Doom 3 benchmarking

Mutant_Fruit

I'm really tempted to blow a week and a halfs wages on an x800 or equivalent geforce. So tempted... My 9600pro is only 2-3 months old

Spunog UIE

Athlon 1.4
9600xt,
512ram

30fps @ 800*600 medium detail
25fps@1024*768 medium detail

go me.

Mutant_Fruit

Gideon wrote:

Athlon 1.4
9600xt,
512ram

30fps @ 800*600 medium detail
25fps@1024*768 medium detail

go me.

Is the 9600xt really that much better than a 9600 pro! I was getting 21-22 fps on 800x600 medium detail! Your scores are about 50% better :eek:

Spunog UIE

I don't know, the rest of my system pretty up todate besides cpu could be that, or could be that its a fireblade and overclocked by default, its now at Memory Clock 324.0 MHz Core Clock 526.5 MHz.

I say it would do a lot more but I'm not really into overclocking + not much point with a 1.4, prefere the silence

Think Giblet got his 9600fireblade close to my default settings for it. Can't remember now.

pebble

Image fidelity is dependent on what quality level we load the textures at.

In Ultra quality, we load each texture; diffuse, specular, normal map at full resolution with no compression. In a typical DOOM 3 level, this can hover around a whopping 500MB of texture data. This will run on current hardware but obviously we cannot fit 500MB of texture data onto a 256MB card and the amount of texture data referenced in a give scene per frame ( 60 times a second ) can easily be 50MB+. This can cause some choppiness as a lot of memory bandwidth is being consumed. It does however look fantastic :-) and it is certainly playable on high end systems but due to the hitching that can occur we chose to require a 512MB Video card before setting this automatically.

High quality uses compression ( DXT1,3,5 ) for specular and diffuse and no compression for normal maps. This looks very very close to Ultra quality but the compression does cause some loss. This is the quality that for instance the PC Gamer review was played in.

Medium quality uses compression for specular, diffuse, and normal maps. This still looks really really good but compressing the normal maps can produce a few artifacts especially on hard angled or round edges. This level gets us comfortably onto 128MB video cards.

Low quality does everything medium quality does but it also downsizes textures over 512x512 and we downsize specular maps to 64x64 in this mode as well. This fits us onto a 64MB video card.

From the .PLAN of one Robert Duffy. Doom3 programmer.

http://www.webdog.org/plans/313/

CombatCow

ok i got my new system up and running :


Asus K8V Delux Mobo
AMD 3800+
Corsair XMS 3200XL Pro, 1 Gig
AOpen GeForce 6800 Ultra


1600x1200
High
1st Run = 61.0 fps
2nd Run = 74.7 fps

1600x1200
Ultra High
1st Run = 61.7 fps
2nd Run = 73.2 fps


1600x1200
Ultra High AAx4
1st Run = 39.2 fps
2nd Run = 43.3 fps

================


3DMark-01
23,532

---

3DMark-03
12,514

---

Aquamark
67,609


:eek:
CC

ykt0di9url7bc3

CombatCow wrote:

ok i got my new system up and running :


Asus K8V Delux Mobo
AMD 3800+
Corsair XMS 3200XL Pro, 1 Gig
AOpen GeForce 6800 Ultra

1600x1200
Ultra High AAx4
1st Run = 39.2 fps
2nd Run = 43.3 fps

:eek:
CC

I WANNA PLAY IN YOUR HOUSE

KdjaCL

Nevermind CC i wanna play in this guys house and know whats in his PC.

Doom3.Ultra.Quality.8AF.16AA@2048x1536

More here.
http://home.online.no/~henryw/Diverse/Doom3.Ultra.Quality.8AF.16AA@2048x1536.Screenshots/

Holy **** what is running that PC.

kdjac

OfflerCrocGod

KdjaC wrote:

Doom3.Ultra.Quality.8AF.16AA@2048x1536

I want a better screen - what am I saying I want a new PC!!!:D

po0k

marclar wrote:

why do I want more than 60? because my PC can do more than 60! the most efficient framerate is 125fps, regardless of what your monitor will display.

125 is most efficient?

What?

Link to evidence to support this argument.

200+fps at 200+Hz vertical refresh with a nice high horizontal freq would be good.

RuggieBear

does this look about right?

