1fps unplayable :(

playing on software (not opengl) low res (640x480)
still having 1fps on this wad "oku2v31" of +20.000 monsters (130fps on spec mode)
i got Pentium Dual-Core E5200 @ 2.50GHz 3.43GB of ram
NVIDIA GeForce3/GeForce4 MX+/ATI Radeon 8500+

I don't know , you really think it's easy to run a spam map? You need a better PC I guess.

try prboom+ if it's compatible.
should be faster by far in comparison to zdoom derivates.

People still use Nvidia Geforce? Holy shit. You need an upgrade pronto. That'd be exactly why, Geforce is something they used in the 90s to run something like Quake 2. Did you expect it to run a 20k spam map when it barely handles Quake 2/3?

joe-ilya said:

I don't know , you really think it's easy to run a spam map? You need a better PC I guess.

It is, but only if you have something that isn't Geforce or Radeon. I get constant 60fps on nuts.wad with a Radeon HD card.

Even my ATI Radeon 7850 HD 2GB, a 2012 card, struggles to run this map at a few frames a second.

so its my pc kk
well i got this pc on summer 2008, upgraded video card & had to replace monitor and not long ago the entire motherboard!
ate up lots of money over years but still not capable :\ i just too poor to buy new one :((

SavageCorona said:

People still use Nvidia Geforce? Holy shit. You need an upgrade pronto. That'd be exactly why, Geforce is something they used in the 90s to run something like Quake 2.

What the fuck are you reading? Nvidia Geforce are still used in modern day society to run AAA titles at ultra high quality.

SavageCorona said:

Did you expect it to run a 20k spam map when it barely handles Quake 2/3?

Maybe if you're using a 1 GB card to support maybe 15 monitors at the same time, but I really can't see a Nvidia Geforce NOT handling Q2/3

SavageCorona said:

It is [that easy to run a spam map], but only if you have something that isn't Geforce or Radeon. I get constant 60fps on nuts.wad with a Radeon HD card.

wut. You contradicted yourself right here.

Quake II ran fine in software mode with a regular, run-of-the-mill 1 MB PCI SVGA card. That's how I played through it in '98 (on a p120 with 32 MB RAM, running Debian Linux). Any old 3D card would have probably worked fine with it, even the old 3Dfx Voodoo... I didn't buy any such cards though.

People still use Intel x86? Holy shit. You need an upgrade pronto. That'd be exactly why, x86 is something they used in the 80s to run something like Sopwith. Did you expect it to run a 20k spam map when it barely handles Sopwith?

Also the brand name "GeForce" did not exist before 1999, so saying it was used in the 90s is anachronistic.

lol wtf is wrong with all saying: ooh wow you still have nvidia geforce? holy shit dude you live in middle ages!
i know ppl who got even more gypsy pc's xD consider urselves lucky to have ur pcs, i envy u!
i got this pc in summer 2008, it isnt the best pc ever but it was quiet an ok pc that a regular person could get. and since then i upped the videocard and motherboard, +2gb rams. so its just a bit weird that it might still not be able to handle a game like doom i mean i even play on 640res wtf..map wont run even in single player lol -,-

I would suggest switching to pr-boom for maps like this, as we all know even the best computers will melt when confronted with nuts.wad in an open-gl port.
My brick can handle this map in pr-boom by the way ;)

Runs absolutely fine in PRBoom+ as intended but don't expect to run this under something like ZDoom/GZDoom without it choking up simply because it strains the engine to it's limit, it's something to do with the engine coding not being as efficient as PRBoom+ or nonsense I forgot. The same discussion was brought up with regards to Sunder and testing FPS times on MAP10 with PRBoom+ and GZDoom.

The "GL-PC" in this house uses a GeForce. It runs Doom 3 in High Quality perfectly and in the brief time I tried out Ultra Quality, there was no slowdown.
In fact, the only thing it's struggled with is Winter's Fury, which goes without saying really.

My computer has a little bit of lag running Winters Fury, but otherwise handles most things Doom related perfectly. There is an odd bug that kills GZDoom when too many Revenants are packed together while running Doom Expanded, but thats the only flaw this thing seems to have.

You can upgrade your "holy shit GeForce" til you're blue in the face and it's not gonna make a software source port run any faster. This entire thread has been an exercise in futility.

the doom software renderer is actually quite performant. the problem here is not the renderer but the fancy pants handling of monster AI in zdoom derivates which completely breaks the performance of these insane slaughter maps. even opengl won't help you there since it's not even the problem. just tried oku2v31 with prboom+ and glboom+, it's fluid and there is practically no performance difference between the two. just forget about zdoom on nuts-style wads.

BloodyAcid said:

wut. You contradicted yourself right here.

You clearly misread EVERYTHING. Geforce is the OLD cards used to run Quake 3 back in the 90s. Radeon is the OLD ATI cards from the early 2000s. Radeon HD is the NEW ATI cards used today. GTX is the NEW Nvidia cards used today.

I know this because my Geforce 4 could barely run Quake 3 and wouldn't even touch Doom 3 without exploding and my Radeon 9800 Pro couldn't do anything better than Prey.

SavageCorona said:

You clearly misread EVERYTHING. Geforce is the OLD cards used to run Quake 3 back in the 90s. Radeon is the OLD ATI cards from the early 2000s. Radeon HD is the NEW ATI cards used today. GTX is the NEW Nvidia cards used today.

