Andrew Timmins

Running on Athlon XP2600 thoroughbred B 333FSB 1Gig PC3200 but underclocked to be in sync with processor. ATI Radeon 9800XT 128MB. Setup as in the benchmarking thread.

Medium High Quality
640x480 35.3 35.1
800x600 35.4 35.3
1024x768 34.9 34.0

When you consider that high quality sets 8X ansiotropic filtering as well as higher quality textures and effects I would have expected much bigger differences than those above when changing settings on a mid range graphics card. 640x480 at medium settings to 1024x768 at high quality costs just 1.3 fps.

Anyone else have any more comprehensive benchmark figures to share?

DrEvil

Dunno, does this help, my AMD 3500 with Aopen GT:

All are at 1280x1024 with NO AA.

High quality

with vertical sync = 51.5 fps
without = 71.0 fps

Ultra Quality

with vertical sync = 55.5 fps
without = 75.8 fps

Andrew Timmins

Thanks DrEvil, not a huge difference in fps between the two quality levels, you do have a much faster graphics card and processor than me though. Any chance of you running a timedemo at 640x480 as well? There would be over four times the pixels to display at 1280x1024 compared to 640x480. Any game which is limited by the graphics card should show a large difference in performance in a test such as this(probably).

cheddar bob

Are you sure you exited Doom 3 then opened it again each time you changed settings?

For me (P4 2.6, 512MB RAM, 128MB 9800 Pro):
640 x 480 medium details = 48.1 FPS
800 x 600 medium details = 43.2 FPS
1024 x 768 medium details = 37.5 FPS
1024 x 768 high details = 31.4 FPS
1280 x 1024 high details = 18.6 FPS

Andrew Timmins

I'm quite sure I exited so that the new settings would take effect, and ran demo twice so everything was cached. The difference between our frame rates at 1024x768 seems about right given the slight difference in graphics card speeds.

The game itself plays great, very smooth in fact. Can't understand why there is so little change if frame rate between all the different quality and resolution settings on my PC.

DrEvil

I shall give it a go & report back matey.

DrEvil

Right, all at 640x480

Ultra Quality

No Vsync = 73.7fps
with Vsync = 55.9fps

High Quality

No Vsync = 74.5fps
with Vsync = 56.2fps

Hope that helps

Alex

Andrew Timmins

Thanks DrEvil.

640x480 High Quality 74.5 fps
1280x1024 Ultra Quality 75.8 fps

A massive gain of 1.3 fps.

If this game is supposed to be so tough on graphics cards why does dropping from 1280x1024 in ultra quality to 640x480 in high quality have a negligable effect on framerate? On every other game I've played a drop in resolution and graphics quality would result in a huge gain in framerate. Why is Doom 3 so different?

DrEvil

I can't work it out either - especially as it seems to run better on 1280x1024 @ Ultra settings.

InvisibleMan

how are these new graphics cards(say the GeForce6800) at 3d rendering(3dStudio/Maya) and mpg/div video encoding?

Steve Perriam

wot sort of system spec is necessary to run in ultra quality ?

i've run the timedemo 1 a few times so far with settings of medium quality at 1024*768 and am getting about 46 fps which seems ok for my system.....

going to try upping to ultra detail etc but reckon my system will struggle from other posts i've seen in various places.....will run demo1 again a few times and post results.......

my sys spec : p4 2.6c, 512mb pc3200, 128mb 9500, XP Pro SP1.

BlkKnight

http://xmerlin.is-a-geek.com/benches/

Once you have more than 512 meg RAM and over a 2500 Hz CPU it's realy limited by GPU.

230 results show it!

Andrew Timmins

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?threadid=101721

Seems like other people are having the same issues.

mike1210

you may find its the cpu not keeping up. had this with my radeon 9700 on a 1.4 gig athlon when running ut2003. whatever res i ran it on it was runnning at 37fps. put a Ninja CPU in and watch it fly. framerate makes a massive difference on mine with an athlon 3400 64bit. 1 gig ram and 9700pro

DrEvil

Apparently the FX-53 does a good job at negating the CPU based limitations in D3...

When I read that on anandtech, i thought - "i should b***dy hope so at over 500 quid for a cpu!"

Hmm... was thinking of upgrading thou... 3500 -> FX53....

Diesel

Have Doom 3 on the way to feed my just built AMD Athlon 3200, 512Mb Radeon 9800 system. So, as I'm quite new to all this 'high end' stuff, what is it with the frame rates you discuss Bearing in mind that PAL TV is 25fps (30fps NTSC), are you saying Doom is a bit jittery at say 35fps? Dont get it!

D

Diesel

Am I being impatient and you lot are being a bit slow on the 'private' frame rate silly question thingy

mike1210

PAL on a tv is 25 fps but the tv updates at 50 frames per second. To save bandwidth they draw one part of the frame, then the other on the next cycle (Hz) also known as interlacing. monitors dont need to do this, so a monitor at 60Hz can display 60 frames per second. The vsync option in doom (i think it has one) will sync your monitor with the frame rate or it will at least try

stevencotton

Thast's not the monitor, that's the graphics card. Interlacing was quite common back in the day for PCs (and Amigas, Ataris etc) for displaying high resolutions the same way.

mike1210

yep sorry thats what i meant ive still got an a1200 which i loved to bits. games are starting to not work anymore though. damn floppy discs

Diesel

Ah yes! 625/2 @ 25fps to give the illusion of 50Hz scanning! Makes sense now! Cheers!