John Carmack talks about Wolfenstein, cannot comment on Doom 4's development, prefers Intel+Nvidia

DSOGaming writes: "During his QuakeCon 2013 keynote, John Carmack revealed some interesting information about the ID Tech 5 version that will be powering the new Wolfenstein title. According to Carmack, id Software is currently trying to un-optimize and clean up the core code of the engine as Wolfenstein is a cross-platform title."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer1754d ago

That's my combo[Intel&Nvidia]better performance

kevnb1754d ago

amd video cards still have poor support for many games, and intel processors are just better. You can go amd, but you will have more messing around to do with drivers and/or cpu cooling.

LAWSON721754d ago (Edited 1754d ago )

I dont understand this messing around with drivers idea, because I have had zero issues that I needed to fix myself over almost a year and a half (hd 7950 and 6850). AMD makes great GPUs that usually offer alot more for the money. I do agree though Intel is just better than AMD when it comes to CPUs

fossilfern1754d ago

What messing around? I have been using AMD for years even before AMD bought ATi. Don't start spreading some fanboy flame bait

Bobbo441754d ago (Edited 1754d ago )

Driver issues aside, AMD really isn't a cheaper alternative anymore. Look at benchmarks. The 7970 performs similar to a 670, and they're very similar price ranges ( http://www.videocardbenchma... ), with the Nvidia card actually being a little bit cheaper and a little better performance. You may say that game performance is better on a 7970 than a 670, but it clearly depends on the game with some games performing better on different cards. Point is, in raw performance they're similar, and similar in price. Not to mention AMD is falling pretty far behind in performance. They have nothing that comes close to the performance of a Titan or 780. The 7990 is a joke to compare to the Titan or 780. You can't compare dual GPU cards to a single one. I've had my fair share of experiences with multi GPU setups, and will never go there again.

fossilfern1754d ago


Are you seriously using some sort of synthetic benchmark comparison? I wouldn't trust them for any GPU. And considering that the 7 series from AMD is about 2 years old now and still maintains a high position isn't something to sniff at.

This driver rubbish in relation to AMDs drivers not being good is something I havnt experienced so Maybe I'm lucky. And nvidia haunt had perfect drivers either so it goes both ways.

Bobbo441754d ago (Edited 1754d ago )


Yes, I'm obviously using a synthetic benchmark comparison, like I said, it gives a comparison of raw power. Why wouldn't you trust a benchmark? How can you make the argument that the 7000 series is an older card? I compared the 7970 to a 670, they released within a few months of each other. And my comment about Nvidia having better performance with a 780/Titan than AMD is no less valid because AMD won't release a new line of cards. If you would like a comparison of game performance, well here is one of Battlefield 3 etc. performance ( The 670 is very similar in performance to the 7970, with each of them pulling slightly ahead in different scenarios, like I said. I used to be a huge AMD fan until my last build when I realized you really weren't saving anything anymore (I'm just talking the GPU department, comparison of AMD to Intel is a joke).

And you see what I did there, I gave at least some form of proof of my claims.

Oh, and I imagine people's complaints about AMD drivers are probably more about higher end configurations that demand more from drivers, like Crossfire, Eyefinity, etc. I've tried both Crossfire and SLI setups, and SLI works drastically better in comparison. Although AMD is working on it, I think they just released a frame latency tool of some sort.

fossilfern1753d ago (Edited 1753d ago )

I'm No fanboy if that's what your thinking. I was actually contemplating going nvidia and getting a 760 but will be waiting for the new series of GPU from AMD since I had some bad run ins with nvidia gpus.

It goes back and forth between the GPU crown and it depends on the game too some things AMD do well and nvidia do well in others.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1753d ago
1754d ago Replies(8)
Megaton1754d ago

I run Intel + AMD, but I've got not delusions about which is better between Nvidia and AMD. They just cost a lot more, and suck up a lot more power. I'd definitely go with Nvidia for my GPU if I had the money to burn.

sinjonezp1754d ago (Edited 1754d ago )

I can't agree more. Nvidia support is great. Intel cards, while usually priced more, gives you significantly better performance. I understand that AMD gfx cards are priced lower, their driver support is bad. Nvidia gives consumers new drivers at least once a month or when a triple A title comes out. Additionally providing sli profile upgrades. Every CPU I build for costumers I always tell them Intel and nvidia.

ATi_Elite1753d ago

I have:

Intel + AMD and Intel + Nvidia. I really see NO difference as they both perform GREAT! Each GPU has it's up n downs but AMD GPU's are cheaper so it wins.

I don't want to here any CRAP about AMD Drivers cause they have been good for years and AMD Drivers have NEVER EVER burned up a GPU or set your house on fire like Nvidia Driver 196.75 and 320.18 have done!

Funny how Nvidia Fanboys NEVER seem to remember 196.75 burning up GPU's, PC's, and burning down houses while they BRAG about Nvidia Drivers.

Nvidia Driver 320.18 has also FRIED a lot of GPU's too but luckily no burned houses.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1753d ago
john21754d ago

Man, those QuakeCon keynotes are simply a joy. Say what you want about Carmack (and the fact that he f'ed up PC gamers) but it's a joy listening to him, his opinions and his ideas

opinska1754d ago

How did he f'ed up PC games? Rage was a sweet game, with a great engine. Wolfestain was alright too.. Doom 3 was a master piece.

john21754d ago (Edited 1754d ago )

RAGE had a lot of issues when it was launched on the PC. Also the fact that this version was held back by the console versions was something that pissed off a lot of PC gamers

Vladplaya1754d ago

Doom 3 was NOT a master piece, not even by long shot. It failed by TRYING to be a scary game, instead of been actual Doom game. It failed miserably at been scary, then at everything else. Boring ass narrow corridor shooter in the dark.

aliengmr1753d ago

Rage was a glorified tech demo that showcased tech that was pretty meh.

Coach_McGuirk1754d ago

Intel & Nvidia for quality, AMD for price/performance. Both are excellent and we should consider ourselves lucky to have the option.

Plagasx1754d ago (Edited 1754d ago ) Doom 4...again.

palaeomerus1754d ago

Yeah, I admit that I am starting to worry. And it seems like such a no-brainer too. Just make a really fast, twitchy game where you kill lots and lots of 'dumb as hell demons' and dead people, that pop out of monster closets, with crazy weapons with lots of smoke, fire, blood, and bones in it. Maybe have some destructible scenery and vehicles here and there to spice things up. Have some key cards and levels you can wander around in.

Sometimes looking backwards is the way forward.

JBernardo1754d ago

AMD's cpus are the best in terms of price/performance. Just look at the FX8320's price... It went for about £105 yesterday on Can't beat that.

Show all comments (32)