 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Action Games / Doom / September 2004Doom3: 33.4 fps on my Athlon 1700
My system: Athlon 1700 512MB RAM GeForce4 Ti4200 128MB 4X AGP Windows XP Running Doom 3 on the lowest possible detail and resolution settings, my timedemo gives an average of 33.4 fps. Wow. I am shocked. My system specs barely meet the minimum requirements given by Id Software. And sure enough, the game looks playable on a minimum spec computer when using minimum detail settings. For the first time in ages, a game is released that was actually honest about the minimum specs for gameplay. kudos to Id Software. > My system: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > kudos to Id Software. 33 fps is 'playable'. But you might have problems when you are fighting big bosses. With my 9800 Pro 2600+ I get 20-60 fps depending on what's on my screen. Generally I get 60 fps (I think vsync is on). >33 fps is 'playable'. > >But you might have problems when you are fighting big bosses. Seriously, 33fps should provide smooth enough gameplay to fight even in thight situations. /me thinks that this attitude about needing something like 60fps is a bit elitist attitude with a bit too much imagination involved... Going over 33fps may cause the graphics to seem flow smoother, but I doubt very much that it has noticable effect to gameplay other than that. ***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\*** **/ email: sir@robsku.NO-SPAM.cjb.net <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \** *| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://robsku.cjb.net/ |* **\--- GSM/SMS: +358 41 580 1715 ---/** >>33 fps is 'playable'. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > seem flow smoother, but I doubt very much that it has noticable effect > to gameplay other than that. Depends on the person. Some people play with the graphics card more than the game. When they play games 90% of their mind is focused on the performance on the card :) I used be like that!!! Always monitoring glitches and frame rates. After 2 years of doing that I finally found games uninteresting and have almost totalling lost interest in gaming. Finally realised I've been too fussing about these things and made a cure. No longer do I care (as much) about my system performance and now I actually enjoy my games! :D I used to think dying is cooling because the effects tested the card :/ >>33 fps is 'playable'. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in thight situations. /me thinks that this attitude about needing >something like 60fps is a bit elitist attitude with a bit too much I think the point is that if you generally get 33 fps, in boss fights the frames per second would dip down too low (e.g. 10 fps). IF the speed remained at 33 fps even in tight boss fights, then yes, I'd think it is quite enough. >imagination involved... Going over 33fps may cause the graphics to >seem flow smoother, but I doubt very much that it has noticable effect >to gameplay other than that. For FPS games, I would agree 30 fps is fine, as long as it was solid 30 fps and not 10 fps here and 50 fps there. N <N@N.invalid.com> wrote in news:gc5gk0lj4dtdi2vi2ibc2eg6637rilnqit@ 4ax.com: >>>33 fps is 'playable'. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For FPS games, I would agree 30 fps is fine, as long as it was solid > 30 fps and not 10 fps here and 50 fps there. Just as a side note (but related): Film standard is 24 frames per second, broadcast TV is 30 frames per second. So I agree - as long as it stays steady at about 30fps you should be fine! :) Now, does anyone have any reviews of the Call of Duty United Offensive mod? I will end up picking this up over the weekend anyhow, but just wanted to get opinions on it. Maybe everyone who has it already is too busy playing it? :) -David People when they watch film subconsciously expect to see 24fps, along with slight motion blurring. It produces "cinematic realism", ie, it looks real but something clicks and people know they are watching a movie, and maybe it's a "good movie" by extension (by contrast, video in the US shows motion much more realisticly, but people do not react as favorably to the enhanced motion of video, esp. if coupled witha low resolution). Videogames are different. Esp. 1st person games, people want to see very fluid motion. 