Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is doom III alpha playable on my computer????

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 22, 2003 7:30:24 AM

does anyone know if doom III is playable on my puter? or what fps i should expect from my poor system ..

celeron 1.7 512 ddr radeon 9100 64ddr 7200rpm hdd.
May 22, 2003 8:00:34 AM

probably not. if you want smooth gameplay i would say that you will need at least a radeon 9500pro and 2ghz cpu (preferebly not celeron)
May 22, 2003 8:03:56 AM

woowwww... thats... ehh... hmmmm... i dont know what to say ... that means not too many ppl will buy the real game ?? :) )
Related resources
May 22, 2003 8:22:50 AM

ok maybe i overcooked it a bit but if you want decent smooth framerates i think that setup would be pretty close to the mark
May 22, 2003 10:44:58 AM

ok i found it out ... doom III is theoretically playable on a computer with 1,7ghz celeron 512mb ddr ram and radeon 9100 64mb ddr... but in real life ... it runs so slowly at 1024x768 that u can hate the game within minutes.. anyhow .. less then 1024x768 means nothing i can just keep playing Q3 arena...
May 22, 2003 1:33:02 PM

the 1.7ghz celeron is garbage, doom 3 is going to run like shi% on your computer. Ditch it for a northwood 2.53Ghz pentium 4 or better at least. Also, its looking like the minimum graphics card for the game is going to be a radeon 9700 equivalent or a GeforceFx 5800/5900

Instead of Rdram, why not just merge 4 Sdram channels...
May 22, 2003 2:30:17 PM

actually you should be fine. You won't get the "latest and the greatest" visuals. As long as you scale it down you should be fine. It won't be as pretty. I would say you would need at least a geforce 2 or a radeon 8500 would be recommended.

I'd wait though! Doom III will cost 60 bucks! thats insane!!! Get the demo and see if you can play it too. If the demo runs bad then ya don't buy the game lol. Not your loss heh!

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 22, 2003 2:44:31 PM

You're wrong!

The Doom 3 system requirements havent been released from the id Software team at this point but John Carmack has posted some of his ideas about the minimum hardware requirements regarding graphics cards.

"The requirement for GF1/Radeon 7500 as an absolute minimum is fundamental to the way the technology works, and was non-negotiable for the advances that I wanted to make. At the very beginning of development, I worked a bit on elaborate schemes to try and get some level of compatibility with Voodoo / TNT / Rage128 class hardware, but it would have looked like crap, and I decided it wasn't worth it.

The comfortable minimum performance level on this class of hardware is determined by what the artists and level designers produce. It would be possible to carefully craft a DOOM engine game that ran at good speed on an original SDR GF1, but it would cramp the artistic freedom of the designers a lot as they worried more about performance than aesthetics and gameplay.

Our "full impact" platform from the beginning has been targeted at GF3/Xbox level hardware. Slower hardware can disable features, and faster hardware gets higher frame rates and rendering quality. Even at this target, designers need to be more cognizant of performance than they were with Q3, and we expect some licensee to take an even more aggressive performance stance for games shipping in following years."

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 22, 2003 2:46:59 PM

This should cheer you up. You need an xbox equivlent in hardware. such as a geforce 3 and a pentium 3 733 recommended i would guess. anything slower you'll have to disable features and anything faster you can enable features. You should be fine!!!! Watch out for extremes here! they ALL want you to have the latest and the greatest here but don't pay to much! Which contradicts themselves because you have to fork up the dough to get the latest and the greatest. Below is proof you'll be fine!

The Doom 3 system requirements havent been released from the id Software team at this point but John Carmack has posted some of his ideas about the minimum hardware requirements regarding graphics cards.

"The requirement for GF1/Radeon 7500 as an absolute minimum is fundamental to the way the technology works, and was non-negotiable for the advances that I wanted to make. At the very beginning of development, I worked a bit on elaborate schemes to try and get some level of compatibility with Voodoo / TNT / Rage128 class hardware, but it would have looked like crap, and I decided it wasn't worth it.