I know this because my Geforce 4 could barely run Quake 3 and wouldn't even touch Doom 3 without exploding and my Radeon 9800 Pro couldn't do anything better than Prey.

Except that the new cards are still called Geforce and Radeon, just with different tags attached to the end. By the way, if a Geforce 4 can't run Quake 3, then you have other issues, because by the time those came out, Quake 3 had been out for almost four years.

SavageCorona said:

You clearly misread EVERYTHING.

[/b] Did I really?

SavageCorona said:

Geforce is the OLD cards used to run Quake 3 back in the 90s. ... GTX is the NEW Nvidia cards used today.

... ... They're called Nvidia GEFORCE GTX. That's like denying sequels because they have a different number from the original.

SavageCorona said:

Radeon is the OLD ATI cards from the early 2000s. Radeon HD is the NEW ATI cards used today.

If you're going to be a picky prick about being specific, then why did you neglect to mention the model for the "OLD ATI cards", like Radeon 7000?

SavageCorona said:

I know this because my Geforce 4 could barely run Quake 3 and wouldn't even touch Doom 3 without exploding and my Radeon 9800 Pro couldn't do anything better than Prey.

A suffix does not make an entire line of graphics cards invalid. Geforce cards are still Geforece, and Radeon's, Radeons. "1999" is not "90's", unless your minimal view of the entire decade was summarized in that one year. You must think that Intel HD 4000 is the apex of graphical ingenuity.

thanks guys, the prdoom seems to work :*
let the awesomeness begin :D

Ah Intel, with their amazing OpenGL support.

WildWeasel said:

Except that the new cards are still called Geforce and Radeon, just with different tags attached to the end. By the way, if a Geforce 4 can't run Quake 3, then you have other issues, because by the time those came out, Quake 3 had been out for almost four years.

My iMac G4 actually has a little trouble running Quake 3, it uses a GeForce 4 MX200. But let's be reasonable here: if the bottleneck is your GeForce 4 and games are giving you trouble, that's invariably going to be because you have a shitty GeForce 4, like the MX200. :P

SavageCorona: I highly advise you do your research before making hilarious claims like the GeForce series being unable to run anything past "stuff in the 90s like Quake 2". I get 100+ FPS on Battlefield 3 at mid-high settings and my card dominates pretty much every game that has come out in the past 3 years, with the exception of Crysis 3 which I run at medium settings and get a solid 40-50 FPS.

The only exception to this seems to be GZDoom. My Radeon 7750 got at a minimum 500 FPS on pretty much anything GZDoom could put out, but rendering two dynamic lights causes my 660 Ti to slow to about 20 FPS.

Fisk said:

My iMac G4 actually has a little trouble running Quake 3, it uses a GeForce 4 MX200. But let's be reasonable here: if the bottleneck is your GeForce 4 and games are giving you trouble, that's invariably going to be because you have a shitty GeForce 4, like the MX200. :P

To be fair, the MX200 is essentially just a slightly overclocked, rebranded GeForce 2; it doesn't even have the support for Pixel Shaders like the GF4Ti series have.

WildWeasel said:

To be fair, the MX200 is essentially just a slightly overclocked, rebranded GeForce 2; it doesn't even have the support for Pixel Shaders like the GF4Ti series have.

Absolutely true. The problem really is that it's branded as a GeForce 4, which really hurt my perception of the entire line of GeForce 4s; at the time I was using a GeForce 3 ti200 and playing Morrowind, and my dad had just gotten a GeForce 4 MX200 expecting it to be at least slightly superior to the 3 ti200. The immense disappointment from that card he expressed turned me off to the GeForce 4 series up until the FX cards were a year into their lifespan.

What does this thread has to do with doom , when you talk about computers and cards.

Seriously? You even responded to the first post, which was made in regards to a Doom WAD.

WildWeasel said:

Except that the new cards are still called Geforce and Radeon, just with different tags attached to the end. By the way, if a Geforce 4 can't run Quake 3, then you have other issues, because by the time those came out, Quake 3 had been out for almost four years.

Its fan had broken off and it kept overheating.

SavageCorona said:

Its fan had broken off and it kept overheating.

See, that would have been useful knowledge and might have prevented a major thread tangent.

Man, I miss the days when chips didn't need fans. My 486DX/33 just needed a small heat sink. And my Amiga 500 didn't even have a case fan. Of course the power supply was outside the case (in-line with power cord, basically like a laptop) so that helped dissipate heat too.

SavageCorona said:

You clearly misread EVERYTHING. Geforce is the OLD cards used to run Quake 3 back in the 90s. Radeon is the OLD ATI cards from the early 2000s. Radeon HD is the NEW ATI cards used today. GTX is the NEW Nvidia cards used today.

Again, GeForce did not exist before 1999.

Nvidia started with the NV1 in 1995, followed by the Riva 128 in 1997, TNT in 1998, TNT2 in 1999, and the first GeForce on October 11, 1999.

GeForces were a thing of the 90s for a bit less than three months. They've been a thing of the 2000s for a full ten years, and a thing of the 2010s for three years and eight months so far, counting up.

GTX is just a suffix added to the name of some specific models. The brand name is still GeForce. The current series are the GeForce 600and 700, but they have already announced the 800, 900, 1000, and 1100 series, which should appear in 2014 and later. And look, there are models without a GTX, or even without a suffix at all, like the GeForce 605 and the GeForce 710M.