30fps is better than 24, but still might not be adequate for everyone. Low framerate might also contribute to motion sickness in some people. > People when they watch film subconsciously expect to see 24fps, along > with slight motion blurring. It produces "cinematic realism", ie, it > looks real but something clicks and people know they are watching a movie, You sit there thinking "It's a movie, it's a movie, it's a movie"? No one else does. Anyway, aren't movie 'graphics' a hundred times more realistic than games? > You sit there thinking "It's a movie, it's a movie, it's a movie"? > > No one else does. > > Anyway, aren't movie 'graphics' a hundred times more realistic than > games? Nah, I know what he means - I think others do too. There is a different "feel" to movies versus television shows (minus the stylistic variations, etc.). This is mostly due to framerate, and like he said, the motion blurring. It makes sense though that people have different expectations for different mediums - so people might have the expectation of something over 30 frames per second with videogames. Makes sense! From my understanding a standard CRT monitor has an inherent limit at around 60 frame per second (60 Hz), because the actual phosphors in the screen can't react faster than that. So any discussion of framerate beyond that is just showing off the capabilities of your system :) :) I am happy with 30 fps, as long as there's no bad lag or dizzyness :). -David "D.B. Calhoun" <efrankvalli(AT)hot(RE-MOVE)mail.com> wrote in message > From my understanding a standard CRT monitor has an inherent limit at > around 60 frame per second (60 Hz), because the actual phosphors in the > screen can't react faster than that. So any discussion of framerate > beyond that is just showing off the capabilities of your system :) :) If that is true, you shouldn't be able to see the difference between 72 Hz and 85 Hz on your monitor. But you can. Set the monitor to 72 Hz and open notepad. Focus at the white center and you should see flickering in the corners (side vision are more sensitive to movement, less to colours). Do the same for 85 Hz. You should see less flickering. I even set Doom 3 to refresh at 85 Hz. Once you notice the flickering, it itches till you scratch. >> People when they watch film subconsciously expect to see 24fps, along >> with slight motion blurring. It produces "cinematic realism", ie, it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No one else does. There are artifacts that give away a movie. More below... >Anyway, aren't movie 'graphics' a hundred times more realistic than games? The most basic movie is only a copy of what a human eye would see at a given time. The major exception, aside from cuts between scenes, is that the older movies have visible artifacts that give them away, such as colour distortion and possible lighting effects (e.g. notice that there aren't that many shadows in some movie sets.) Now, the newer movies that have computer genreates SFX tend to have beautiful eye-candy. However, they tend to make a few mistakes that kill the feeling of realism in a movie - such as the blast rings looking a little too much like pre-fab rings. Another thing that kills realsim would be computers: 9 out of 10 movies that involve computers tend to look unrealistic as well. >Now, the newer movies that have computer genreates SFX tend to have >beautiful eye-candy. However, they tend to make a few mistakes that kill >the feeling of realism in a movie - such as the blast rings looking a >little too much like pre-fab rings. Another thing that kills realsim would >be computers: 9 out of 10 movies that involve computers tend to look >unrealistic as well. CGI has come a long way in the past few years though. The LOTR films were the first where 99% of the time I wasn't able to see the join between reality and CGI, an amazing achievement IMO.  SignatureAndrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. >>>33 fps is 'playable'. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >For FPS games, I would agree 30 fps is fine, as long as it was solid >30 fps and not 10 fps here and 50 fps there. Ah, you are correct of course and I misunderstood the original point :) ***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\*** **/ email: sir@robsku.NO-SPAM.cjb.net <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \** *| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://robsku.cjb.net/ |* **\--- GSM/SMS: +358 41 580 1715 ---/** thats because you dont need a top spec pc...all this hyp about gfx cpus..etc is all crap...i got 3 pcs...which range from a geforce 3 up to a 9800 with 2800ghz cpu and it makes sod all difference.....doom 3 is capped at 60fps and anything above 40 is undistinguishable to the human eye,,,trust me im a doctor..;) >> My system: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > With my 9800 Pro 2600+ I get 20-60 fps depending on what's on my screen. > Generally I get 60 fps (I