Doom III: GOLD

but already two people have bowed out of playing it due to incomplete hardware... how very odd.

I have yet to play farcry, due to my ti4600 being not acceptable performance/visually/ wise.

If I had a 9800pro, then yes I would play the game(DOOM 3) however Since the 6800GT is out, why purchase a 2 year old R3XX card.

I\'m going to put a preorder down on the GAINWARD ULTRA/2400 GOLDEN SAMPLE GEFORCE 6800GT.

I don\'t play top caliber games like Doom 3 unless they can be experienced in full glory.

2.0 or better processor is considered perfectly fine

Bahhhh, I say 3.0 is considered accpetable IMHO

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Accpetable processor speed is only what the gpu requires..  2 gig is probably fine.

According to what I\'ve heard, the processor speeds can be as low as about 1.5 to 1.7 ghz.  But just like the posts in this thread, theoretical hardware that isn\'t available yet is necessary to run this game at full on with everything so I don\'t think your "full glory" statement is going to come to fruition unless you\'re willing to wait probably another year.

ull glory" statement is going to come to fruition unless you\'re willing to wait probably another year.

If you are referring to the 512mb video card that is required to run doom 3 in Ultra quality mode, then yes I agree with your statement, however a 6800GT(which I hope to get next month) will run doom in high quality mode, which to me is acceptable. I have my 3.06c overclocked to 3.6ghz which should be good enough to help speed up my soon to be owned 6800. The CPU will still be the bottleneck, but hey what can you do.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

You won\'t need a super powerful cpu to use any gfx card to the max atm.  It will improve other aspects like loading times.

Most likely a 2 gig cpu will perform (graphics wise) as good as a 3 gig with equal gfx card..

Souly, I don\'t understand where you are comming from. As it stands right now the new GPU\'s are cpu bottlenecked. In others words they have the potential to perform alot better with a faster cpu. A 2Ghz CPU can not match the performance that a 3.5ghz cpu can provide for the nv40/R420. Certainly the difference in performance is not 50%, none the less the faster your gpu is, the better CPU you need to feed the hunger monster.

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
You won\'t need a super powerful cpu to use any gfx card to the max atm.  It will improve other aspects like loading times.

Most likely a 2 gig cpu will perform (graphics wise) as good as a 3 gig with equal gfx card..

Souly has it nailed on this one.  Couldn\'t agree with him more.  Though I will admit, having the extra horsepower for the sound in the game on the CPU will certianly help out a lot as the sound is dependant of that.  Interesting considering the Audigy 2 with its raw power is out there in many high end machines...

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Souly, I don\'t understand where you are comming from. As it stands right now the new GPU\'s are cpu bottlenecked. In others words they have the potential to perform alot better with a faster cpu. A 2Ghz CPU can not match the performance that a 3.5ghz cpu can provide for the nv40/R420. Certainly the difference in performance is not 50%, none the less the faster your gpu is, the better CPU you need to feed the hunger monster.

The idea of a GPU is to take load away from the cpu, not add more to it. If they indeed are building gpus (which i doubt) that require extremely powerful cpus. Then they\'re doing what they\'re trying not to in the first place.

If you can get me info saying that these gpus need massive amount of cpu power to be fully used. I\'ll agree.

Alright but you guys are way off base here. Your telling me that a 3.5ghz cpu with a nv40/r420 will make very little difference compared to a 2ghz cpu.

If you can get me info saying that these gpus need massive amount of cpu power to be fully used. I\'ll agree.

When the DOOM 3 benchmarks are released, your going to see my point, as clear as crystal:shy:


PS. I will look into Farcry for benchmarks comparing different Cpu speeds with the same card.

The idea of a GPU is to take load away from the cpu, not add more to it

Yes I know. However the problem today souly is that that gpu is finished it\'s instructions well before the cpu is done with it\'s tasks. Therefore the Gpu is waiting on the cpu, meaning the GPU can not continue to process more information, until it\'s slower brother is finished with it\'s set of instructions. So the faster the CPU, the less latency the gpu inhibits.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Not saying your wrong, just saying its stupid for them to build them this way..
They\'re doing it more on raw power rather then good coding.. they\'re getting sloopy.

I already found benchmarks comparing 2.8ghz p4 to a AMD 64bit 3800+ cpu. Although a little unfair there’s about 20fps on average difference between the 2.   I\'d like to see a 2gig p4 against a 3 gig p4 to see the difference.

But i wouldn\'t say its worth the price tag of having to buy a system that supports the cards to the fullest extent.  
Building a system around a gfx card is a pretty expensive thing to do.

But I wouldn’t speed 500+ AUD on any gfx card anyway.

Not saying your wrong, just saying its stupid for them to build them this way..
They\'re doing it more on raw power rather then good coding.. they\'re getting sloopy.

It appears to be that way. I mean for Christ sake, we have Cpu\'s running at 3.8GHZ and get there unable to keep up with today’s gpu\'s. I mean AI, sound, physics and whatever else should be able to run fine on three thousand and eight hundred MHZ.
I think they are spending more time optimizing the GPU rather than applying the same to the CPU code. Now knowing Carmack I would assume that he and his team has spent a considerable amount of time optimizing the instruction set for the cpu.