Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Doom 3 benchmarking

Options
  • 03-08-2004 7:41pm
    #1
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭


    To run benchmarks enter console (CTRL + ALT +TILDE`)
    Type "timedemo demo1.demo"

    Make sure you have your g settings as you want.

    Mine 1280/968 ULTRA 4AA 8AF
    1st run
      2148 frames rendered in 116.5 18.4 FPS

    NOW THIS IMPORTANT ITS 2ND ONE THAT COUNTS AS TEXTURES LOADED TO MEMORY.(just go into soncole striaght at end and run it again)
    2nd run
      2418 Frames rendered in 95.6 22.5 FPS

    My Specs
    2400XP@2032
    512 2700 DDR @333
    9800XT

    I using a modified CFG file which i made myself i get all the glorious visuals but cheating the game into loading things in a certain order, this increases my load times but as you can see i can run at ULTRA (it set HIGH as my prefered setting).

    The game will run on almost everyones pc but ULTRA setting is possible without X800 or 6800 and to HARDOCP i say fook you!

    //Did not take me 2 days to get ULTRA running fine :D


    kdjac


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    boo4842
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭boo4842


    K BOOM

    http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQ0


  • Options
    #3
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    1024 x 768 - Medium



    9800 Pro stock - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 34
    Second Run:38.1


    9800@448/374 (max I can run without getting sparkles, can normally run at 470/374 in every other game) - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 38.7
    Second Run:42.4


  • Options
    #4
    Sir Random
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭Sir Random


    Anandtech DOOM3 benchmarks (for all cards since Ti4200):

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2146


    3427.png


  • Options
    #5
    RuggieBear
    Registered Users Posts: 17,958 ✭✭✭✭RuggieBear


    how come the 9800pro did better than the x800 and 9800XT? Is it better drivers....
    p


  • Options
    #6
    bizmark
    Registered Users Posts: 6,892 ✭✭✭bizmark


    Jesus ati got owned


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Sir Random
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭Sir Random


    pekelly wrote:
    how come the 9800pro did better than the x800 and 9800XT? Is it better drivers....
    p
    Yeah, the XT scoring less than the Pro indicates that the drivers are not using the most efficient paths for each card. Maybe it's forcing R350 paths for the XT, but that can be fixed through drivers.


  • Options
    #8
    RuggieBear
    Registered Users Posts: 17,958 ✭✭✭✭RuggieBear


    I didn't even notice the Nvidia cards kicking arse! Just looked for my own! :D Is it coz it's a Open GL game....?
    p


  • Options
    #9
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    800 x 600 - High - No AA



    9800 Pro stock - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 48.3
    Second Run:51.6



    9800@448/374 (max I can run without getting sparkles, can normally run at 470/374 in every other game) - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 44.5
    Second Run:54.2


  • Options
    #10
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    1024 x 768 - High - No AA



    9800 Pro stock - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 32.2
    Second Run:41.0

    9800@448/374 (max I can run without getting sparkles, can normally run at 470/374 in every other game) - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 35.7
    Second Run:45.0


  • Options
    #11
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    1024 x 768 - High - 4x AA

    9800@448/374 - 2.8 Prescott@3.4

    First Run: 24.0
    Second Run:27.0


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    CombatCow
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭CombatCow


    1600x1200 - High settings

    First Run = 42.6 FPS

    Second Run = 53.4 FPS


    Spec:
    AMD 2800+
    1 Gig of crucial pc2700
    GeForce 6800 Ultra
    WD,Raptor 76Gig Hdd
    All Stock Speeds

    :(

    Should be better by the weekend ;)

    CC


  • Options
    #13
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    pekelly wrote:
    Is it coz it's a Open GL game....?

    Yep, Nvidia has the jump on ATI at the moment with their OpenGL drivers. ATI has been rewriting their opengl drivers from scratch and should hopefully be released soon.


  • Options
    #14
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    4.9s out with improved OGL support mid september, CC only running in HIGH? Expected more from you tut tut tut :)


    kdjac


  • Options
    #15
    cregser
    Registered Users Posts: 999 ✭✭✭cregser


    Where did you hear mid-september? They must be pretty efficient if they succeed in re-writing the drivers by then.

    Can you tell the difference between Ultra and High? I mean REALLY? From what I know it doesn't use any compression. But High settings would also use next to no compression as well. I would need a 30" monitor to tell the difference.

    Anyway, I plan on getting a 6800GT with maybe a AMD64 3200+. I'm enouraged by CombatCow's results with a 2800 (even though he has a 6800 Ultra - which seems to be doing all the work :))


  • Options
    #16
    CombatCow
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭CombatCow


    Ok KdjaC....Thats weird i got the exact same score as i did in high settings....and yes im sure i changed the detail setting....looks like the gfx card card can take the ultra setting no probs, and the bottleneck is the cpu.Not to worry im gonna re-run the test with these specs on friday.

    ***
    AMD S939 3800+ *watercooled*
    Asus A8V Deluxe mobo
    1 Gig of Corsair XMS 3200XL pro *dual channel*
    AOpen 6800 Ultra *watercooled*
    ***
    :eek:


    1600x1200 - Ultra settings

    First Run = 43 FPS

    Second Run = 53 FPS

    Spec:
    AMD 2800+
    Abit KD7 mobo
    1 Gig of crucial pc2700
    GeForce 6800 Ultra
    WD,Raptor 76Gig Hdd
    All Stock Speeds


    Btw i will be selling the cpu,ram and mobo on the forsale board soon aswell... ;)


    CC


  • Options
    #17
    BeatFreak
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭BeatFreak


    1024x768 on high,
    41.3 fps for first run.
    50.3 fps for the second.