The comfortable minimum performance level on this class of hardware is determined by what the artists and level designers produce. It would be possible to carefully craft a DOOM engine game that ran at good speed on an original SDR GF1, but it would cramp the artistic freedom of the designers a lot as they worried more about performance than aesthetics and gameplay.

Our "full impact" platform from the beginning has been targeted at GF3/Xbox level hardware. Slower hardware can disable features, and faster hardware gets higher frame rates and rendering quality. Even at this target, designers need to be more cognizant of performance than they were with Q3, and we expect some licensee to take an even more aggressive performance stance for games shipping in following years."

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 22, 2003 2:54:38 PM

actually the target is xbox level hardware. Which means a upper class geforce 3) and a pentium 3 733 minimum and probably a decent amount of hard drive space and a dvd-rom. I think doom 3 i last heard was suppose to be the first gaming title to be on dvd. i'm not sure though.

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 22, 2003 6:53:46 PM

no, you'd need better than Xbox equivilent. Xbox does NOTHING except run the game, and it is optimized for the hardware. With your PC, it's running a bunch of other functions at the same time as your game, plus it isn't optimized for you system.
May 22, 2003 9:24:34 PM

Dude.
Read what he said. It makes sense. A computer DOES run alot more simultaneous stuff as well as your game, and the XBox doesn't. That's all he was saying.


<font color=red> Mix it with the relish! </font color=red>
May 22, 2003 10:40:36 PM

well i've been playing the alpha for a day now .. if graphics are lower then 1024x768 there is no point in playing the game cos it doesnt really look way better then q3 or Unreal2 and when u try 1024 with a 9100 radeon + celeron 1.7 + 512ddr the results are just BORING.... anyhow..... the game to be released on a DVD should be right cos the the alpha version with 3 little maps take about 1,1 Gb space... i dont want to think about a full game with 10-15 huge maps... should be released on a DVD else it will come with 4-5 cd's ...or even more.. btw if there are some more ppl who tried the alpha version on theri computer... if u write ur results (fps) and ur config like graphics card and processor i'll be glad..
May 23, 2003 3:31:56 AM

"ok then i guess ID Software is wrong and your right. You are always right and everything that ID software says is wrong."

ha. Sure, you can play it on a lower end system but it's not going to look that great.
May 23, 2003 4:08:06 AM

well i am not saying what id software says is wrong .. but i am sure what they are saying is a new way to torture pc users.... just try to run the ALPHA on min. system they tell u to play .. and u'll understand what i mean ... a PIII and a geforce 1 + 128 sdram sure can run the game .. but it will just run it ... runing something and being able to play something properly are 2 different things.. i think ..
May 23, 2003 5:48:41 AM

I think you're gonna need a GeForce 4 or better to really play this game well at medium or high quality settings. And I would wager an Athlon 1700+ with 512 megs would be a realistic minimum for the processor--that is if you want to get any idea of how the game is actually supposed to look.

Remember, a lot of companies set minimum requirements that are way too low, because they want to sell to a broader market. But if you don't believe me, try playing Unreal 2 or a similar, newer game at high quality levels on anything less than a Ti500 and a less-than-two-year-old processor. And if you say it's fine to play at low quality, well, let's just say we won't agree on that.

<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 23, 2003 6:00:40 AM

ok here is the min. config to enjoy doom III ... P4 3.06 or athlon xp 3200+ 1gb rdram or 1gb ddr radeon 9800 256mb or geforce fx 5900 ultra... 7200rpm hdd well ... something lower than this config will let u play the game but u wont enjoy it .. thats what i say ..... doom III is a great game as long as u run it with high res min 1024x768 32bit with very high detail.... else it looks like s**t... if u want to play it at 640x480 with low detail it will look worse than quake 3 ... so throw away your pc's and start shopping for the new one ....
May 23, 2003 9:46:26 AM

Is there anyway to change the resolution on it? And how do you get past that key lock thingy? And how do you change map? Also, did you know that by pressing F12 you get a rocket launcher?