Optimal quality from ATI display settings

1600x1200
AF x16
AA x4

Ultra
32.1 FPS second pass

Giblet

Marclar, 125 fps only makes a difference in Quake3, Doom 3's physics run at 60 "ticks" per second regardless of frame rate. 60fps solid with 120hz should look cool. There are ways to up the frames aswell though.

KdjaCL

Giblet wrote:

Marclar, 125 fps only makes a difference in Quake3, Doom 3's physics run at 60 "ticks" per second regardless of frame rate. 60fps solid with 120hz should look cool. There are ways to up the frames aswell though.

Run in developer mode to unlock the fps limit.

kdjac

Adeptus Titanicus

Sapphire 9800Pro flashed to XT
AA x4
AF x16
1024x768
High

1st: 39.9
2nd: 45

Not too bad.

<edit>
and with a little more overclocking on the 9800 to 427.5/405 ( from 411.75/364.5, perfectly stable) it got to 47.5 on the second test (from 42.6)

Matt Simis

CombatCow wrote:

1600x1200
High
1st Run = 61.0 fps
2nd Run = 74.7 fps

1600x1200
Ultra High
1st Run = 61.7 fps
2nd Run = 73.2 fps

1600x1200
Ultra High AAx4
1st Run = 39.2 fps
2nd Run = 43.3 fps

Hmm, how does the 60fps "Cap" interact with the your scores of 74fps... ??



Matt

vishal

Adeptus Titanicus wrote:

Sapphire 9800Pro flashed to XT
AA x4
AF x16
1024x768
High

1st: 39.9
2nd: 45

Not too bad.

<edit>
and with a little more overclocking on the 9800 to 427.5/405 ( from 411.75/364.5, perfectly stable) it got to 47.5 on the second test (from 42.6)

Are you getting any artifacts and is everything stable?

BKtje

There is no cap on 60fps in the timedemo. If you try it on low 640 you'll see it yourself. I got over 70 at that res/quality.

Venom

Sapphire 9600XT running latest Omega drivers

Second run = 28.9fps
1024x768-high detail
AA x2

Matt Simis

B-K-DzR wrote:

There is no cap on 60fps in the timedemo. If you try it on low 640 you'll see it yourself. I got over 70 at that res/quality.

Ahh I see.

Im getting 39fps (one run only, so +5 for second run?) on

1280x768 WideScreen, with FOV set to 105 (more onscreen to slow down FPS)
1024MB DDR@430
A64 at 2.4GHz
FX5950 at 556MHz Core, 1.01GHz Memory



Matt

Adeptus Titanicus

vishal wrote:

Are you getting any artifacts and is everything stable?

Yes, perfectly stable and no artefacts at XT speeds. Only played for a bit with the additional overclock, and it also seemed fine, but the gpu was getting mighty hot

vishal

Adeptus Titanicus wrote:

Yes, perfectly stable and no artefacts at XT speeds. Only played for a bit with the additional overclock, and it also seemed fine, but the gpu was getting mighty hot

are you using an artic cooler?

Sir Random

1600x1200, 'Ultra' game setting.
4xAA, 8xAF, drivers at 'Quality'

1st: 37.2
2nd: 44.6

Lowering the settings makes very little difference, so I reckon the cpu is the bottlekneck. It averages around 56fps in the labs and corridors, heavy action drops it to ~32fps

LastIrishMonkey

well i got the game today and tis class got too run the game at low tho little problem pooie computer but it will be fine also i noticed if u run everything low and at 640x480 the game runs like poo but if u up it too 800 x 600 its better Why ? but i aint complaining but Why ?

Thordon

Athlon 1.1ghz (non XP)
Sapphire Radeon 9600 non pro 256mb
1024mb SDRAM133

0xAA, 2xAF
High Quality
800x600

First run: 15.5fps
Second run: 26fps

Adeptus Titanicus

vishal wrote:

are you using an artic cooler?

Yeah, the Arctic VGA Silencer. This baby.

Mutant_Fruit

I think this is definately worth a shot for all ATI USERS ONLY. This Tweak gives a nice performance boost on all ATI cards. I went from 32fps to 39 fps on my 9600pro, which i believe is a 20% increase. Thats not to shabby at all.

Señor Juárez

A replacement shader. How quaint. Look worse I assume? Then again, on low end PC's it is probs very welcome.