DOOM III Benchmarks

Starting off by saying they have been asked not to comment on game content they got to observe, [H]ardOCP's DOOM 3 Benchmarks offer the results of their chance to check out the performance of id Software's latest game engine running on NVIDIA hardware. They go into the methodology they used, the efforts taken to not allow NVIDIA to artificially make themselves look better, the make-up of their test system, and of course, the benchmark results. Update: There turn out to be similar articles on Tom's Hardware Guide and Anandtech (if you can get through). In further DOOM-related news, 'Doom' returns in all its gory (thanks HomeLan Fed) is a USA Today article on the game featuring many quotes from the folks at id and related industry pundits. Here's a bit on system requirements:
In recent years, game publishers have tried to boost sales by tuning their games to work well on mid-level systems. The new Doom ''is the only game that developers are comfortable expecting the core audience to upgrade for,'' says Rob Smith of PC Gamer magazine. Id has not yet set minimum hardware requirements, but the game certainly will run better with a new $300 graphics card or with Intel's fastest Pentium chip, a $400 premium over lesser machines.

Driving the complexity, in part, is the intricate lighting, says id co-founder and technical director John Carmack. ''The way (Doom III's) graphics engine has turned out is that all of the things that people do with cinematic lighting (in movies) are directly applicable to games for really the first time,'' says Carmack, who was only 23 when he was the lead programmer for the original.
View : : :
58.
 
omg
May 13, 2003, 02:54
s1q
58.
omg May 13, 2003, 02:54
May 13, 2003, 02:54
s1q
 
Oh my god, how is it possible that a game that looks so good runs so smooth. id does it again. props!
I sing my song in their symphony of life,
but I am only a voice in their choir.

What is a thought, compared to a mind?

What is a drop of rain, compared to the storm?
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
3.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
4.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
5.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
   WHY
6.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
    Re: WHY
8.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
     Re: WHY
12.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
      Re: WHY
19.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
      Re: WHY
2.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
7.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
9.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
10.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
11.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
13.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
14.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
17.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
18.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
33.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
39.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
23.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
15.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
16.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
21.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
20.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
22.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
34.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
24.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
25.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
26.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
28.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
32.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
27.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
36.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
37.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
38.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
29.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
30.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
31.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
35.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
40.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
41.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
42.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
43.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
44.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
   Re: Why
53.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
61.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
62.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
      Re: On Stalker...
63.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
       Re: On Stalker...
64.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
        Re: On Stalker...
66.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
      Re: On Stalker...
45.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
59.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
46.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
47.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
48.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
49.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
50.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
51.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
52.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
55.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
56.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
   Re: Wow
57.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
    Re: Wow
54.
May 12, 2003May 12 2003
 58.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003
omg
60.
May 13, 2003May 13 2003