Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Alientank

First Doom 3 retail edition benchmarks!

Recommended Posts

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

NICE!

However it seems I can play 1024x768 with 0xAA and 8x AF which is what I planned to do anyways, and get 45 fps. I have a 9800 pro at speeds exceeding 9800 XT ones, so I should be able to play it just fine.

Look over the benchmarks, with the 3.6 ghz p4 and 2 gigs ddr 2 533 mhz memory, at 1024x768 4x AA 8x AF HIGH QUALITY the 6800GT get's 65.6 average frames per second, the 6800 Ultra get's 72.6 frames. As seen on this page here, bottom graph

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDI=

Now check out when they use the 3.2 ghz p4 and 1 gig of ddr 400 memory, doesn't this sound a lot more like the systems we have?

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDM=

Again, at 1024 x 758 4x AA 8x AF HIGH QUALITY mode, the 6800 GT get's 60.1 average frames and the 6800 Ultra 64.6. Now, I don't know about you, but spending all that money on another gig of memory, to only get 5 more frames a second on a 6800 GT, or 8 more on a 6800 Ultra, is something I won't be doing. Besides, there is a good possibility that if you do some mild OC'ing on the core that you will be able to pick up 2-3 of those 5 frames anyways. Even though they say overclocking might affect gameplay, I think they are talking about the guys who do very high overclocks, not something like a 25-30 mhz core boost and 20 mhz on the core. I think us with 1 gig of memory can rest easy. I know I can.

EDIT: What? Wait a second, this is fucked. I've been over at hardocp, and left, then reloaded hardocp, saw the Doom 3 article and went to the benches and it DID say 1 gig of ddr 400, now I've just gone back and it says 2. WTF? I'm positive it said 1 before!

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, the extra system ram (past 1 Gb) will make little difference.
IF you are willing to run 1024x768 with medium detail, it seems 50 fps is obtainable on a 9800 Pro. Like you, I have a Pro running past XT levels, but Carmack did caution that overclocked cards may not like Doom 3 due to the new hardware paths used. We shall see! :) Certainly the latest Nvidia hardware looks nice...and expensive!

Share this post


Link to post

I think we can run high quality. If you look, they do a bench with the 9800XT running 1024x768 high quality with 0x aa and 8x af, and it was getting 45 fps, with 0x af it was getting 50 frames. IMO if it's 45 fps average with 8x af and only loses 5 fps, I'll take that 5 fps loss. Either way, I think a 6800 GT is an upgrade coming soon.

Share this post


Link to post

GF3 and xp 1700 here ...

WOOT!

I am very happy now.

Share this post


Link to post

So basically, about video cards, the bottom line is all modern cards will do fine, but the nVidia's will do better than ATI's on this particular game.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the links alientank some usefull information there should help with me choosing my next system to purchase.

Share this post


Link to post

For those of you that think you are not going to have the hardware that you need to play DOOM 3, the fact of the matter is that many of you will be just fine, although an upgrade may still be in your future. As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3.


Ahhhh good. :) That is the bit that most of us needed to read, I think.

Share this post


Link to post

Now I hope to friggin hell that all the newbs with the "Will my computer play Doom3?" questions will shut the hell up.

Share this post


Link to post
highlander's info said:

Registered: 1-04


Hmmm yeah, all the noobs need to shut it, huh? :D

Share this post


Link to post
mje said:

Hmmm yeah, all the noobs need to shut it, huh? :D


And your point is? Since when does registration on a forum dictate whether they are a newb or not? It's the questions they ask, not the date they join there jamtart.

High

Share this post


Link to post

True man! It looks like I will be OK at 1024 but on 640 or 800, there could be significant improvements, without sacrificing all that much visual quality. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I want to see 1280x1024 benchmarks using a radeon 9600pro.

Cause that's what I have, and it'll probably run like crap.

Share this post


Link to post

No way, man. I have a GeForce ti4200 (they used something of very similar quality in a benchmark), and I expect it to run just fine, for the most part, based on what I read there.

The Radeon 9600 is a couple of steps up from what I've got.

You should be fine. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I have a 9600pro too. I'm just going to wait, play the game, and get a feel. I ran FarCry pretty good, so a good showing for Doom3 isn't unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
mje said:

Ahhhh good. :) That is the bit that most of us needed to read, I think.

Or

If you would have told me a year ago that I could play DOOM 3 on a GeForce 3 64MB video card and 1.8GHz AthlonXP and have a good gaming experience, I would have called you crazy, but that is exactly what we are seeing.


My AMD 2000+ Radeon 9500 must be able to give me what i want

Share this post


Link to post

A geforce 3 can get good performance with DOOM 3? Did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Lord FlatHead said:

Nice. Am I the only one who wants to see 640x480 and 800x600 benchmarks ?


Nope, I wanna see em too. With a wider range of hardware - Perhaps GF3, GF4, GFFX, GF6, and their ATI equivalents. Just so the average gamer can get a look in at what sort of rates theyre gonna get.

Share this post


Link to post

Did I just dream of the 128 mb minimum video requirement, or is that real?

(wouldn't that block out most GF3s?)

Share this post


Link to post

Thankyou so much Alientank, that's some usefull information.

EDIT: Man, I hope I get my 6800 GT in time for Doom :(

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm...I've a Ti4200 and I am still wondering if there are any visual effects that can't be performed with this card because of the old pixelshader version.
Aren't there some things like refraction, reflection and so on...that newest cards do on a hardware basis and that can't be "emulated" through software with older cards (too slow) ?
Well, my question is "Will I be able to see ALL visual stuff the engine offers ?" (even if that would mean 5FPS (no, i wont play it that way, but you get my point))
I just don't want to miss anything. If thats the case I'll probably upgrade :P

Share this post


Link to post
Lord FlatHead said:

Nice. Am I the only one who wants to see 640x480 and 800x600 benchmarks ?

Good point, I do recall carmack saying that the game will still look very good at low resolutions - So they are therefore a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post

I must say I am slightly disappointed...

I was hoping that my PC could handle 1024*768 with high detail but with no AA on.

I will be running:

Athlon 64 3200+
1.5 gigs DDR 400 ram
Radeon 9800 pro 256

To have a timedemo over 40, it appears will need to do 1024*768 with medium settings...

One thing I have noticed, the average fps in timedemo mode is lower than that of the actual gameplay for the most part. I guess the timedemos for quake 2 and quake 3 were more intensive than average gameplay? My timedemos in quake 3 (on old PC) were never as high as some of the numbers I saw when running around in quake 3 in gameplay...

Oh well...at least the game will run. I refuse to spend near $800 on a radeon x800 or GF 6800... will prob get one in a year or so once prices drop and friend can get em for half price...

Sanjay

Share this post


Link to post

I too want to see some low-res benches. I prefer to play @ 800*600 maxed, than 1024*768> at lower details.

This is even more true of cutting edge games Far Cry etc, where the lighting and surface effects..for me..are far more important than slightly jagged edges.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×