I never get above 30Fps with a GF4 Ti 4200 and an AXP 2000+ with 512MB. This sometimes goes down to 12Fps.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5467618 " target="_new">Almost Breaking 12k!!</A>
May 23, 2003 10:50:35 AM

yeah i know the rocket ... and u can get the bfg and plasma gun from quake 3... by typing "give weapon_bfg" and "give weapon_plasmagun" u can try he chainsaw shotgun machinegun... to change the map just type "map e3/e3_1" for first map "map e3/e3_2" 2nd map "map e3/e3_3" 3rd map and "map e3/intro" for the intro map.
May 24, 2003 3:10:42 AM

i still say without a geforce fx 5800-5900 ultra or radeon 9800 (not 9700) + a p4 3.06 ghz or athlon xp 3200+ ...this game is not better than quake 3
May 24, 2003 5:29:08 AM

as long as u have the ultra high end pc u can boost the graphics and play doomIII with an average system dont think about it .. it wont be better than half life..
May 24, 2003 5:49:09 AM

I ran the doom 3 alpha on the following -
1800+
512 DDR 2100
ATI 8500 64MB
Asus A7v266-e
WDC 30GB ata100

and was getting 10-20 fps with out and tweaks!
Then with the tweaks (turning off all detail) I was able to get 30-40 FPS.

Supporting AMD with your breakable stuff.
May 24, 2003 6:26:42 AM

there is no point in playing doom III with details off...
May 24, 2003 1:20:17 PM

What about an AthlonXP 1800+ with 512MB PC2100 of RAM and a Radeon 9700 Pro Card? By the way I don't think that DOOM III will be shipped in a DVD. Remember the way the public greeted the Metal Gear Solid Substance DVD for the PC?
May 24, 2003 3:06:12 PM

keep in mind you RAN an ALPHA version. WORST than BETA. That means there are TONS of DEBGUGGING code to SLOW the engine down!

wait until the official specs are out. But they said they wanna keep it on the xbox level. that is what ID SOFTWARE said and not ME.

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 24, 2003 3:42:49 PM

I agree with you the alpha is highly unoptmized, IT wasnt even meant to be played , just for demo purposes. And I dont think ID is dumb enough to make a game that runs on only the top end systems. How many people actually have a 9800pro/9700?
If my memory serves me right, when the alpha first leaked people with even the top end hardware were getting very low fps like 40 when alone and 20 with monsters. It just goes on to show the unoptimized character of the alpha.

<font color=blue><b>OKK!! Which one of you wise guys stole my sig! :frown: :tongue: </font color=blue></b><font color=red><b><i>Jay Kay</font color=red></b></i>
May 24, 2003 9:50:41 PM

If Doom3 won't play well on lower-end and mainstream systems, gamers will just run out and upgrade--it's happened before and it'll happen again. id is one of the few game developers with that kind of influence on the PC market. It will suck for those unable to spend the money, but I'm sure Doom3 will run acceptably at 800X600 on a GeForce 3 or 8500 with details turned off. I just think that at those settings, it won't be anything special either.

The PC market tends to react to id, not the other way around. Remember...you can be confident that Doom3 will give a fair indication of the performance of future games, since id makes a lot of money marketing their engine.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 24, 2003 11:40:48 PM

thats what i am saying it runs at 800x600 on a gf 3 or radeon 8500 - 9100 cards .. but there is no point in playing it that way. cos it doesnt look like the game that u see on magazines and on the net with those screenshots. it just looks as good as a regullar game on 800x600 and shodows details off... anyhow as the game is still alpha. its too early to be too worried about it i think .. and evetually game will be released in 2004??? i think ??? so i am sure radeon 9800 pro and geforce fx 5900 will cost about 150$ by the time they release it :) ) :) ) and about DVD thing ... well only the alpha with 3 small maps is a bit more then 1Gb so well ... make the maps huge .. and add about 10-12 more maps plus levels plus cinematics.. etc. it feels like it will be more than 2 or 2.5Gb ... so it seems like it will be released on 3 or 4 cd's ??? unless they zip it :) ) which even sounds funny .. well what can i say this is ID ... loves to leave ppl with great expectations and great disapointments... like what they did with quake 3... remember the time it was released .. everyone was expecting the greatest game of all times... still good but .. i dont know .. not as good as everyone expected... and playability of the game is important.. look at HL counter strike .. graphics are terrible now but everyone loves playing it .. easy to play .. look at quake 2 ... fast and playable .. gameplay is important.........:| anyhow .. lets keep sharing our ideas about the game here.. waiting for others to say something ...
May 25, 2003 11:31:47 AM

this will keep u up..
May 25, 2003 6:16:02 PM

"actually the target is xbox level hardware. Which means a upper class geforce 3) and a pentium 3 733 minimum and probably a decent amount of hard drive space and a dvd-rom. I think doom 3 i last heard was suppose to be the first gaming title to be on dvd. i'm not sure though."

The x-box CPU runs @ 128bit, so it is theorattically as fast as a 32bit PC-CPU w/ 2933MHz.


AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
May 26, 2003 2:33:48 AM

I have seen a description in a shop, which sayed that the CPU has 128bit. This is partly true. I found this data about the x-box CPU on a website:

0.18-micron Process
Modified Pentium III
733 MHz
32-bit Integer
80-bit Floating-Point (x87 FPU)
64-bit MMX (Integer SIMD)
128-bit SSE (4x 32-bit Precision Floating-Point SIMD)
32KB L1 Cache (16KB Instruction + 16KB Data)
128KB L2 Cache
1980 Dhrystone MIPS
2.93 GFLOPS (SSE)

Here is the link to this site:

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/xbox.php

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
May 26, 2003 3:24:50 AM

i need a motherboard recomindation. my computer KEEPS crashing.

Well i'm gonna tell you right now you are misinformed. I don't mean that in a bad way. Just you need to know now apparantly.

32bit processor is not the samething as 32bit integer.

32bit processor is the data path bandwidth and has nothing to do with SSE, SSE2, ALU, FPU and whatever techno mumbo jumbo you want to throw in there.

now get this terminology strait in your head ok...

you calling the pentium 3 a 128bit processor because it has a couple instruction sets that are 128 bit wide is the samething as calling a computer a hard drive because the computer has a hard drive in it. Get what i'm saying? when you go to the store and say you want a hard drive in the salesmen's mind they are thinking a hard drive and not a computer.

so get this strait ... the pentium 3 and 4 processor are 32bit processors. The g4 is a 32bit processor. Yes it has a 128bit vectors which can take anything you throw at it in 128bit chunks, but the data path is still 32bit therefore it's a 32bit processor. AMDchips are 32bit processors. Cyrix cpus are 32bit.

the ONLY and i mean the ONLY people who can even afford 128bit processors are the military.

You saw the cost of Intels 64bit Itanium processor - 3grand - imagine a 128bit processor... sucker would be 10grand!

Now the logical proof in what i'm saying is that why would Intel be working on a 64bit Itanium3 processor if the pentium 3 is already 128bit? why is AMD working on a 64bit processor if 128bit cpu's are already out and about? why would BM be working hard on 64bit processors if their g4 is 128bit?

simple they are ALL 32bit processors. The only time we switched in databit path was when we switched from a 286 to a 386. Yes people, you are working on a very old architecture. surprise! It's just been added onto to simulate 64bit and 128bit chunks to meet software demand at the sametime meet compatibility demand.

ok sooo got that?


