do
>anything
>> else you must not have a life.
>
>You missed spending hours on usenet out!
>
>hamman
>
DOH!

~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
uce@ftc.gov
~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

~misfit~ wrote:
>
> I'm in NZ, where would I find these $20 GF4 MX's? Any on-line places? A
> couple of those would be great for the 'extra' machines. (Mainly used for
> SETI or internet connection etc. It seems a shame to have a 1.6Ghz
> (Tualatin) CPU just handling a modem and playing mp3s).
>
> Cheers,
> --
> ~misfit~

This was on offer second hand, the retail prices I can find are ~$60
australian. If you have a look in a local 'trading post' publication tho
I daresay you will find a GF4 MX for a similar price though, there are a
lot of them around and people are upgrading to the new product lines.

-Steve
 
G

Guest

Guest
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Duke 3D is about 3 years newer than Doom 1 and 2 years newer than Doom 2.

(I've Duke3D Demo dated 24/04/96 and downloaded some shareware Doom1 dated
15/12/93)

btw, was not the original poster just a SPAMMER???

Zdenek Sojka

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> pí¨e v diskusním príspevku
news:MPG.1b7c399a53271b3698993a@news.claranews.com...
> In article <qsjQc.2174$P16.1617@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>, Doug says...
> > No, Actually, I think it was Duke Nukem 3D before Doom wasn't it?
>
> No. Duke3D came out around the same time as Doom2.
>
>
> --
> Conor
>
> life, n.: A whim of several billion cells to be you for a while
 
G

gerry

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
201
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:22:47 GMT, "Michael-NC"
<NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote:

>
>"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6NOdnQ6KuuBGlYrcRVn-pQ@giganews.com...
>> You sound like someone that needs Duct Tape :)
>
>Duct Tape shouldn't be necessary, this game is an embarrassment to ID and is
>getting soundly thrashed in many forums. Deservedly so. I shouldn't need to
>play with gamma, brightness and third party apps just to play a game. ID
>says it doesn't release a game til it's finished, well, in this case, they
>are true to their word. This game was finished before it was released. Pun
>intended.
>

Luckily the high price tag kept me from running out and buying it when
it came out. I'll wait for the $9.99 close out in a year or two.
 
S

stuart

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
168
0
18,680
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in
news:XMLRc.245071$2o2.14258666@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> Duct Tape shouldn't be necessary, this game is an embarrassment to ID
> and is getting soundly thrashed in many forums. Deservedly so. I
> shouldn't need to play with gamma, brightness and third party apps
> just to play a game. ID
>

I didn't have to play with gamma, brightness or any third party apps to
play Doom 3 on either of the two machines in my house with enough muscle to
play it. The game is very dark in the beginning, after a bit it does
brighten up though.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Michael-NC wrote:
> "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6NOdnQ6KuuBGlYrcRVn-pQ@giganews.com...
>
>>You sound like someone that needs Duct Tape :)
>
>
> Duct Tape shouldn't be necessary, this game is an embarrassment to ID and is
> getting soundly thrashed in many forums. Deservedly so. I shouldn't need to
> play with gamma, brightness and third party apps just to play a game. ID
> says it doesn't release a game til it's finished, well, in this case, they
> are true to their word. This game was finished before it was released. Pun
> intended.

Meh, at various times Quake 2 and Quake 3 got soundly thrashed in many
forums. They'll be ok.

-Steve
 
M

martin

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,031
0
19,280
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Jim Berwick wrote:
> "Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in
> news:XMLRc.245071$2o2.14258666@twister.southeast.rr.com:
>
>> Duct Tape shouldn't be necessary, this game is an embarrassment to ID
>> and is getting soundly thrashed in many forums. Deservedly so. I
>> shouldn't need to play with gamma, brightness and third party apps
>> just to play a game. ID
>>
>
> I didn't have to play with gamma, brightness or any third party apps
> to play Doom 3 on either of the two machines in my house with enough
> muscle to play it. The game is very dark in the beginning, after a
> bit it does brighten up though.

I hope it opens out a bit too. So far just corridors and small rooms. No
outdoor levels. Like a prettied up Wolfenstein 3D!

