Room Of Doom Mac OS
2016's DOOM ported to Linux and Mac OS X? Will they ever be ported to those OSes too beside consoles and Windows like the previous id Software games? Thank you in advance. '3' stars for Features- Hey, it's Doom! '5' everything else! MacPro Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core 3GB RAM/Radeon HD 4870/OS X 10.6 running at max resolution of my monitor with all options on: 1680x1050-runs almost TOO FAST! Way better than what I had to do with the cfg file to get it to run on my old MDD G4 1GHz Radeon 9800 Pro! GZDoom is a Doom source port based on ZDoom for Mac. It features an OpenGL renderer and lots of new features. Is a Doom source port.
Earlier this month MacWorld got an early look on the Doom 3 port to Mac OS X, and the posted their experiences with the Gold Master. The game is expected to be available in the retail channel on March 19, but after some seemingly disappointing benchmarks, not everyone is all that thrilled. The test system used was a powerhouse: PowerMac G5 2.5GHz dual CPU, loaded with 2.5GB of RAM, and the Mac version of the ATI Radeon X800 XT (which itself has 256MB of RAM). Even at High-Quality 640x480 resolution with no anti-aliasing, the best the system could do was 47.1 FPS. For comparison, with a NVIDIA-power 6800 GT with 256MB of RAM, a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 will turning circa 150 FPS, while the beasts such as the Athlon 64 4000+ will hit more than 200 FPS. Of course, people with such systems won't game at that low resolution, instead cranking it up as high as it can go and still not seem choppy. MacWorld said it best:
Numerous Web sites and magazines have benchmarked Doom 3's performance on the PC since the game was released last summer, and these numbers are bound to draw comparisons. You'll discover that our tests produced lower frame rate averages than those PC benchmarks you'll see elsewhere -- in some cases by a little, in other cases by a lot, depending on the methodologies used and the systems tested. One way or the other, Mac frame rates seem off by 20 percent or more in many cases in the comparisons we've seen posted online.
Naturally, people started asking 'why'? The debate is long and torrid, but you can dig into our community's previous discussion here. There's plenty of theories, but not many facts. Thankfully, Glenda Adams of Aspyr Media, the company that ported the game to the Mac, has offered us her take on the situation.
Advertisement 'The truth to Doom 3 OS X performance is that there isn't one magic low hanging fruit optimization that will fix it. Engineers at Aspyr/id/Apple/ATI/nvidia haven't 'overlooked' something, or just blown off an easy fix for some reason. We held the game for over 4 months purely for optimization, its not like it was rushed out for a certain date,' she wrote.
Adams also noted that the game is currently 'as optimized as it was going to get with the current Mac OS, compilers, and hardware,' and noted that additional delays in releasing the game wouldn't really suit anyone. One might ask, then, why it is that the top of the line G5, which performs admirably in other circumstances, seems to trail the PC so clearly in this instance. Adams added:
'The biggest remaining optimization is below the surface of OpenGL, between the framework/drivers and hardware. This is where the PC gains the most advantage. But even that may not be all of the difference. Everything else I've mentioned in different forums, from data alignment to float/int conversions and compiler differences play a factor. If gcc can't do the same level of cross-module inlining on the Mac as the PC compiler, maybe thats a 1% overall hit. Maybe its 0.005%, maybe its 5%. If the PowerPC could convert a float to an int without writing it out to memory, maybe thats another .005%, or another 1%. Those things are so difficult to measure, and immensely difficult to re-engineer away.'
Nevertheless, Aspyr is going to continue to work on the game, even though it is shipping. The company, along with Apple, believes that while the timedemo numbers may look less than inspiring, but actual game play will be better. Hopefully this will put to rest some of the more ridiculous accusations regarding lazy optimizations and the like.
Earlier this month MacWorld got an early look on the Doom 3 port to Mac OS X, and the posted their experiences with the Gold Master. The game is expected to be available in the retail channel on March 19, but after some seemingly disappointing benchmarks, not everyone is all that thrilled. The test system used was a powerhouse: PowerMac G5 2.5GHz dual CPU, loaded with 2.5GB of RAM, and the Mac version of the ATI Radeon X800 XT (which itself has 256MB of RAM). Even at High-Quality 640x480 resolution with no anti-aliasing, the best the system could do was 47.1 FPS. For comparison, with a NVIDIA-power 6800 GT with 256MB of RAM, a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 will turning circa 150 FPS, while the beasts such as the Athlon 64 4000+ will hit more than 200 FPS. Of course, people with such systems won't game at that low resolution, instead cranking it up as high as it can go and still not seem choppy. MacWorld said it best:
Numerous Web sites and magazines have benchmarked Doom 3's performance on the PC since the game was released last summer, and these numbers are bound to draw comparisons. You'll discover that our tests produced lower frame rate averages than those PC benchmarks you'll see elsewhere -- in some cases by a little, in other cases by a lot, depending on the methodologies used and the systems tested. One way or the other, Mac frame rates seem off by 20 percent or more in many cases in the comparisons we've seen posted online.
Naturally, people started asking 'why'? The debate is long and torrid, but you can dig into our community's previous discussion here. There's plenty of theories, but not many facts. Thankfully, Glenda Adams of Aspyr Media, the company that ported the game to the Mac, has offered us her take on the situation.
AdvertisementDoom Free Mac
'The truth to Doom 3 OS X performance is that there isn't one magic low hanging fruit optimization that will fix it. Engineers at Aspyr/id/Apple/ATI/nvidia haven't 'overlooked' something, or just blown off an easy fix for some reason. We held the game for over 4 months purely for optimization, its not like it was rushed out for a certain date,' she wrote.
Room Of Doom Mac Os Catalina
Adams also noted that the game is currently 'as optimized as it was going to get with the current Mac OS, compilers, and hardware,' and noted that additional delays in releasing the game wouldn't really suit anyone. One might ask, then, why it is that the top of the line G5, which performs admirably in other circumstances, seems to trail the PC so clearly in this instance. Adams added:
'The biggest remaining optimization is below the surface of OpenGL, between the framework/drivers and hardware. This is where the PC gains the most advantage. But even that may not be all of the difference. Everything else I've mentioned in different forums, from data alignment to float/int conversions and compiler differences play a factor. If gcc can't do the same level of cross-module inlining on the Mac as the PC compiler, maybe thats a 1% overall hit. Maybe its 0.005%, maybe its 5%. If the PowerPC could convert a float to an int without writing it out to memory, maybe thats another .005%, or another 1%. Those things are so difficult to measure, and immensely difficult to re-engineer away.'
Doom For Mac Os
Nevertheless, Aspyr is going to continue to work on the game, even though it is shipping. The company, along with Apple, believes that while the timedemo numbers may look less than inspiring, but actual game play will be better. Hopefully this will put to rest some of the more ridiculous accusations regarding lazy optimizations and the like.