"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 10:49:34 AM

yeah .. i still remember my 286-12mhz .. was amazing ... though 32 bit processors.. (which was only 386 family by then.. not even 386sx "it was still 16 bit"). were on the market ppl were arguing about if it is really necessary.. and stuff like that anyway ... as users .. lets wait and see ...
May 26, 2003 3:59:03 PM

Not even in 800x600 with all the trimmins off. You need at least Radeon 9500p with a 2ghz cpu.
May 26, 2003 4:16:41 PM

i'm not sure about this - but i would imagine the 32bit processors were quite expensive and wasn't any noticable difference either. probably because there weren't any 32bit software out. Neither was there any 32bit operating systems to make use of it. 32bit was probably ahead of it's time. thats why.

i'm sure many now are asking, why 64bit? There isn't any performance advantages.


"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 6:02:40 PM

So you say that a normal pentium 3 also uses a 128bit SSE unit. I dont believe in this, because the x-box CPU ist marketed as a 128bit CPU. So it is logical that if the normal pentium 3 had any 128bit parts in it, there would be at least a marketing for this 128bit parts. On the ebsite it says, that its a <b>modified</b> pentium 3 CPU. I think that this modifications include a 128 bit SSE2 unit.

You say that there are no 128bit processors around. Thats not right: new graphics processors have 256bit. I think that there are three reasons why there are no CPUs w/ more than 32bit around for the PC:

1. Compatibility: A 128bit PC CPU would have to compatible w/ a 16bit 8088 CPU. The 8088 CPU isnt a full 16bit CPU, it is a 8bit CPU w/ a 16bit extension. The reason for this is that Intel wanted it to be compatible to older 8bit CPUs. So a 128bit CPU would really be a 8bit CPU w/ a 16 bit extension w/ a 32 bit extension w/ a 64bit extension w/ a 128bit extension. This is also the reason why a 64bit application on a hammer CPU only runs about 20% faster than a 32bit version of this app on a equal 32bit CPU. Also compatibility makes it harder to realize high bit CPUs, because they need adittional support and transistors for modes w/ a lower number of bits per instruction. Eveb a Itanium 128bit CPU must be compatible to the IA32 and the IA64 instruction set (or Intel would not sell a lot of them).

2. Clock speed: If you look at the 256bit graphics processors, they have a maximum clock speed of 500MHz. If this is possible for GPUs it also should be for CPUs. This would theoratically equal a 32bit CPU w/ 4000MHz. GPUs can take the full advantage of this. The problem is, that CPUs cannot take the full advantage of this. This has differnent reasons: The CPU cannot use the full adress range for all instructions and compatibility slows it down.

3. It takes too long until the invested money comes back: developing a CPU w/ more bits per instruction costs a lot of money. AMD had a positive cash flow until they started developing the hammer CPU. Since then they have high losses, and they nearly got bankrupted. It also will take a time until they get the invested money back if they dont sell the CPU at a price which is competitve to Intel for 32bit apps. So they will not make as much money as the CPU-development costed before there will be a lot 64 bit apps around. We know that this will take a lot of time because of the history of 32bit CPUs/apps: It took about 8 years after the first 32bit CPU (386) was realeased, until there was a 32bit OS available (Windows 95).

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
May 26, 2003 6:59:05 PM

beleive whatever you wanna beleive. If you wanna beleive that a hard drive is a computer thats you're choice. A wrong and foolish one but your choice.

btw graphics processors are not the samething as a central processing unit but you seem to beleive they are the samething.

whatever your right - because the pentium 3 has sse2 it's a 128bit processor just like because your computer has a hard drive in it your computer is now called a hard drive. so when you go to a store say you want a new hard drive and see what happens.

believe whatever you want. you only make yourself look like an idiot to believe false information.

just because it says modified doesn't mean it's a 128 bit processor! what kind of crack are you smoking? actually how old are you? you're what 12 and think you know it all?

Why in gods name is intel pumping millions in developing a 64bit processor if by geneous a 128bit cpu is already out? you are wrong and you probably don't know the difference between a hard drive and a computer LOL!

*what a mind job*

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 7:22:17 PM

you're being spoonfed false information - everytime i read this i think you're joking!

yes the desktop PC has SSE as well! SO does the athlon xp! so does the pentium 4 have 128bit sse and sse2!

do you even know what sse IS? Do you even know what a register is? FLOATING POINT UNIT? WHAT IS THAT?

YOU NEED TO READ THIS MORE THAN ANYONE

"Itanium

Itanium is Intel's first microprocessor that is based on the 64-bit architecture known as IA-64. Developed under the code name of Merced, Itanium and its underlying architecture are expected to provide a foundation for the next-generation of software for the server and high-end workstation markets.

Intel plans to follow Itanium with additional IA-64 microprocessors, which have the code names of McKinley, Madison, and Deerfield.

In addition to supporting a 64-bit processor bus and a set of 28 registers, the 64-bit design allows access to a very large memory (VLM). In addition, the architecture exploits features in Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC), a joint Intel and Hewlett-Packard development effort. These provide advances in the parallel processing handling of computer instructions known as predication and speculation.

An additional Itanium feature includes a Level 3 (L3) cache memory, to supplement the current L1 and L2 cache memories found in most of today's microcomputers.

<b>Most applications in use today are based on a 32-bit microprocessor architecture</b> <SURPRISE!>, and are designed for up to 4 gigabytes of memory. However, with application access to ever-larger databases becoming more important, many of the leading software and hardware suppliers in the computer industry have already begun to develop systems and applications for the Itanium and its ability to handle 64-bit address space.

One feature of Itanium is its use of a "smart compiler" to optimize how instructions are sent to the processor. This approach allows Itanium and future IA-64 microprocessors to process more instructions per clock cycle (IPCs). (IPCs can be used along with clock speed in terms of megahertz (MHz) to indicate a microprocessor's overall performance.)

Itanium is viewed by Intel and industry observers as a new level of hardware platform for the UNIX and Windows server market and also for the high-end PC workstation market with its memory- and graphics- intensive scientific, technical, and high-end graphics applications. Observers say Itanium-based servers will be especially suited for today's large enterprise computing environments with data warehouses and a requirement for intensive processing for complex queries and transactions.

Virtually all of the major manufacturers and suppliers of today's applications, high-end systems, operating systems, and computer hardware have endorsed Itanium and the IA-64 line of processors. More than 30 Itanium-based systems are expected to come to the marketplace in 2001. Some reports indicate that Itanium's IA-64 architecture will own its market through 2003, at which point some competitive "next-generation" microprocessors may begin to be seen. This window of opportunity allows Intel to capitalize on the popularity of IA-64, and to develop profitable original equipment manufacturer arrangements with other vendors, suppliers, and manufacturers in the computer industry. Itanium and IA-64 also support 32-bit applications. "

and if you look up the pentium 3 on intels website you will see it has sse and it's a 32bit processor. How could Intel magicly take an old pentium 3 and make it a 128 bit processor, which is completely unneccasary and waste of R&D since it could never even have to access that much memory!

the pentium 3 in your pc is the same pentium 3 that is in the xbox. Look up "xbox hardware" and look for your yourself on google. everyone knows this but you apparantly.

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 7:24:13 PM

"The Xbox does indeed feature a 32-bit CPU; this CPU has actually been the topic of much controversy surrounding the Xbox. Not too long ago, Microsoft was looking for a CPU manufacturer to supply the Xbox with CPUs and of course the top runners were the CPU manufacturers that Microsoft was most friendly to: AMD and Intel. AMD was supposedly offering a K7 derived part while Intel had a Coppermine based solution. Supposedly as a surprise to everyone at AMD, Intel won the bid for the Xbox and was allowed to produce a derivative of the 0.18-micron Coppermine core for the console.