Martin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:14:55 +0100, "Martin"
<martin@scotland.org> wrote:

>Jim Berwick wrote:
>> "Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in
>> news:XMLRc.245071$2o2.14258666@twister.southeast.rr.com:
>>
>>> Duct Tape shouldn't be necessary, this game is an embarrassment to ID
>>> and is getting soundly thrashed in many forums. Deservedly so. I
>>> shouldn't need to play with gamma, brightness and third party apps
>>> just to play a game. ID
>>>
>>
>> I didn't have to play with gamma, brightness or any third party apps
>> to play Doom 3 on either of the two machines in my house with enough
>> muscle to play it. The game is very dark in the beginning, after a
>> bit it does brighten up though.
>
>I hope it opens out a bit too. So far just corridors and small rooms. No
>outdoor levels. Like a prettied up Wolfenstein 3D!
>
>Martin
>


You are outdoors for moments, but it is mars, lack of oxygen is a
bit of a problem. Larger areas do exist but that's where you'll
really see how good your video card is, framerates drop
signficantly compared to small rooms, corridors, etc.

It really is a shame they couldn't manage to allow using
flashlight and weapon at same time, game would've been much
better then, but perhaps too easy, half of the work seems to be
shuffling through all the items you're carrying.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

kony <spam@spam.com> writes:

> It really is a shame they couldn't manage to allow using flashlight
> and weapon at same time, game would've been much better then, but
> perhaps too easy, half of the work seems to be shuffling through
> all the items you're carrying.

How is the engine?

I found that I really wasn't interested in "Quake III", but that
"Return to Castle Wolfenstein" (which used the Q3 engine) was
excellent (especially the multiplayer part).

It may be that "Doom 3" is only a good game (though not great), but
that the technology behind is excellent.

It will also be interesting to see what (if any) neat things will be
done with the Quake 3 engine when it is (supposedly) release later
this year.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 17 Aug 2004 16:20:52 -0400, David Magda
<dmagda+trace040726@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> writes:
>
>> It really is a shame they couldn't manage to allow using flashlight
>> and weapon at same time, game would've been much better then, but
>> perhaps too easy, half of the work seems to be shuffling through
>> all the items you're carrying.
>
>How is the engine?
>
>I found that I really wasn't interested in "Quake III", but that
>"Return to Castle Wolfenstein" (which used the Q3 engine) was
>excellent (especially the multiplayer part).
>
>It may be that "Doom 3" is only a good game (though not great), but
>that the technology behind is excellent.
>
>It will also be interesting to see what (if any) neat things will be
>done with the Quake 3 engine when it is (supposedly) release later
>this year.

I don't play enough FPS games to be able give the engine a
competent evaluation. To me this first example of it seems a
minor evolutionary step forward, might have to see more titles
running the engine before drawing a conclusion.
 
G

gerry

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
201
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:37:13 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


>I don't play enough FPS games to be able give the engine a
>competent evaluation. To me this first example of it seems a
>minor evolutionary step forward, might have to see more titles
>running the engine before drawing a conclusion.


It'll be interesting to see what performance is like with a game that
is not produced just to sell nvidia cards.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:26:48 -0700, gerry <gerry_m@spam_this.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:37:13 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't play enough FPS games to be able give the engine a
>>competent evaluation. To me this first example of it seems a
>>minor evolutionary step forward, might have to see more titles
>>running the engine before drawing a conclusion.
>
>
>It'll be interesting to see what performance is like with a game that
>is not produced just to sell nvidia cards.
>


That's one way to look at it, but on the other hand we all knew
games would continue to evolve, perhaps ID wouldn't have made the
game so demanding if it didn't feel there would be cards that
could muster up framerate to make it playable. Truth is nVidia
had competitve cards before this, it just happened that MS
settled for lower precision so nVidia was left waiting for nv40
to be finalized.

For all the hype about needing high-end gear to play, it must be
seen in context, that for years any given video card that wasn't
brand-new, couldn't be expected to play a new game at highest
resolution possible, 8X FSAA, etc, etc. Now we have technogeeks
trying to claim "that's the way it's meant to be played", well
sure, so long as ALL of history's past games are taken with same
grain of salt, then it was still the case that whoever's card was
fastest at the time, allowed higher res. and eye-candy.

Then agin, if you look at the Geforce 6800 benchmarks, nVidia
didn't need much help selling their next-gen video cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom