Doom III to be Bundeled with Ati Cards!


Recommended Posts

I'm sorry for being naive but, when did the world of gamers turn into such elitists? My god, if you can't turn all the anti-aliasing on and have it run at 2048x1536 then damnit, it's just not worth it!

I only have a lowly 9600 pro that I fully intend on playing doom 3 and halflife 2 both with. I was pleased to see in that benchmarking article that this game will run just fine on lower end hardware. As was mentioned earlier, they'd have to make it that way, otherwise it wouldn't sell as well.

So the debate is, ATI bundled Doom 3 with their videos cards, even though reviews show Nvidia is the performance leader...

:whistle:

And ATI is automatically banned from bundling a game just because it may run somewhat slower on their hardware? Give me a break. Nvidia claims 80% of the games out there "run best on nvidia hardware" but in actuality, they don't. The X800 XT is still faster then the 6800 Ultra in Far Cry yet it's a TWIMTBP game bundled with many Geforce 6800 cards.

Fanboys are such hypocrites. :sleep:

Hmm...

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_2_1.gif

Ultra vs. XT...9fps more? Try 17 more. The rest range from 9-15. I'm sick of fighting over something so pointless...

Yeah, I can do that too.

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_2_2.gif

Difference of 9 fps.

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_2_3.gif

Difference of 9 fps.

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_3_1.gif

Difference of 12 fps

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_3_2.gif

Difference of 7 fps.

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_3_3.gif

Difference of 0.8 fps.

:rolleyes:

Edited by ANova
And ATI is automatically banned from bundling a game just because it may run somewhat slower on their hardware? Give me a break. Nvidia claims 80% of the games out there "run best on nvidia hardware" but in actuality, they don't. The X800 XT is still faster then the 6800 Ultra in Far Cry yet it's a TWIMTBP game bundled with many Geforce 6800 cards.

Fanboys are such hypocrites. :sleep:

Yeah, I can do that too.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_2_2.gif

Difference of 9 fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_2_3.gif

Difference of 9 fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_3_1.gif

Difference of 12 fps

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_3_2.gif

Difference of 7 fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_3_3.gif

Difference of 0.8 fps.

:rolleyes:

man if the benchmarks showed Ati a mere 5 points higher, you would be touting how much better Ati is. Go call someone a hypocrite....and stop your whining ...please... :rolleyes:

man if the benchmarks showed Ati a mere 5 points higher, you would be touting how much better Ati is. Go call someone a hypocrite....and stop your whining ...please... :rolleyes:

lol, ok fanboy. :rolleyes:

I wasn't whining, I was defending what I had originally said.

Edited by ANova

ANOVA - when the 6800GT gives faster results than the much more expensive top of the line Ati x800xt PE something is far from "great", we know opengl and ati don't go along that ain't news...but the fact is if things really don't improve over those iD published benchmarks things can get ungly.

And let me disagree with you by saying in a game like this 9fps can make the diference (we ain't talking about 100fps + games here), plus following logic the minimum fps on the ati should be equally slower which is kinda of worring (at least I would be if i splashed +$500 for a gfx card and saw ~$400 cards giving better results)

btw lets try to "fight" with arguments rather than mindless trolling folks (talking in general)

the average Joe that doesn't know the difference between opengl and direct3d will see that the nvidia card performs a tad better and will buy an nvidia card...

If you don't know the difference between opengl and DX, you don't own a $400+ card :laugh:

Whatever, the benchmarks mean little to nothing, it will be just the opposite when HL2 comes out, and then we'll here this same argument the otherway around. :sleep:

Whatever, the benchmarks mean little to nothing, it will be just the opposite when HL2 comes out, and then we'll here this same argument the otherway around.  :sleep:

Right, so you know that HL2 will run better on ATi cards? What about WAITING for the release of the benchmarks

before you spew out a comment like that.

So you guys buy top notch expensive GFX cards to run benchmarks :| that is so sad.

If you didn't run the benchmarks would you seriously be buying the cutting edge? Try a blind test play a game with Nvidia and ATI GPUs and see if you can guess which machine has which. I bet you couldn't tell, thats the reason these GPU makers market their cards on Benchmarks. Your all sucked in to thier marketing hype. get a life people lol

So you guys buy top notch expensive GFX cards to run benchmarks :| that is so sad.

If you didn't run the benchmarks would you seriously be buying the cutting edge? Try a blind test play a game with Nvidia and ATI GPUs and see if you can guess which machine has which. I bet you couldn't tell, thats the reason these GPU makers market their cards on Benchmarks. Your all sucked in to thier marketing hype. get a life people lol

You seem awfully alot like the people that consider playing at 15fps fast and stable.... :whistle:

Right, so you know that HL2 will run better on ATi cards? What about WAITING for the release of the benchmarks

before you spew out a comment like that.

It's all about marketing. Nvidia payed for Doom III to run better on their cards, ATi did the same for HL2. If it doesn't, I'll eat my hat. Does that make you happy?

You seem awfully alot like the people that consider playing at 15fps fast and stable.... :whistle:

consider what you said very carfully, yes does seem a pointless remark doesn't but never mind hey you may get better some day, lol

We all know the current GFX cards can play ALL the current games but all seem hung up on mine does xFPS more than yours, but when it comes to actually playing the games the difference in game play is hardly noticable if at all.

At 15fps of course its too slow but play that same game against a similar card that does 20FPS you would not notice the difference. Same for 100FPS against 80fps etc

There used to be a valid argument before and that was on quality of image but not anymore. Just get the card that supports the latest technology the games available have. You will save money and still run fast FPS.

For your info I own a ATI Radeon 9700 pro and a Nvidia GF3 Ti in my machines. I will not be updating my card(s) till games catch up with the latest Direct X, until then it will be pointless to do so. Doom 3 will run perfect on my machine.

Hmm...

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/109...x7HppJJ_2_1.gif

Ultra vs. XT...9fps more? Try 17 more. The rest range from 9-15. I'm sick of fighting over something so pointless...

Woah ! Wait, thats selective criticism ... how about this ?

1090364971VEVx7HppJJ_3_3.gif

Looks like you dodged the question I posed back at you, you are a fanboy and yet you call me one. Hypocrites ...

You're STILL bringing this crap up? Let me explain something to you, maybe something'll sink into that obviously thick skull of yours. I am the farthest thing from a fanboy that you will ever see. I play basically 0 games anymore, so video cards matter 0 to me. As long as it gets me to my desktop, I do not care. Did you miss the part saying I was sick of arguing over something so pointless? Besides, that picture is of one case. Go look at the other 10 images :rolleyes:

Now, if you would kindly shut the hell up.

he he fanboy gets hurt ? You dodge my original question ... you played the "fanboy card" and I said I was recommending 6800 GT everywhere, so where is your response to that ?

Moreover considering the ignorant statement you made just shows your maturity fanboy.

And lastly, you were the one to start this crap, you just want to end it when you are found wanting ? Sheesh, fanboys I tell you...

edit: And dont tell me to go look at the rest of the benches, you showed one bench where the diff was 17, similarly I showed one where the diff was zero. If you have the capability to do your own research, you would conclude that the avg fps diff is 8.5. As long as anything is above 50, its pretty much acceptable, far from "half decent" performance. :whistle:

Edited by jerry
How can this be true? ATI already has HL. And why would ID agree with this? They won't make such a deal if they haven't seen the benchmarks yet and if they did see those that were posted above they wouldn't bundle it with the lowest scoring card... Or would you?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Now 8GB of ram looks even worse in the Neo. I'm so happy I purchased 128GB of DDR 4 when I did.... paid $174. Upgraded my parents laptop to 32GB around the same time for $48. Luckily I have a TON of spare laptops. So i'm good on laptops for a while. I also have a lot of desktops too that I could use if i had to. Lets just hope nothing happens to my main 4 monitor couch workstation.
    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
    • Ventoy 1.1.16 is out.
    • This is a none story - these low volume Chinese models will always get new experimental features first because Apple and Samsung can't produce them in huge volume to meet demand.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      135
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      77
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!