The CPU that powers the Xbox is a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache. While this would make many think that the processor is indeed a Celeron, one of the key performance factors of the Pentium III that is lost in the Celeron core was left intact for this core. The Coppermine core was left with an 8-way set associative L2 cache instead of the 4-way set associative cache of the Celeron. Based on what we've seen with the Coppermine and Coppermine128 (Celeron) cores we estimate that the 8-way set associative L2 cache gives this particular core a 10% performance advantage over the Coppermine128 core of the Celeron.

The fact that Intel decided to go with a 128KB version of the Coppermine core indicates that there is a way of disabling half of the L2 cache without modifying the mapping associativity. We fully expect the Xbox's CPUs to be nothing more than Coppermine processors with half of their 256KB L2 cache disabled.

The other aspects of the CPU remain unchanged; the core does not have SSE2 support, only support for Intel's SSE instructions. It still has a 16KB L1 instruction cache and 16KB L1 data-cache and also very important is its 133MHz FSB. We've proved time and time again about how critical a high-speed FSB is to overall system performance, and the situation is no different inside a gaming console.

The 0.18-micron CPU is contained within Intel's mobile FC-BGA package that is soldered directly onto the Xbox's motherboard. This not only prevents anyone from attempting to upgrade the CPU but it also reduces the space necessary for the CPU"

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=2" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=2&lt;/A>

how much do i have to prove you wrong? i'm doing this to wipe out that false belief you have which will help you a lot later on about computers.

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 7:25:12 PM

"just because it says modified doesn't mean it's a 128 bit processor! what kind of crack are you smoking? actually how old are you? you're what 12 and think you know it all?"

I didnt say that the x-box CPU is a 128bit CPU. I only sayed that it has 128bit parts. I have looked at the Intel homepage and found nothing about 128bit SSE or SIMD extensions in the normal pentium 3 CPU(SSE means Streaming SIMD Extensions). If the P3 had anything, which had 128nit, Intel would mention it her.

Links:

Intel Pebtium 3 description:

http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumiii/prodbref/index.h...

Intel Pentium 3 datasheet:

http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumiii/datashts/2452640...



I am 21 and dont smoke anything.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
May 26, 2003 7:36:41 PM

Could it be possible, that the PC pentium 3 uses a 32bit version of the SSE unit while the x-box CPU uses a 128 bit version?

You also said that CPUs and GPUs arent the same. I agree w/ you on this, but they do essentially the same. They calculate things and move data from or to the memory. The only difference is that the calculations and data are used for different things. So if its possible to build a 256bit GPU it also should be possible to build a 256bit CPU (at least if it hasent to be compatible w/ any code or instruction set). If it makes sense is a different question.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MrBurns on 05/26/03 03:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 26, 2003 8:18:31 PM

And I gave you a link before that it uses a 128bit sse2 unit.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
May 26, 2003 8:18:50 PM

lol you sooo said the xbox is a 128bit cpu!!! I can look it up if you like lol!

but yes it has exactly

8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit and 128bit registers!!

these are general purpose registers.
8bit registers are AL and AH, BL, BH etc... - 8086 standard
16bit registers are AX, BX, DX etc... -80286 standard
32bit registers are EAX, EBX, EDX etc... -80386 standard

[amd's athlon 64 would have 64bit general purpose registers because it's a 64bit cpu but it does not have any 128bit general purpose registers because it is not a 128bit cpu]

64bit registers are MMX0...7 - these are floating point registers and are not general purpose registers.