think vsync is on). I have got a P4 3.2ghz HT 1024 RAM GeForce 5 128mb RAM and 17" monitor and doom3 works like a beauty. I am enjoying all the great graphics and the speed is great. > My system: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > kudos to Id Software. > I have got a P4 3.2ghz HT > 1024 RAM > GeForce 5 128mb RAM and 17" monitor > and doom3 works like a beauty. I am enjoying all the great graphics and the > speed is great. Wouldn't that be obvious...? >> I have got a P4 3.2ghz HT >> 1024 RAM [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Wouldn't that be obvious...? There is nothing obvious about something called a GeForce 5. SignatureAndrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question. I can imagine it's from a parallel universe, or another dimension SignatureYou know, if C:\> was an emoticon, it could be seen as an arab with a turban and beard. >>> I have got a P4 3.2ghz HT >>> 1024 RAM [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There is nothing obvious about something called a GeForce 5. >I can imagine it's from a parallel universe, or another dimension You mean there is a parallel universe where hardware model numbers make sense? That's even more far fetched than Starship Troopers! ;-) SignatureAndrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question. > My system: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > kudos to Id Software. How'd you get that kind of speed? On 800x600, medium detail my athlon 2000 with ti4200/128 only gets 25fps (that's on the 2nd run - 1st run is around 21) Bob > > My system: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob He said he's running it at the lowest settings. > > How'd you get that kind of speed? On 800x600, medium detail my athlon > > 2000 with ti4200/128 only gets 25fps (that's on the 2nd run - 1st run is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He said he's running it at the lowest settings. At the lowest possible settings, I got 33.4 fps. But then I switched on Anti-Alias X2, which helps a *lot* because I'm running the game only on 640X480. I also used medium detail settings instead of low detail settings. Timedemo (with cache) consistently yields 33.2 fps. If I go ahead and turn on High Quality SFX and Specular lighting, I get 32.6 fps. Once I activate V-Sync along with all that, the framerate drops to 30.1 fps. By this time, I would've had medium settings on 640X480, and pretty much all the advanced settings activated except for "shadows" and "bump mapping". Now, I'm not kidding myself. I know 30fps in a game like Doom 3 would be barely considered "playable". Whenever I see a big boss, a big room, or an area with lots of 3rd party movements, the game will slow to a crawl. I'm just surprised that a PC that barely meets the minimum specs of a game will actually be playable (albeit barely). I mean, try playing Morrowind on the minimum specs (450 MHz P-III, 64MB RAM), or Deus EX 2 (800 MHz PIII), or Far Cry (1 GHz PC) and the game is a slide show. They are unplayable under even the lowest gamer standards, even in the lowest possible setting. I'm surprised that the FCC hasn't caught on to the cheese tactics of game companies constantly misrepresenting their "minimum requirements". Anyway, I'm just glad Id Software was more honest about their minimum specs. > How'd you get that kind of speed? On 800x600, medium detail my athlon > 2000 with ti4200/128 only gets 25fps (that's on the 2nd run - 1st run is > around 21) Weird. I also got 21 fps... on a timedemo of 1024X768 high settings with all the advanced features activated (except Shadows and Anti-Alias X4). Anyway, both the "low detail" and "medium detail" settings at 640X480, I'm getting identical 33.4fps on the timedemo. When I activate V-Sync, it drops by another 2 fps. Just make sure you've turned off Shadows and bump mapping. I also found that I was getting better framerate with 640X480 + Anti Alias X2, rather than 800X600 w/o AA. And when you do the timedemo, don't forget to run "timedemo demo1 usecache" so you'll get more accurate results. > Weird. I also got 21 fps... on a timedemo of 1024X768 high settings > with all the advanced features activated (except Shadows and > Anti-Alias X4). How about full optimized game and only 97 kB on .zip? http://kk.kema.at/files/kkrieger-beta.zip > > Weird. I also got 21 fps... on a timedemo of 1024X768 high settings > > with all the advanced features activated (except Shadows and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://kk.kema.at/files/kkrieger-beta.zip That publisher will probably end up selling games for phones. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.