    Specs : 3.2 @ stock
    9800XT @ stock
    Gig of GeiL platinum ultra @ 2.5/3/3/7

    I'll post the overclocked scores once I've rebooted :)


  • Options
    #18
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    4.9s read a post on guru3d ,they expect to have them soon with better OGL.

    I just installed beta 4.8s OCed Cpu a little (damn pc overheating so cant go to 2505 @2.2 now and got about 5fps better in Ultra.

    Tried turning off AA and running Ultra and it ran at 31 fps with the 4.8s

    Combatcow giva yah 100 for your ram on friday i buying some 2700 this week :)


    kdjac


  • Options
    #19
    BeatFreak
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭BeatFreak


    1024x768 on high,
    45.7 fps for first run.
    54.3 fps for the second.

    Specs : 3.2 @ 3850mhz
    9800XT @ 440/380
    Gig of GeiL platinum ultra @ 2.5/3/3/7

    Now to turn up the settings :)


  • Options
    #20
    Señor Juárez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭Señor Juárez


    hmm, I dont suppose anyone knows the command to change the max drawfps from the console? it appears to be locked to 60 by default


  • Options
    #21
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    com_maxFPS 0
    com_maxFPS 65 (if this works change to whatever)


    may work but i think its hardcoded , i could make a mod to override it but why do you want more than 60?


    kdjac


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    CombatCow
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭CombatCow


    I'll send you a pm now, KdjaC

    :D
    CC


  • Options
    #23
    Sir Random
    Registered Users Posts: 771 ✭✭✭Sir Random


    Cat 4.9 betas available from ati.

    From ATi website:
    ATI is providing an early version of CATALYST 4.9 to users interested in increasing performance of Doom 3.
    http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-w2k...27a-017086E.exe

    EDIT:
    info and beta warning:
    http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4547.html

    UPDATE:
    According to this thread on Rage3D, there's no performance gain for 9800 cards, only the X800 series.
    http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33773350


  • Options
    #24
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    Sir Random wrote:
    Cat 4.9 betas available from ati.

    From ATi website:

    http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-w2k...27a-017086E.exe

    EDIT:
    info and beta warning:
    http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4547.html

    Well done , good spot.

    /me runs off to check.

    FPS seems ot be hardcoded into the Gamex.DLL so not changed easily.

    kdjac


  • Options
    #25
    Señor Juárez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭Señor Juárez


    KdjaC wrote:
    com_maxFPS 0
    com_maxFPS 65 (if this works change to whatever)


    may work but i think its hardcoded , i could make a mod to override it but why do you want more than 60?


    kdjac

    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.


  • Options
    #26
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    seta image_cacheMegs ""


    Find this line in Doomconfig within the base DIR and change it to 64/128/256
    Note your system ram willl be used more so if less than 512 leave it alone.

    Nice boost in performance.

    Found 4 other CFG entires i john Carmacks and other devs CFGS , will try them out morrow.


  • Options
    #27
    Señor Juárez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭Señor Juárez


    tried that KdjaC... it was 20megs by default, increased it to 256. benched before and after, 39.7/43.6 before, 40.2/43.7 after. so no real difference...


  • Options
    #28
    CivilServant
    Registered Users Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭CivilServant


    Sweet post Sir Random, I'll check them again in the morning.

    Did the benchmark on Monday.

    2.4Ghz Barton(stable for doom)
    512Mb PC3200 @ loose timings
    x800xt pe

    1600x1200 High quality (8AF) + 2AA
    36fps

    Hope to get up the 50's with 4.9 and preloaded textures. BTW nice scores Combatcow. :)


  • Options
    #29
    BKtje
    Registered Users Posts: 8,041 ✭✭✭BKtje


    Was bored so i tried most of your settings out.
    Overall it did a little worse than i thought but its obviously my 9700pro dragging me down. May purchase a 6800 Ultra. Depends on a couple things ;)

    System:
    AMD64 3200+ clawhammer @ 2.4ghz
    1gig corsair 2-3-2-10 (200mhz)
    9700pro 349/319 (cats4.7)

    1024*768 Medium
    1-38.9
    2-42.8

    800*600 high
    1-44.7
    2-53.1

    1024*768 High (what i play on)
    1-34.3
    2-37.3

    1024*768 High 4xaa
    1-21.2
    2-21.9

    1600*1200 high
    1-17.1
    2-17.7

    1600*1200 Ultra
    1-14.5
    2-15.1

    Will trya couple witht he 4.9 drivers tomorrow but i dont think they'll make a difference for my card.
    new speakers or 6800ultra. Will have to see :p

    Overall im happy with how this pc plays doom3 tho :)


  • Options
    #30
    BeatFreak
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭BeatFreak


    CivilServant wrote:
    x800xt pe


    Errrrr. Where didcha get that, how much and where can I get one :D

    I'm having trouble getting my hands on one at the moment :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    BeatFreak
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭BeatFreak


    Sir Random wrote:
    UPDATE:
    According to this thread on Rage3D, there's no performance gain for 9800 cards, only the X800 series.
    http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33773350

    So it seems I installed them both last night, ran a few benchmarks with a 9800XT @ 1024x768 on ultra and there was a MASSIVE increase from 41.5fps (4.8) to 41.6fps (4.9) and I ran it a few times to make sure. It actually came up worse by 0.1 fps on a few occasions :/


Advertisement