128bit are sse. i'm not sure how many registers it has and sse 2 is an extension of sse. as far as i know sse2 are still 128bit floating point registers. These handle numbers like 2342342342.234234234 - it's for precision which is necasary in todays graphics.

there are many more than this but do you see any 64bit or 128bit general purpose registers?

yes it has 128bit sse floating point registers but it still gets broken up into 4 chunks at 32bits each because EAX is only a 32bit register. Results gets tossed in AX or EAX. so it has 4 words to process (a word is n-bit of your processor) a single 128bit sse register. it's pretty complex from there and beyond the scope of my knowledge.

umm for example, 286's ok - 16bit processors. lets say hypotheitcly speaking it has 32bit and 64 registers. It still can only handle 1 word at a time just really really fast. Of course hyperthreading and pipeline changed all that a bit. results gets placed in AX 4 times and has to processsor that one 64bit register in 16bit chunks.

But trust me when i say it is not a 128bit cpu. it has 64 and 128bit floating point registers but it still gets broken up into 32bit chunks to process because it's a 32bit cpu.

but as you can see a true 64bit cpu can dramaticly increase performance. because to handle 128bit blocks of code or even just strings of code which result in (HEAX I think it's called?) would only have to process 2 words instead of 4. The code obviusly needs to be optimized for that cpu otherwise it just fits in the 32bit register and you see no performance advantage.

it's pretty complex though - if you're interested in knowing more i suggest you take up computer science and engineering as your college major.

now my head hurts!

"Bread makes me poop!" - Special Ed

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 26, 2003 8:42:55 PM

When did it happen before? For quake 3? You mean to say it wont run at all on my 440mx?

<font color=blue>And now for some feedback for the above post: EEEEEEEEEEWWWWW :tongue: </font color=blue><font color=red><b><i>Jay Kay</font color=red></b></i>
May 27, 2003 10:53:31 AM

well most prob. it will run but u wont be playing something that looks way better than quake 3... and sure not better than unreal 2
... anyhow .. whats happening there this thing turned into computer classes up there..
May 27, 2003 6:48:16 PM

Yes, first I said that the x-box has (and not is) a 128bit CPU. I believed that because of the martketing of evil M$, but I corrected myself after I read your post and saw the article on the website I posted before. I said than that it has 128bit parts.



I dont understand why the x-box still uses the original x86 code. They could have modfied the code a little bit, so that it doesnt need any 8 or 16bit registers. The CPU would sure been faster, because they could have made anything 32bit. Also the x-box CPU hasnt to be compatible to any existing code or compiler. They had to make a few changes in the CPU-Core, but M$ spendet so much money on the x-box development, that this wouldnt have made a big difference.

"128bit are sse. i'm not sure how many registers it has and sse 2 is an extension of sse. as far as i know sse2 are still 128bit floating point registers. These handle numbers like 2342342342.234234234 - it's for precision which is necasary in todays graphics."



So you say, you need more than 64 bit for todays graphics. As far as I know no game or graphics card excists that can handle more than 32bit colours or textures, so for what the hell do you need 128bit? W/ 64 bit you can calculate (integer) numbers up to approximalely 1.8x10^19 (I have calculated this w/ my calculator). This is a number w/ 19 digits. W/ floating point you will use a few digits for the exponent, but it will be still more than 10^15. I think, that this is precise enough for graphics and nearly anything else, even for most scientific calculations. And if ever so high numbers are needed, the CPU use two 64 bit words like one w/ 128 bit. It is slower, because for every calculation the CPU needs two clock cycles, but 128bit arent needed very often. i know that this is possible, because otherwise the 4 bit 4004 could only calculate ínteger numbers lower than 16.



You also said, that all 8086 registers are 8bit. I know, that the 8086 was a 16bit CPU. I found this about the 8086 CPU on the web:

"The 8086 was Intel's first venture in 16-bit computing. It had a totally different instruction set, different hardware architecture, and much greater capability. It was in no direct way related to ANY of the previous devices (including the 8085). It just happened to be the next number in sequence."

You can read it here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6310/d1ld.htm...

You can also find out there, that the 4004 was a 4 bit CPU.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
!