Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 18:15
by Graf Zahl
It makes quite a difference, doesn't it?
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 18:23
by Nash
Yes I'm surprised how much a simple change of graphics card could save this aging Athlon XP 2000 machine.
For my project, I'm running it at 1280 x 800, fullscreen AA, and the game is filled with high res textures (4 times larger than Doom's) and it's not showing any sign of slowing down at all.
But that may partly be due to the fact that I just overclocked it a little more to get every last FPS out of the card.
Can't wait for the software-style Doom fogs if you ever implement it. Those require shaders right?
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 18:46
by Graf Zahl
Yes. Unfortunately the way shaders work requires to assemble them from tiny code fragments and for each change of render state exchange the entire shader. And that's something I won't do. With the current generation of shader support I won't bother any further. It'd be different if I could code the entire rendering pipeline as one block of code. But considering how fragment/pixel shaders work that will probably take a few more years...
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 21:09
by Syfo-Dyas
Hmmm looks like I'm next in line for an upgrade then.
What chipset are they putting in the Mac Minis now? Will that do, or does gzDOOM prefer a certain amount of vid ram?
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 21:14
by Graf Zahl
XDelusion wrote:Will that do, or does gzDOOM prefer a certain amount of vid ram?
For lo-res 32 or 64 MB should be enough, depending on screen resolution. But for hires textures you shouldn't even consider anything below 128 MB.
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 21:44
by Nash
But of course we all know that texture memory isn't everything. No use getting a graphics card with 512MB when it comes with a shitty GPU.
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 22:05
by Graf Zahl
Indeed. The computer I am using right now came with a Geforce 5200 preinstalled. The packaging bragged in huge print Graphics card with 256MB!! which of course was utterly pointless because the POS was slower than the Geforce 4 I used before. I dumped that thing right on the day I bought the computer and sold it on Ebay.
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:52
by Syfo-Dyas
Alright, well I'm going to go sell some crach to some pre-schoolers so I can afford this crap.
Thankx for all the advice.
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:03
by Shinjanji
I did hear of the GeForce 5xxx series royally sucking when it came to fragment program performance.
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:25
by wildweasel
The GeForce FX series royally sucks at pretty much everything.
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:39
by Graf Zahl
The highest FX models were mostly ok (5900+) but the low end (5200) was a piece of utter garbage and considerably slower than even an average GF 4.